JUDGMENT :

Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.09.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997, whereunder, the appellant who is accused No. 1 convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while other two accused persons who happened to be the father and mother respectively came to be acquitted.

2. The facts of the prosecution case as could be gathered from the impugned judgment are that the marriage of the deceased-- Gitaben was solemnized with the appellant around 5 years before the incident which happened on 3.07.1996. At the time of marriage, Gold and Silver ornaments, cloths, utensils, furniture etc. was given. The acquitted accused No. 2--Udesinh Vadansinh and accused No. 3--Ugamben Udesinh were the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of deceased--Gitaben. After the marriage, deceased--Gitaben started living with the appellant and acquitted accused No. 2 & 3 (father-in-law & mother-in-law respectively) in joint family at Ahmedabad.

3. The marriage life was smooth for the first year, but thereafter, the appellant started beating and harassing the deceased--Gitaben. The appellant upon instigation of his parents (acquitted accused Nos. 2 & 3) would ask the deceased-Gitaben to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in the house. The appellant would also tell her that she had brought less dowry. The deceased-Gitaben, ultimately, committed suicide on 03.07.1996 by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze. P.W. 2, Kulsinh L. Trivedi-maternal uncle of the deceased-Gitaben lodged a complaint in respect of the incident with the Kangdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad which came to be registered vide C.R. No. 1-203 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 306, 498(A) r/w Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. After conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant and acquitted accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions, where the case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997.

5. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused-appellant vide Exhibit 2. The same was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, adduced documentary and ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellant came to be recorded. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the appellant-accused, convicted the appellant-accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order.

7. I have heard Mr. Chudasama, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the respondent. I also perused the record of Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997.

8. Mr. Chudasama, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the incident had happened on 04.07.1996 and P.W. 2 lodged the complaint on 06.07.1996 i.e. after 2 days of the incident. He submitted that the prosecution has not explained the delay and on that ground alone the conviction of the appellant is required to be set aside. He further submitted that in support of this contention he placed reliance a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Khemraj Hiralal Agarwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 crime 390 and a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamlesh and Others v. State of M.P., 2002 Cri.L.J. 4523. He further submitted that the allegation of harassment and de