JUDGMENT :

John Michael Cunha, J.

This appeal is filed by accused No.1 challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2015 passed by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in S.C.No.155/2011. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused No.1') is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 364, 304B, 316 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and is sentenced to imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment and fine.

2. The appellant along with two other accused namely, accused Nos.2 and 3 were sent up for trial on the allegation that the appellant (accused No.1) being the husband of the deceased Shivabai was ill-treating and harassing her demanding additional dowry. On 13.05.2011 at around 10.00 a.m. he took the deceased from the house of the complainant PW-1 on the pretext of taking her for harvesting onion crop along with accused Nos.2 and 3. On the same day around 6.00 p.m. PW-2 the mother of the deceased found the dead body of the deceased lying in the sugar cane field of the complainant with her neck strangulated with her saree. She informed the matter to the father of the deceased. He lodged a report (Ex.P-1) before Babaleshwar Police Station, based on which FIR was registered against the appellant and two other accused persons under sections 302, 304B read with section 34 of IPC. As the deceased was pregnant for seven months at the time of the alleged incident and the fetus having died in the womb and the deceased having met with an unnatural death within seven years from the date of her marriage, charge sheet was laid against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 304B, 316, 364 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The accused having denied the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses (PWs-1 to 16) to bring home the guilt of the accused and produced in evidence 12 documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12 and material objects as M.Os.1 to 3. During the examination of prosecution witnesses, the portion of their statements were marked as Exs.D1 to D8 on behalf of the accused. The accused denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution and did not enter into specific defence.

4. Considering the above material, the trial court came to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-14, PW-9 and PW-1 suffer from material contradictions; the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint did not depict that accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing and living with accused No.1 and the deceased and that they were also instrumental in ill-treating and harassing the deceased. The trial court was of the opinion that the evidence on record proved that it was accused No.1 alone who harassed and ill-treated and subjected the deceased to cruelty for not satisfying the demand for dowry and further held that the evidence of PW-6 was not sufficient to hold that accused Nos.2 and 3 were also seen in the company of the deceased immediately prior to her death and consequently found it proper to convict accused No.1 alone for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 304B, 316, 364 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the above charges for want of evidence.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/accused No1. has preferred this appeal, inter alia contending that the findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to the evidence on record; that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective; there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the evidence let in by the prosecution did not establish conclusively any circumstance pointing out the guilt of the accused either for the alleged act of cruelty or for the alleged murder of the deceased. It is further contende