JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16/12/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2003, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and imposed fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 2 months’ simple imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 4 months’ simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the daughter of the complainant namely, Ilaben was married with the accused before 4 years of the incident. After marriage, Ilaben (deceased) was residing with the accused in a joint family and out of the wed-lock, they had two children, one son and one daughter. It is the case of the prosecution that, after 3 months of the marriage, the deceased told her mother that the appellant is of suspicious nature and does not like the deceased talking with others and the appellant is also quarreling with the deceased. It is also alleged that the appellant was doubting about the character of the deceased and was passing sarcastic comments on the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that, prior to one and half month of the incident, when the complainant came to know that there was a quarrel at the matrimonial house of deceased Ilaben, the complainant went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and took Ilaben and the appellant. Thereafter, about a month later, the mother-in-law of the deceased came to the house of the complainant and assured the complainant that there would not be any quarrel in her house. Therefore, the complainant sent Ilaben to her matrimonial house. It is further the case of the prosecution that, on 21.06.2003, the complainant came to know that his daughter has received severe burn injuries and admitted in the hospital. But, when the complainant reached at the hospital, the deceased had died and the dead-body was taken for post-mortem. At that time, the wife of the complainant, sister-in-law of the complainant and son of the complainant were present at the hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that, because of the harassment, the deceased had committed suicide.

2.1 The complaint was filed and thereafter, the Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and had arrested the appellant. The prosecution led the evidence and examined 9 witnesses and also produced some documentary evidence to prove its case. Upon giving closure purshish, the Sessions Court recorded the statement of the appellant as prescribed under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant took the defence of complete denial.

2.2 After examination of the witnesses in detail and after considering the documentary evidence and after hearing arguments advanced by both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order of conviction convicting the appellant for the offences as mentioned hereinabove.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant-original accused has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard Mr. Shivang M. Shah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Darshil S. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat.

4. Mr. Shah, the learned advocate for the appellant has raised contention th