Virendra Kumar Mathur, J.

This Cr. Appeal under sec. 374(2) CrPC has been filed against judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.79/2012, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under secs.304-B and 498-A IPC and sentenced as under:

Sec.498-A IPC: 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' simple imprisonment Sec.304-B IPC: imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months' simple imprisonment

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bhuvana Regar submitted a report Ex.P1 on 15.06.2012 at Police Station Shahpura and stated that he is resident of Kanechal Kalan. Her daughter Parvati was married to Mukesh Regar, resident of Tahnal Gate, Shahpura. Parvati used to go to her in-laws house for last one year. It was further stated that 5-7 days ago his daughter went from Kanechan Kalan to Shahpura by bus. It was also stated that he had no knowledge about the fact that there exists any dispute between Mukesh Regar and Parvati. Mukesh was working as labourer and his father has taken land on contract-farming (sijara) from Raghu Nandan Soni and they have been performing agriculture operations.

2. The in-laws informed him that Parvati has consumed some poisonous substance. He was not aware about the substance which she consumed. On 13.06.2012, Kamla wife of Ramswaroop Regar resident of Kanechan Kalan informed him about the fact that Parvati consumed poisonous substance. On this he along with other persons of the village went to Shahpura hospital. When they reached at Bhilwara hospital, they came to know that Parvati was referred to Ajmer from Bhilwara. There he & his wife along with father-in-law of Parvati, Mukesh Regar and Lal Chand have been attending her Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer for the treatment of Parvati. During the course of treatment, Parvati died and they have no suspicion about it. On this, an inquest case No.5/12 under sec.174 CrPC was registered.

3. During inquiry before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahpura, it was revealed that it was a case of dowry death and Parvati has died due to harassment & cruelty by the in-laws, husband Mukesh Regar, father-in-law Om Prakash and mother-in- law. On this report, FIR No.104/2012 was registered for offence under sec.304-B IPC.

4. After investigation, Police filed challan against accusedappellant Mukesh for committing offence under secs.498-A and 304-B IPC. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant. The prosecution produced 17 witnesses and 23 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under sec.313 CrPC wherein the accused-appellant claimed that he is innocent. No witness was examined in defence.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2015, the appellant has filed this appeal on various grounds. It was contended that the findings arrived at by the trial court are perverse and contrary to the material available on record and against law, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was also contended that there are various discrepancies and serious infirmities, which go to root of the case and render the entire prosecution case highly doubtful. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was ever subjected to maltreatment for demand of dowry nor is there any evidence to establish the allegation that cruelty was meted out to her soon before her death.

6. It was also contended that the ingredients essential to constitute offence under secs.498-A and 304-B IPC are missing in the evidence led by the prosecution and from the evidence placed on record, it can be inferred that a false case has been foisted against the appellant with ulterior motive.

7. It was contended that in the present case, the