1. The Appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 298 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. By judgment dated 26.12.2007, the Trial Court, convicted the Appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and thereby sentenced the Appellant to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant/Accused is before this Court with the present Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The deceased in this case is one Sangeetha, who is the wife of the Appellant/Accused. Marriage between the Appellant/Accused and the deceased Sangeetha was solemnized in the year 2000 and they had a daughter, viz. Roshini. The Appellant/Accused, as alleged, had illicit affair with one Sarasu. Though the Appellant's parents and his wife, Sangeetha questioned him about the said illegal affair and advised him not to continue the said relationship, the Appellant/Accused did not heed to their words. Unable to withstand the conduct of the Appellant/Accused, who was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair, the Appellant's wife Sangeetha committed suicide along with her 1 year old daughter on 25.10.2003 around 3.30 p.m. by jumping into a Well at Morappankadu near the residence of one Periyasamy. An F.I.R. was lodged at the concerned Police Station by the father of the deceased, which set the Criminal Law in motion.

3. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 26.10.2003, around 7.00 p.m. the Appellant/Accused was arrested and confined to judicial custody for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and subsequently offences were registered under Sections 302 and 304-B I.P.C. However, after investigation, Charge Sheet was filed under Section 306 I.P.C.

4. In order to establish the charges, the Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all and marked 14 documents. The Defence examined one witness and marked 2 documents. However, no material objects were subjected to examination. The main witness is the father of the deceased, PW-1, who deposed about the extra-marital affair of the Appellant/Accused with one Sarasu and the death of the deceased.

5. When the Appellant/Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances in the evidence, he denied the same and advanced the plea of false implication in this case.

6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Accused as aforesaid, challenging which, he has come up with the present Appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the materials collected by the Prosecution during investigation do not reveal the alleged commission of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. but the Trial Court has erroneously framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and the same has resulted in grave prejudice to the Appellant/accused. It is his contention that the Investigating Officer/PW-12 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not examined the alleged paramour of the Appellant/accused, viz. Sarasu and one Senthil, who according to PW-2 and PW-3 had informed about the beating up of the deceased by the Appellant/accused.

8. In support of his case, learned counsel for the Appellant/accused has drawn the attention of this Court to the following decisions of the Apex Court:

(i) Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) Law Suit (SC) 791 SC

"22. We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty"