K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 50/2013 on the file of First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.05.2014 in the said case in which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the accused has challenged the said judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court.

2. The brief factual matrix which emanate from the records are that the injured P.W.2 Smt. Yasmin was given in marriage to the appellant herein about 16-17 years prior to the date of incident. The appellant and the injured-P.W.2 were blessed with two children, they were residing together with all love and affection for a period of 16-17 years at Kumbaragada village in Hubballi. It appears, thereafter the appellant- accused started suspecting her fidelity. In this context they were often quarrelling with each other. In this backdrop it is alleged that on 16.07.2012, the accused and the injured were together in the house at about 6 p.m. in the evening. When they were talking to each other and the victim Yasmin was laying down on the ground to go to sleep, at that time taking advantage of the situation, the appellant who brought some acid in a plastic can kept in the house previously, suddenly poured said acid on the face and other parts of the body of P.W.2. She sustained severe burn injuries on her face and other parts of the body. She screamed for help and thereafter her mother-in-law and others who were residing along with her shifted her to KIMS Hospital at Hubballi. She has taken treatment and her statement was recorded by the Police and on that basis the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 39/2012 for the offences punishable u/Ss. 326 and 307 of IPC and after thorough investigation they have submitted a charge-sheet. The accused was in fact arrested on 17.07.2012 and since then he has been in judicial custody. After committal proceedings, the trial Court has framed charges against the accused for the offence u/S. 307 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined as many as 13 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and also M.Os.1 to 6. The accused was also examined u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. and opportunity was provided to the accused to lead evidence on his side. As the accused did not choose to lead evidence on his side, after hearing the arguments, the trial Court has proceeded to pass judgment which is impugned under this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended before this Court, that, the accused and the injured are related to each other, they were happily married to each other, they lead happy marital life for more than 16-17 years, and they were blessed with two children. Because of some doubtful circumstances in the family, as the appellant started suspecting fidelity of the wife, this unpleasant situation must have been taken in the family. There was no intention on the part of the accused to do away with the life of his wife. At no point of time she expressed insecurity with the husband for her life during the period of their happy married life. In considering the medical report of the evidence of PW.2, the victim lady, there is no semblance of evidence that the appellant at any point intended to kill her. Therefore, the conviction of sentence passed by the trial Court is not on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record.

5. The learned counsel also contended that even for any reason this Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction cannot be interfered, but on considering the age of the appellant and also his responsibility towards his children and also he being in the jail for more than four and half years, a lenient view may be