KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal filed under S. 374 CrPC has been directed against the judgment dated 30/1/2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 135/1997, whereby the appellant husband of the deceased was convicted under S. 498A/304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2002 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 7 years, respectively.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as set out in the appeal, is as follows:

In the afternoon of 18/10/1996 when the appellant was at his shop, he was informed about the incident of suicide having been committed by his deceased wife Shobhana. The appellant on hearing, rushed to his residence and the Doctor PW7 Dr. Jagdish Chander Pathak was immediately called, who found the deceased in an unconscious state but was still breathing. The appellant took her to Khetrapal Hospital, but despite the best efforts of Dr. Anil Khetrapal, PW 12, the deceased did not survive. The parents of the deceased were informed of the said mishap on 18.10.1996 and they arrived on 19.10.1996. The parents were quite normal in their behavior against the appellant and his family. But suddenly, after five days their behavior completely changed towards the appellant and his family and an FIR bearing no. 655/1996 was lodged on 23/10/1996 at P.S. Dabri on the direction of SDM, Hauz Khas, Mr. K.K. Dahiya, PW3 and proceedings were initiated pursuant to the said FIR. Vide judgment dated 30/1/2003, all other accused/family members of the appellant were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt but the appellant was convicted under Ss. 498-A and 304 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to RI for 7 years and fine. Aggrieved with the said judgment and order dated 30/1/2003, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

3. Mr. Naresh Kaushik counsel for the appellant contended that the Ld. Additional and District Judge erroneously decided the case contrary to the evidence on record and the settled legal position. The counsel submitted that the Ld. Sessions Court did not take into consideration the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The counsel urged that clearly allegations leveled in the FIR and the statements given by the PW1 and PW 2 are not only afterthought but totally unbelievable. The counsel averred that the Court also erred in not considering that the SI J.P. Singh deposed that he did not think it proper to register the case against the accused persons as there was nothing incriminating against the accused persons till then. The counsel urged that there are clear contradictions in the statements of PW1 Saroj, mother of the deceased and the PW 2 Ishwar Singh, father of the deceased, which was ignored by the trial court. The counsel contended that the deposition of DW1 Sonjana @ Sojna, sister of the deceased goes on to show that the exhibits DW1/A, DW1/1 and DW1/2 were written by the deceased Shobhana while infact as per the prosecution story Ex. DW1/1 and DW1/2 were written by none else but DW1 Sanjana herself. FSL report raise serious doubts in this regard and this deliberate falsehood clearly reflects that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The counsel urged that it is only the prosecution, who is basing their case on the notebook as well as the letter allegedly written by Shobhana but the trial court did not rely on them to convict the appellant. The counsel submitted that the Ld. Trial court erred in not considering the deposition of PW7 Dr. Jagdish Chander Pathak who deposed that he often treated the deceased but she never complained of physical or mental torture to him. The Trial Court also did not consider the deposition of Dr. Anil Khetrapal, PW 12, who deposed that the deceased was in unconscious state when she was examined by him. The counsel thus urged that all these efforts made by the appellant to save her would show that he had never maltreated her. The counsel also submitted that the letter purported to h