1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant husband for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively on each of the three counts, imposed upon the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on conclusion of Sessions Case No.707 of 1990.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The victim was married to the appellant on 13th May, 1990. She went to reside at the house of the appellant. In the marriage there was demand of certain articles which included wrist watch. The demand of gold ring had been fulfilled. Wrist watch, however, had not been supplied. This led to ill-treatment to the victim at the hands of the appellant. Soon after marriage, on 29th May, 1990 when the victim came to her brothers house, for a function of birthday of brothers son, victim had conveyed her unhappiness and the demands of wrist watch, saree, electric fan and a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter on 13th June, 1990 when the victims sister and sister in-law had gone to the see the victim, they found that the victim had some burn injuries on her hands and finger and swelling on her face. The victim reported that these injuries were the result of ill-treatment meted out by the appellant when the victims brother went to see the victim on 21st June, 1990, victim entreated to take her back to the parental house. However, since the appellant told the victims brother to come after 10 days, victims brother went back. On 25th June, 1990 the victim suffered severe burn injuries and was admitted to the Hospital. She succumbed to her injuries before her statement could be recorded. On a report by her brother, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. The police had caused inquest to be performed before the Coroner of Bombay. Autopsy had also been performed by the Autopsy Surgeon. Police performed panchnama of spot, recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation sent the chargesheet to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 22nd Court at Andheri, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Mumbai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all four witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellant. After considering the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence of absence of appellants complicity in the death of his wife, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record.

4. PW 1 Ravindra victims brother, who states about the victims marriage performed on 13th May, 1990. He states that after the marriage the victim resided at the native place of appellant till 21st May, 1990 and came to Powai, Mumbai, her matrimonial home, on 22nd May, 1990. After a week, she came alongwith the appellant to PW 1s house for celebrating birthday of PW2 Sunitas son. After birthday was over, PW 1s wife and sister conveyed that the appellant had demanded gifts and presents received in the marriage and had also claimed that PW 1 should purchase sarees for the victim. On 15th June, 1990, PW 2 Sunita and PW 1s wife went to the appellants house.