V.M. Deshpande, J.

1. The appellant, who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1995 on 18.12.2002, is before this Court in this appeal. The sentence, that is awarded to the appellant by the impugned judgment, is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The prosecution case is in a narrow compass and it is stated as under:

On 13.9.1992, PW3 Parshuram Narayan Kawde lodged his report (Exhibit 25) with Aheri Police Station. It is asserted in the report that marriage of his daughter Chaya (deceased) was performed with appellant on 6.5.1992. She was in cohabitation with the appellant. When once first informant Parshuram had been to the place of appellant to fetch his daughter, appellant refused to send her to her parental house. Not only that, in his presence she was assaulted by belt. This incident, according to first informant Parshuram, occurred at the time of 'Akhadi Purnima.'

The first information report further states that on the occasion of festival of 'Pola', first informant Parshuram sent his son Digambar to fetch Chaya. Chaya came to her parental house and had stayed there for about 8 days. During her stay at parental house, first informant Parshuram received a letter dated 5.9.1992 from appellant from which it has been revealed that since Chaya has gone for festival of 'Pola', he will not allow her to return to house and he will not provide her food and water. The first information report further states that on reading the said letter, they were intending to drop Chaya at her matrimonial house but since it was stated in the letter that on 7.9.1992 the appellant was to visit his in laws house, they made wait for 2 days. However, the appellant failed to reach to house of first informant Parshuram. Thereafter, at the request of Chaya, Digambar took Chaya on 9.9.1992 to the house of appellant. It is also stated in the first information report that, that time the appellant did not allow Digambar to stay at his house. It is also stated in the first information report that there used to be a demand of Rs. 25,000/- from the appellant and was subjected to assault and these facts were narrated by Chaya to her mother. It is also stated that the appellant poured kerosene on Chaya.

3. PW5 Police Sub Inspector Sunil Digambar Nandwalkar was informed about burning incident and, therefore, he went to the hospital at Aheri. There he got a knowledge that Chaya is dead. Therefore, he came to the police station and registered A.D. vide No. 20 of 1992. He prepared spot panchanama Exhibit 20. Thereafter, in view of lodging of report Exhibit 25 by first informant Parshuram, an offence was registered against the appellant vide Crime No. 95 of 1992 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of usual investigation, challan was presented.

4. The offence was exclusively triable by the sessions. Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as Sessions Case No. 38 of 1995.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gadchiroli framed a charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for his trial. The prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. Learned Judge of the Court below, after appreciation of evidences, found that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

6. There is no dispute about the date of marriage which was performed on 6.5.