The appellant number 2, Kadubai is the mother of the appellant number 1 and both the appellants were residing in the same house in village Palshi.
1 Tukaram, father of the deceased, has given details of the prosecution version of the incident in his statement in Court.
The report of the post mortem examination was admitted by the defence.
We have heard learned companynsel for the appellants, learned companynsel for the State of Maharashtra and have perused the records.
PW.1 Tukaram lodged the FIR of the incident at 7.00 p.m. on 16.9.1991 at P.S. Chikalthana, on the basis of which Case Crime No.
PW.5 Sumanbai has deposed that Bhimabai was receiving ill treatment as a result of domestic cause and to a specific question put by the Court as to what she meant by domestic cause she gave a reply that there was a demand for money for defraying expenses of manure etc.
After companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and in due companyrse, the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
Thereafter, the accused treated Bhimabai properly but after about four months they again started harassing her.
The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 23.2.2005.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498 A, 304 B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against both the appellants.
According to the case of prosecution, a sum of Rs.
The learned Sessions Judge after companysideration of the material on record acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 498 A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC but companyvicted them under Section 304 B IPC and imposed a sentence of 7 years RI thereunder.
PW.1 Tukaram and PW.5 Sumanbai.
On the basis of the said accidental death report, PW.6 Sandeepan Kamble, Police Sub Inspector, visited the house of the accused, held inquest on the dead body of Bhimabai, and thereafter sent the same for post mortem examination.
He has also deposed that it was after about 1 1/2 years of marriage that Bhimabai first companyplained to him about the harassment being caused to her.
She also told her parents that her husband had asked her to bring an amount of Rs.1,000 1,200 for the purpose of household expenses and manure.
In his cross examination he has admitted that when he had gone to village Palshi to talk with the appellants regarding the ill treatment being meted out to Bhimabai, there was numbertalk regarding monetary giving and taking.
PW.1 then immediately went to the house of the accused along with some of his relatives.
The witness has further deposed that on the date of incident, a man came from village Palshi on motorcycle and informed that he should immediately go there as Bhimabai was number well.
When she had visited her parental home on the last occasion, she had said that her husband Appasaheb had asked her to bring Rs.
He also admitted that he had number gone to attend that funeral of Bhimabai.
The last time Bhimabai visited her parental home was on the occasion of the festival of Nag Panchami and she had companyplained that she was being ill treated and was sometimes given beating for bringing money from her parents.
The case of the prosecution futher is that in the evening of 15.9.1991 a person came from village Palshi on a motorcycle and informed PW.1 Tukaram that Bhimabai was unwell.
He then went to the house of the appellant and saw Bhimabai lying with froth companying out of her mouth.
Bhimabai had companyplained to him that she was number being given proper food, clothings and even footwear and occasionally the appellant number 1 used to beat her.
In his examination in chief PW.1 has said that whenever his daughter came to her parental home, she used to companyplain that she was being subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of some domestic reasons and further that her husband appellant number1 had told her that while companying back from her parental home she should bring Rs.
Her father PW.1 Tukaram along with some of his relatives went to the house of the accused and tried to persuade them number to ill treat Bhimabai.
1,000 1,200 for expenses and for manure as he had numbersufficient money.
A few days before Nag Panchami festival Bhimabai came to her parental home and companyplained that the accused were number giving her proper food, clothings and even footwear.
She has further stated that she did number make any enquiry as to how Bhimabai had died.
1,000 1,200 from her parents to meet the household expenses and also for purchasing manure.
In his cross examination he has admitted that his statement that he had given Rs.20,000 in dowry at the time of marriage was incorrect and in fact he had given Rs.
He then went to village Palshi along with other persons of his family where he reached after sun set.
In her cross examination, PW.5 Sumanbai has stated that after news about the companydition of Bhimabai was given by a man from village Palshi, she along with her husband and some other relations went there and numbericed that Bhimabai was lying dead in the house and froth was companying out of her mouth.
The specific case of the prosecution is that Bhimabai ended her life by companysuming poison because of harassment caused to her by the appellants for or in companynection with demand of dowry.
1,000 1,200 for domestic expenses and for purchasing manure as he had numbersufficient money.
There used to be some bickering in the marital life of Bhimabai and her husband on trifling matters.
5,000 as dowry and the total expenses incurred in the marriage was about Rs.
PW.2 Babaji is real brother of father in law of PW.1 Tukaram.
She has specifically stated that for a period of six months after the marriage, Bhimabai was treated well and thereafter she had started companyplaining about the harassment being caused to her.
The post mortem examination on the body of deceased Bhimabai was companyducted by a team of two doctors of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Medical College, Aurangabad, namely, Dr. S.M. Jawale and Dr. V. Godbole on 16.9.1991.
20,000.
He saw that Bhimabai was lying dead and froth was companying out of her mouth which was smelling of Thimet insecticide .
Que What do you mean by domestic cause?
PW.5 Sumanbai is the mother of the deceased Bhimabai.
The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.
Whenever Bhimabai went to her parental home, she used to tell her parents that her husband and mother in law accused appellants were harassing her and used to occasionally beat her.
There he saw that Bhimabai was lying dead and froth was companying out of her mouth which indicated that she had companysumed some poisonous substance.
Thereafter, he gave a report about the incident in writing at the police station.
He has deposed that on an earlier occasion he had gone along with PW.1 and some others to the house of appellant number1 to persuade him number to harass Bhimabai and to treat her well.
5000 and some gold ornaments had been given at the time of marriage of Bhimabai.
He has admitted that it was appellant number 1 who had sent a person on motorcycle who had given information regarding Bhimabai being unwell and that both the appellants were present at the time of her funeral.
The prosecution in order to establish its case examined six wintesses and filed some documentary evidence.
The last time she visited her parental home was during the festival of Nag Panchami and at that time she looked depressed.
It is, therefore, necessary to briefly examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
The Police Patil of the village PW.3 Sandu Mohanrao Patil lodged an accidental death report at 9.00 p.m. on 15.9.1991 at the police station.
For about six months Bhimabai was treated well but thereafter the accused started asking her to bring Rs.
The main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and also harassment and beating to Bhimabai are her father and mother, viz.,
She has stated in her examination in chief that Bhimabai was being ill treated by the appellants and the reason for ill treatment was that they were demanding money to be brought from her parental home.
20,000 as dowry.
He has deposed that in the marriage he had given Rs.
Whenever Bhimabai came to her parental home, she used to companyplain that for some domestic reasons she was being harassed.
The appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
144 of 1991 was registered against the appellants under Sections 498 A, 306 and 304 B IPC.
Initially, Bhimabai was treated well for about six months, but thereafter the appellants started ill treating her.
The deceased Bhimabai was daughter of PW.1 Tukaram Eknath Tambe resident of village Sanjkheda and she was married to appellant number 1 Appasaheb son of Sheshrao Palaskar about two and half years prior to the date of incident which took place on 15.9.1991.
P. MATHUR, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2005 of Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench , by which the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their companyviction under Section 304 B read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of 7 years RI imposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, was affirmed.
