JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. On 10th January, 1996 Vasant Mango Badgujar lodged First Information Report with Taluka Police Station, Dhule. On the basis of said F.I.R., Police Station Officer registered CR No. 14/1996 for the offences punishable under Sections. 498(A), 306, 304(B) read with34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicants and one Narayan Revaji Badgujar. 2. According to the prosecution case, marriage of daughter of first informant, Jyoti @ Ratna was solemnized with Applicant No. 1 in the year 1991, though in the First Information Report the date was given as 25/09/1989. According to the first informant Vasant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. However after paying such amount, at the time of marriage, original accused No. 3 Sumanbai, mother-in-law refused to take the bride to her village and that time she demanded gold ring and one fan. That time, understanding was given by village Sarpanch-Rumsingh, Police Patil-Shivaji and one Ananda Namdeo Patil and only on their assurance, bride was taken to her in laws house. The First Information Report further proceeds that since the first informant could not gave gold ring and fan, it resulted into the ill-treatment to Jyoti at the hands of the applicants and, therefore, in lieu of these items viz. gold ring and fan, an amount of Rs. 2800/- were paid. However, again there was demand of money at the time of Mulpati [which is a ceremony of sending daughter to her in-laws house for the first time] and that time, the first informant paid Rs. 1700/-. According to the F.I.R. about 1 1/2 years ago he took his daughter and son-in-law applicant No. 1 to Surat and employed him at one industry and also took room on rent by depositing Rs. 2000/-. Subsequently, mother-in-law, sister-in-law of Jyoti i.e. present applicant Nos. 2 and 3 came at Surat. That time, there was an attempt to kill Jyoti. Incident was witnessed by Prakash Ananda Lohar, who is prosecution witness No. 8. However, that time she was saved by his son PW No. 4 Gajanan and PW No. 8 Prakash Lohar. Thereafter, applicant left Surat and Jyoti was residing alongwith her brother Gajanan. 2 and 3 came at Surat. That time, there was an attempt to kill Jyoti. Incident was witnessed by Prakash Ananda Lohar, who is prosecution witness No. 8. However, that time she was saved by his son PW No. 4 Gajanan and PW No. 8 Prakash Lohar. Thereafter, applicant left Surat and Jyoti was residing alongwith her brother Gajanan. When this incident was brought to the notice of the first informant, he brought Jyoti from Surat and since then she was residing with the first informant. Since she was residing with her parents house, first informant alongwith Jyoti had been to Mr. S.M. Sathe, Advocate for filing claim for maintenance for Jyoti. However, the petition could not filed immediately. Thereafter, first informant received letter from Vinayak Badgujar by which understanding was given to Narayan, original accused No. 2 and thereafter Jyoti started residing with her in-laws. However, within a short period of 4 to 5 days, information was received that Jyoti is dead due to consumption of poison. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the applicants alongwith co-accused Narayan Badgujar were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Sessions Case No. 98 Of 1996. After full dressed trial, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Dhule vide his Judgment and Order dated 15th January, 1999 acquitted original accused No. 2 Narayan. The learned trial court was pleased to acquit present applicants from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 were also acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Dhule however held the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that applicant No. 1 Ravindra and applicant No. 2 Sumanbai to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three months. In so far as applicant No. 3 Anita i.e. original accused No. 4 is concerned, she was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three months. In so far as applicant No. 3 Anita i.e. original accused No. 4 is concerned, she was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 4. Original accused No. 3 i.e. present applicant No. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 15000/- and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. 5. Against the said Judgment and Order of conviction, the applicants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4/1998 in the Sessions Court, Dhule. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhule vide his Judgment and Order dated 29th June, 2001 partly allowed the Criminal Appeal. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule was pleased to set aside the conviction and imprisonment of accused No. 3 i.e. applicant No. 2 for offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and she was acquitted from the said the charge of said offence. However, the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below in respect offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed. It is against this Judgment and Order of conviction under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the I.P.C., present Cri. Revn. Appln. is filed. 6. I have heard Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State. With their able assistance, I have gone through the Record & Proceedings and also the impugned judgments. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the court below erred in convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that it is full of improvement. He submitted that material facts are stated by the prosecution witnesses for the first time in the court. According to the learned counsel, perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that it is full of improvement. He submitted that material facts are stated by the prosecution witnesses for the first time in the court. He further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is also suffer from contradictions and, therefore, he submitted that, it is not safe to accept such evidence to hold the applicants guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. According to him, courts below have found that the applicants cannot be held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which is also one of the pointer that applicants cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that applicant No. 3 was convicted and directed to suffer imprisonment for six months. She was arrested on 10th January, 1996. After conviction by the learned lower appellate court, she was in jail from 29th June, 2001 till 11th October, 2001, till this court granted bail to the present applicants. Similarly, he submitted that applicant No. 2 has undergone the imprisonment for four months out of one year and present applicant was in jail for near-about 41/2 months. He submitted that alternatively, if this court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants be released by imposing the sentence, which they have already undergone. 9. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the state has submitted that prosecution has proved its case and hence, prayed for dismissal of present Cri. Revn. Appln. 10. It is clear from the post mortem report Exh. No. 24 and C.A. Report Exh. No. 26 that insecticide endosulfan [thiodan] was detected in viscera. The learned trial court recorded the findings that death of Jyoti was suicidal. However the learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence, specifically recorded findings that it cannot be said that the accused persons abated the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty and therefore, the trial court acquitted all the accused including the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. However the learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence, specifically recorded findings that it cannot be said that the accused persons abated the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty and therefore, the trial court acquitted all the accused including the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In so far as offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the trial court recorded the findings that prosecution has failed to meet the requirement of ingredients of section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, acquitted all the accused from that charge also. 12. It is to be noted here that the Judgment and Order of acquittal of the present applicants was not questioned either by the State Government or by the first informant. Now only question is whether the applicants are guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code or not? 13. In the present case, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. The discussion in respect of evidence given by PW No. 1 Dr. Ramkrushna Govindrao Bhusale and PW No. 3 Dr. Bhanudas Balvant Joshi is not necessary for obvious reasons. 14. PW No. 2 Vasant Badgujar is the first informant and father of the deceased. PW No. 4 Gajanan Badgujar is her brother. PW No. 5 Rumsingh Narayan Dobhad is the Sarpanch of village in which Vasant resides. PW No. 6 is Advocate Satish Madhukar Sathe, to whom first informant had been alongwith deceased for instituting case for maintenance. PW No. 7 is Ramesh Mango Patil. He is examined to prove the ill treatment to Jyoti at the hands of applicants. PW No. 8 Prakash Nanda Lohar and PW No. 9 Ananda Ramchandra Lohar are the son and father resident of Surat and they are prosecution witnesses in respect of the incident which had occurred at Surat. PW No. 10 Pandharinath Punja Vaidya is the Investigating Officer. 15. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the ill treatment to Jyoti, it is clear that it is full of omissions and contradictions. Even the courts below have also found that in so far as demand of dowry is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the amount which was actually paid to the applicants, towards dowry. 16. Even the courts below have also found that in so far as demand of dowry is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the amount which was actually paid to the applicants, towards dowry. 16. In so far as incident at Surat is concerned, the same appears to have occurred when deceased was residing with the applicants at Surat. According to prosecution, PW No. 8 Prakash, PW No. 9 Ananda alongwith PW No. 2 Gajanan are the witnesses to the said incident. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that after the said incident, Jyoti remained with her brother at Surat where-as applicants came to their native place in Maharashtra State. 17. It is to be noted that this incident appears to have made great impact on the findings recorded by the courts below in holding the present applicants as guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence of PW No. 2 Vasant Badgujar, it is clear that Jyoti was residing at Surat at least for five months with the present applicant No. 1 and during that period there was no complaint of ill treatment, as appearing in the evidence of PW No. 2 Vasant. PW No. 4 Gajanan, brother of deceased, who had been to Surat and adjacent to his room, Jyoti alongwith applicant No. 1 were residing. He also vouched that the applicants and deceased were residing in happy condition for about 5 to 6 months. According to him after 5 to 6 months, present applicant Nos. 2 and 3 came at Surat and started residing with the couple and that time, Jyoti disclosed that mother-in-law is demanding an amount of Rs. 1000/- from her husband. However, her husband i.e. applicant No. 1 was not having money with him. That time, mother-in-law i.e. applicant No. 2 started to give abuses to his sister by uttering words. It appears from the evidence of PW No. 4 Gajanan that applicant No. 1 used to attend the work for one day only and then used to remained absent for 2 to 3 days. That time, mother-in-law i.e. applicant No. 2 started to give abuses to his sister by uttering words. It appears from the evidence of PW No. 4 Gajanan that applicant No. 1 used to attend the work for one day only and then used to remained absent for 2 to 3 days. Evidence of PW No. 4 Gajanan thus clearly shows that amount was demanded by applicant No. 2 to applicant No. 1 her son and since there was no money with him, he refused to oblige the demand of his mother and upon that deceased was scolded by applicant No. 2 that she is spendthrift. Evidence of this witness further reveals that when he was sleeping outside the room, in the early morning, he heard sound of weeping of his sister, therefore, he called his neighbour PW No. 8 Prakash Lohar and Bhagwan Patil. When these three persons gave push to the door, they noticed that applicant No. 1 caught hold Jyoti and applicant Nos. 2 and 4 were tying sari around the neck of his sister. Said act was obstructed by PW No. 4 Gajanan and saved the life of Jyoti. He claims that he sent chit dated 15th March, 1995 [Exh. No. 34] to his father narrating the incident. Though the exact date of said incident is not available on record, according to PW No. 4 Gajanan he sent chit dated 15/03/95 and intimated the said incident to his father Vasant. This incident must have occurred prior to 15th March, 1995. First Information Report is dated 10th January, 1996. Further even according to the prosecution after the said incident, Jyoti was residing at Surat with her brother. If really said incident was occurred then said incident being serious one, either Jyoti or her brother PW No. 4 Gajanan could have reported it immediately to the Police at Surat. Even if some concession is given that due to presence of the applicants, F.I.R. was not lodged however, after they left Surat, brother could have proceeded to lodge F.I.R. against the applicants in order to bring the serious act on the part of the applicants, to the knowledge of the Police. Said is not done. Further even the receipt of chit Exh. No. 34 by PW No. 2 Vasant, immediately he has not lodged the report and remained silent till filing of the F.I.R. in the month of January, 1996. Said is not done. Further even the receipt of chit Exh. No. 34 by PW No. 2 Vasant, immediately he has not lodged the report and remained silent till filing of the F.I.R. in the month of January, 1996. Therefore, it is hard to believe about the said incident. In so far as the other ill-treatment is concerned, as observed above, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of omissions and improvements, therefore, it will be really unsafe to record findings of guilt against the present applicants and surely they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER [i] Criminal Revision Application is allowed. [ii] The Judgment and Order of conviction dated 15/01/1998 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 98/1996; and the Judgment and Order dated 29/06/2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1998 are hereby set aside. [iii] The applicants are acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. [iv] Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. [v] Fine amounts, if paid be refunded to the Applicants.