M.R. Shah, J.

1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2nd Fast Track Court), Amreli (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"), both preferred by the State, one challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and another for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, while convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2nd Fast Track Court), Amreli in Sessions Case No. 13/2008, State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2822/2008 challenging the impugned judgment and order insofar as acquitting the original accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 307 and 302 of the IPC and has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2826/2008 for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under section 304(Part-II) of the IPC.

2.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that as such by impugned judgment and order though the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 307 and 302 of the IPC, the learned trial Court has convicted the original accused for the offence punishable under section 304(Part-II) of the IPC and has imposed the sentence of 5 years' R.I. It is also required to be noted that so far as the impugned judgment and order of conviction is concerned, it has attained the finality inasmuch as the original accused has not challenged the same. Therefore, as such conviction of the original accused for the offence in which his wife died homicidal death, has attained finality and therefore, as such this Court is not required to consider whether infact the original accused has committed the offence or not and what is required to be considered is whether the learned trial Court is justified in acquitting the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 307 and 302 of the IPC and convicting the original accused for the offence punishable under section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC only.

3. The prosecution case in nut-shell is as under:

3.1 That as per the FIR given by the complainant Kundanben wife of Bhikhabhai on 13.11.2007, prior to 14 years, her marriage was solemnized with the original accused and out of the said wedlock she was having two son and one daughter. It is further the prosecution case that on the date of incident, complainant was alone in the house and original accused came in drunken condition and thereafter, by saying he should not have wife like the complainant, attacked his wife and poured kerosene and set her ablaze and the complainant sustained burn injuries on most of her body parts. It is further the case of the prosecution that immediately the neighbors came there and by pouring water on the complainant, shifted the complainant to the hospital and complaint was registered with Amreli Police Station and thereafter on 24.12.2007 the complainant - deceased died and thereafter FIR being I-CR No. 72/2007 was registered with the Lathi Police Station.

3.2 That the aforesaid FIR was invest gated by the Investigating Officer. During the investigation the IO recorded the statement of concerned witnesses. That at the time when the complaint was filed, which was given by the victim herself, the victim was alive and taking treatment in the hospital, the IO managed