JUDGMENT :

Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vyara in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1998 whereby, the appellant was convicted for offence under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under section 498A with fine stipulation and under section 306 of IPC he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine stipulation.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal as could be culled out from the impugned judgment and connected material are that the marriage between the appellant-Ballubhai Naginbhai Patel and Savita, sister of Ramesh Nagin (PW-1) original complainant, was solemnized around 24 years before the incident. From this wedlock, the couple was blessed with two sons out of which, elder son named Satish unfortunately died around three years before the incident. Savita was harboring a suspicion that the appellant was coming late in the night as he was having relations with some lady. She used to disclose her suspicion to PW-1 and other witnesses, who happened to be her father, brother and sister-in-law (bhabhi). Savita could not bear the conduct of appellant coming late therefore, she committed suicide by hanging herself on 04.03.1998. Initially AD under section 174 of the Code was registered. However, thereafter on 06.03.1998, PW-1 lodged a formal complaint with Mahuva Police Station on the basis of which, an FIR being C.R. No. I-8 of 1998 for offence under section 498A and 306 of IPC was registered against the appellant.

3. Investigation ensued consequent upon registration of the FIR. Investigating Officer found prima facie evidence against the appellant. He therefore, filed charge-sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences against the appellant were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

4. Charge vide Exh-6 came to be framed by the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant examined the following witnesses:

1. Dr. Chandrakant Chhaganbhai Patel Exh 8

2. Kantubhai Gopalbhai Patel Exh 11

3. Rameshbhai Naginbhai Patel Exh 16

4. Naginbhai Mavjibhai Patel Exh 18

5. Vishrambhai Naginbhai Patel Exh 19

6. Kalyanbhai Babarbhai Patel Exh 20

7. Kashiben Vishrambhai Todiya Exh 21

8. Ramjibhai Mithabhai Jhala Exh 24

5. Prosecution also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence:

1. Complaint Exh 17

2. Inquest Panchnama Exh 13

3. Panchnama of the scene of offence Exh 12

4. P.M. Note Exh 10

6. Upon conclusion of the evidence, statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein he claimed that the false case was filed against him. He did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Trial Judge, thereafter heard the arguments of learned APP and learned advocate in defence by the impugned judgment and order on sentence convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

7. I have heard Mr. Panchal learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. Perused the record of Sessions Case No. 128 of 1998.

8. Mr. Panchal learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is very much clear from the evidence of PW-1 and other material witnesses that deceased was only harboring suspicion that the appellant was having relations with other unknown woman. According to his submission, the reason for suspicion was that appellant was coming late in the night. He further submitted that marriage span between the appellant and Savita was 24 years and out of this wedlock, they had two children. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC 48 and submitted that the only issue involved in this app