SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20th May, 2011 and order on sentence dated 23rd May, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 66/2010 arising out of FIR No. 01/2010 u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC registered with PS Tilak Nagar whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence u/s. 498A/304B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, SI for a period of one month u/s. 498A IPC. The accused was also sentenced to RI for a period of ten years u/s. 304B IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the gravamen of the prosecution case is that the appellant got married with Smt. Darshna (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on 21st November, 2008. From the said wedlock, a male child, namely, 'Goldy' was born. Darshna committed suicide on the intervening night of 31st December, 2009/1st January, 2010.

3. Information regarding admission of the deceased was given to PP Tilak Vihar vide DD No. 8 on which SI Lalan Prasad along with Head Constable Jai Ram reached DDU Hospital where SI Lalan Prasad collected MLC of the deceased and came to know that she was declared "brought dead". SI Lalan Prasad went to WZ 178, 80 Gaj Harijan Colony, Tilak Vihar. He also informed SDM Patel Nagar. SDM directed Tehsildar Sh. R.K. Saini who reached the spot and recorded the statement of Kranti-PW1 and Vinod-PW3, mother and brother of the deceased respectively. Thereafter, Mr. R.K. Saini went to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings. Direction was given to the SHO to take action as per law. On the statement of Kranti, Ex. PW5/A, FIR 01/2010 u/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC was recorded by Head Constable Hans Kumar on 01.01.2010 at about 10 a.m. Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. During the course of investigation, accused Sushil Kumar, Virender @ Bijender and Shanti Devi were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and two other accused u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. The appellant and the co-accused were then committed to the Sessions Judge, where they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of prosecution. Two witnesses were examined in defence. The Additional Sessions Judge eventually came to the conclusion that so far as the appellant is concerned, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted him u/s 498A/304B IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinbefore while remaining two co-accused were acquitted on the ground that allegations against them were general and unreliable.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge based the conviction of the appellant primarily on the ground that evidence as to the harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry, was specific and consistent and there is reliable evidence to prove that deceased was harassed by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.

5. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6. Challenging the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sh. Baldev Raj, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that FIR was registered on the statement of mother of the deceased made before the Tehsildar where general allegations of demand of dowry were made and a suspicion was raised that the deceased died due to harassment meted out to her by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law for dowry. However, the complainant disowned any statement made by her before the Tehsildar. Moreover Tehsildar was not even competent to conduct inquest proceedings. Ac