JUDGMENT

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—This Appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A & 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable u/s 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2004. By the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC and consequently, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000=00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years.

2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498A, IPC and consequently, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 506(2), IPC and consequently, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and consequently, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000=00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also directed that from the total amount of the fine, a sum of Rs. 9,000.00 be paid to Kalaben Pravinchandra Topiwala, the mother of the deceased, by way of compensation under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. The record further reveals that charge-sheet was filed against two persons, the accused-appellant herein and his mother named Sudhaben Gopalbhai Darji. However, the accused No. 2 Sudhaben, mother of the accused, had preferred an application for discharge u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court and the said discharge application was rejected by the trial Court.

7. Against the said order passed by the trial Court, the accused No. 2 Sudhaben preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 788 of 2004 in this Court substantially on the ground that in the entire charge-sheet there was no case against her so as to put her to trial. This Court (Coram: D.N. Patel, J.), by order dated 17th December, 2004, had admitted the Revision Application and had also stayed the further proceedings so far as the accused No. 2 Sudhaben is concerned.

8. The record also reveals that the Criminal Revision Application No. 788 of 2004 is still pending before this Court and in such circumstances, the accused-appellant herein had to prefer an application on 18th December, 2004 to get his trial separated since he was an under-trial prisoner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 31st January, 2005, had directed to separate the trial.

I. Case of the Prosecution:

9. On 25th March, 2000, the deceased named Monika had got married with the accused Dhaval Gopalbhai Darji. During the wedlock, a son was born, named Deep. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased started residing at Gandhinagar. After about one and a half years, they shifted to Ahmedabad and started residing at 'Krishna' Complex, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad. The accused started a restaurant named 'Tandoor' situated just opposite to 'Krishna' Complex.

10. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was addicted to liquor and used to cause a lot of mental and physical pain to his wife, the deceased. When the