Manish Pitale, J.

By this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 11-08-2003 passed by the Court of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad (trial Court) in Sessions Trial No.45 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and five years on the two counts, as also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-on each count. The appellant was the husband of deceased. Along with him, his parents and sister were also arrayed as accused, but they were acquitted by the trial Court.

2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant and deceased Narmada got married on 17-05-1998 when dowry of Rs. 40,000/was paid along with utensils and clothes by the family of the deceased. As per the case of the prosecution, for the first four months of marriage, the said Narmada was treated properly by her husband i.e. the appellant herein and her inlaws but thereafter, they started demanding amount of Rs. 20,000/from her for the treatment of father of the appellant. The said Narmada had disclosed this fact to her mother and maternal uncle, as also a person who had helped in arranging the marriage. On 16-02-1999, when Narmada was alone in her matrimonial house, she set herself on fire and committed suicide.

3. On the same day at about 8.10 pm, a report was lodged by Sudhakar i.e. maternal uncle (PW3) of deceased Narmada, on the basis of which First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant and the other accused in Police Station Pusad city, District Yavatmal under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The Investigating Officer Abdul Rauf Khan (PW6) undertook the investigation. On the basis of the said FIR and on the basis of material placed on record, the appellant and the other accused were charged with having committed offences under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. (PW1) Sushma Solanke was the landlady of the house where the accused lived with said Narmada. As she did not support the prosecution, she was declared hostile and she was cross examined by the prosecution. (PW2) Shridhar Deshmukh was another tenant in premises adjacent to the house where the accused were living with Narmada, (PW3) Sudhakar was the maternal uncle of Narmada and he was the complainant in the present case, (PW4) Prayagbai was the mother of deceased Narmada, (PW5) Maroti was the mediator who had arranged the marriage and (PW6) Abdul Rauf Khan was the Investigating Officer.

5. The trial Court took into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and it found that the said Narmada had died a suicidal death. The trial Court found that the material on record was not sufficient to show that an offence under Section 304B of the IPC was made out, but although charge under Section 306 of the IPC was not framed, the accused could be convicted under the same. The trial Court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to convict the father-in-law (accused no.2), mother-in-law (accused no.3) and sister-in-law (accused no.4) of deceased Narmada and accordingly, the trial Court acquitted the said accused persons. But, on the same evidence and material on record, the trial Court found that the appellant (husband of deceased Narmada) was liable to be convicted under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. On this basis, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner.

6. Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that when the trial Court had acquitted the other accused i.e. the parents and sister of the appellant herein, on the same set of evidence and material on record, the trial Court could not have convicted the appellant. It was submitted that since the respondent-State had not challenged the acquittal of the said accused, it had