- (1.)ORIGINAL accused 1 to 6 have filed the present Revision Petition challenging the order dated10. 08. 1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No. 10/90 confirming the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed dated 08. 03. 1990 in Sessions Case No. 74/89, convicting the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 and 306 read with 34 of I. P. C. and directing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, R. I. for three months, by each of them for the offence under Section498-A read with 34 of I. P. C. and for the offence under Sections 306 read with 34 of I. P. C. , rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default, R. I. for one year by each of them, filed the present Revision Petition.
(2.)THE facts, in brief, leading to the present petition, are that : Accused no.1 Laxman Narayan Ramdasi is a retired Police Sub Inspector, accused no.2 is his wife, while accused nos. 3, 5 and 6 are the sons of accused nos. 1 & 2 and accused no.4 is their daughter.
It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused reside at Beed and they are having agricultural land at village Pimpal Gavan i. e. land S. No.23. They used to cultivate the said agricultural land personally. Marriage of accused no.3 Suresh @ Raju was performed with Prabhavati on21. 02. 1987 at village Pimpalner, Tq. and District Beed. Annasaheb Kulkarni - father of deceased Prabhavati resides at Waghora, Tq. Majalgaon while maternal uncles of deceased Prabhavati reside at Pimpalner, Tq. Beed. It is further alleged that Prabhavati born at Pimpalner and she was brought up by her maternal uncles. Even her marriage with accused no.3 was performed by her three maternal uncles viz. Madhukar, Sudhakar and Prabhakar. It is further alleged that initially for about2/3 months, accused maintained Prabhavati properly, however, thereafter they started illtreating Prabhavati on account of unlawful demands. It is alleged that Prabhakar, the maternal uncle of Prabhavati had been to the house of accused and at that time, accused nos. 1 and 2 insisted Prabhakar to ask Abasaheb Kulkarni - father of Prabhavati to transfer the agricultural land to the extent of six acres in the name of accused no.3. Prabhakar, at that time, showed his inability to request in that respect to Abasaheb. It is further alleged that on that count and as the agricultural land was not transferred in the name of accused no.3, the accused continued to illtreat Prabhavati. Another instance given in the complaint and in the evidence is that accused no.1 constructed a house at Beed and there was "vastu Shanti". Prabhakar P.W.6 attended the said function. He has offered some gift in the said function. However, accused were expecting some new clothes to accused no.3 and gold ring and on that count, there was displeasure and even on that count also, the accused were illtreating Prabhavati. The third instance is that accused nos. 4 and 6, four months prior to the incident, taken Prabhavati to Pimpalner where her maternal uncle resides and informed him that they are not ready to maintain Prabhavati and even informed that if they want to file a complaint under Section498-A I. P. C. against them, they may do so. It is further alleged that Chaya, the married daughter of accused nos. 1 and 2, who resides at Neknur, had been to the maternal uncle of Prabhavati, convinced him and thereafter taken Prabhavati along with her to Beed for cohabitation, assuring the maternal uncle that there will be no illtreatment to Prabhavati at the hands of the accused.

It is further case of the prosecution that alleged incident took place on30.11.1988 and 01.12.1988. It is the case of the prosecution that Prabhavati left house of the accused on30.11.1988. Accused no.1, who is the father-in-law of Prabhavati, then made a report to the police station contending that whereabouts of Prabhavati are not known. Shakuntala, wife of P.W.3 Madhukar had been to the house of accused on 01.12.1988. She also made inquiries in respect of Prabhavati and it is seen from the record that the dead body of Prabhavati was found in the well situated in land S. No. 23 at Village Pimpal Gavan belonging to the accused. P.W.3 Madhukar then made a report to the police station. Accordingly, Crime No. 147/88 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of I. P. C. The Investigating Officer initially registered A. D. Inquest was held on the dead body, the same was referred for post mortem and thereafter, on the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.3 - Madhukar, Crime was registered. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was accordingly submitted against accused nos. 1 to 6 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. As the offence under Section306 I. P. C. , being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed, accordingly committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 01.12.1989. The same was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed.

(3.)THE Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed, framed charge as per Exhibit-3 against all the six accused on18.12.1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of I. P. C. and also for the offences punishable under Section306 read with 34 of I. P. C. THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution thereafter filed an application under Section294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and called upon the defence to admit the genuineness and correctness of certain documents. The defence has not disputed the inquest panchanama dated 02.12.1988 and panchanama of attachment of clothes, which were on the person of deceased Prabhavati, dated 02.12.1988. Those documents are at Exhibits-11 and 12.