available is in the nature of evidence of the father
of deceased. According to the said witness P.w.2
Vinayak, the accused no.1 was illtreating his daughter
and had demanded a sum of Rs.15000/- for payment of
the amount of deposit for taking a flat on rent at
Nashik. The second demand is allegedly for a sum of
Rs.5000/- by accused no.1, for purchasing a motor
cycle and the last demand was for a sum of Rs. 2
lakhs for purchase of a flat by the accused no.1. The
learned counsel for the applicants pointed out from
the evidence of P.w.2 which is considered in the
judgment of Sessions Judge, that all the three demands
respectively, i.e. sum of Rs.15000/-, Rs. 5000/- and
Rs. 2 lakhs, are by the accused no.1 Arun, and there
is no whisper of any demand by the present applicants.
The first two demands for the sum of Rs. 15000/- and
Rs. 5000/- were met by payment of the said amount,
whereas the last demand could not be met as P.w.2 did
not have money and had assured the accused no.1 that
after the sale of the plot of land, he would give the
amount. In the submission of the learned counsel,
there is no iota of evidence against the present
applicants about any demand of dowry or for that
matter demand of any money from the deceased or her
father. The Sessions Judge, has considered the case
of the present applicants, which in para 62 of the
judgment. What is observed is that accused nos.2,3
