JUDGMENT - V.S. Deshpande, J.:---The accused was staying with his wife and children at Kartar Vasti in the village Tinvira, in Alibag taluka of Kolaba district. 28th February, 1972, was a Holi festival day. Children had gone out of the house also was the father of the accused. When father and children returned home at about 7 or 8 p.m. wife of the accused was found to have died and the accused was found sitting by her side. Father tried to contact the Police Patil, but he could not do so. In the morning again the father tried to contact him without any success. He, therefore, went to the Police Station at Poyand informed Police Constable Kadam about the same. His statement at Exhibit 7 was recorded. Police Constable Bhagwan Kadam (P.W. 2) arrived at the scene and then prepared his own complaint (Exhibit 8). P.S. I. Patil was appraised of the same. He arrived at the scene, took up the investigation, arrested the accused, charge-sheeted him, consequent to which the accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, Kolaba, in sessions Case No. 35 of 1972. The accused has been found guilty of committing the murder of his wife under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Legality of this conviction is challenged by the accused in this appeal. 2. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, contends that there is no evidence to support the conviction and the accused, therefore, is entitled to acquittal. 3. Now, it is true that there is no eye-witness to depose as to how the deceased was done to death. Evidence is entirely circumstantial. In all 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Mohan (P.W. 6), the 8 years old son of the accused and the deceased was examined at the trial. According to the prosecution, he was the eye-witness to the incident. However, not unnaturally he turned hostile. His evidence as also the evidence of the father of the accused Navasha (P.W. 5), however, establishes one thing that before the deceased was found to have died by her children as also her father-in-law Navasha, the accused and the deceased were the only inmates inside the house and the accused was seen by the side of the deceased, when they arrived at the house. Thus evidence of Mohan proves at least this much that when he, his younger brother and sister left the house for the Holi purposes, his parents, i.e. the deceased and the accused, were inside the house. To the same effect is the evidence of Navasha, though his evidence is not that firm on his point. Thus the fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together some time before she was found to have died in the house can be said to have been established on the evidence of the son of the deceased and the father of the accused, though both the witnesses have proved to be two unwilling to disclose anything that would incriminate the accused. 4. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the relations between the accused and the deceased were strained. Mohan himself had referred to it in his examination-in-chief. According to him, they were quarrelling. He had also in examination-in-chief stated that the accused in the dock killed his mother. However, he displayed anxiety not to say anything that would go to incriminate the accused and in answers to the cross-examination of the defence Counsel, he even went to the extent of saying that though he stated so in his police statement, he was under the influence of the police. It is difficult to see from the evidence on record as to why and how the police officers could have threatened or even coerced this small boy to say something against his parents just on the day on which his mother was found to have died. But what he stated to the police cannot be said to be evidence. No attempt has been made to elicit any explanation from him as to why he should have referred to the quarrels between his father and the mother. Atmaram is the mutton shop-keeper having his mutton shop very near to the place where the accused and the deceased were staying. He also refers to the quarrels between the deceased and the accused. All that was put to him in cross-examination was, whether such quarrels were not of a domestic nature. The witness has pleaded his inability to answer the question affirmatively or negatively. The suggestion, however, does not wipe out the assertion of the witness that both of them were quarrelling. All that was put to him in cross-examination was, whether such quarrels were not of a domestic nature. The witness has pleaded his inability to answer the question affirmatively or negatively. The suggestion, however, does not wipe out the assertion of the witness that both of them were quarrelling. Police Patil of the village Harishchandra has also deposed to the quarrels between the husband and the wife and, in fact, he has referred to the incident, which took place about one and half years before the incident in dispute, when the accused is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with crow-bar. According to him, the matter was even reported to the police, but the dispute being the husband and the wife was allowed to be compounded. It is true that he was admitted that he has not referred to this incident in his police statement. But that by itself does not appear to us to be sufficient to doubt the veracity of the statement. It is pertinent to note in this context that no attempt has been made to elicit any information from P.S.I., when he was in the witness-box. We indeed do not find any reason to doubt the credibility of Police Patils version. Mr. Deshmukh appearing for the defence, contended that Police Patil Harishchandra has falsely stated that Navasha had come to his house in the evening of 28th and reported that the deceased had died of fits, though Navasha himself has stated that Police Patil could not be contacted, when he had gone to his house at the night. In between the word of the Police Patil and Navasha, we prefer to rely on the evidence of Police Patil as against the word of Navasha, who on the face of it appears to be interested in shielding his own son. Thus this evidence goes to prove the fact that the relation between the accused and the deceased were strained. We must, however, add that this evidence, though furnishes the proof of motive, is not that strong and precise and clear as to give an indication as to the strength of such notice. 5. The prosecution has also led evidence to show that blood stained pestle was discovered by the accused from the fence lying around the house, where the deceased and the accused were staying. 5. The prosecution has also led evidence to show that blood stained pestle was discovered by the accused from the fence lying around the house, where the deceased and the accused were staying. It appears that after the preliminaries of the investigation were over, the accused was arrested and taken to the Police Station, and in the presence of the panchas the accused made a statement saying that he would show the place, where he had thrown the pestle. P.W. 8 Gaikawad is the panch, Statement made by the accused is at Exhibit 20. P.S.I. Patil (P.W. 11) also has been examined to prove the statement. Evidence of these two witnesses clearly shows that the Police and the panchas followed the accused, after he made such a statement and the accused took them back of his house and from out of the fence he took out the pestle which was seized under panchanama Exhibit 21. The pestle was sent to the Chemical Analyser and his report Exhibit 27 indicates that stains found on the pestle were found to be human. Mr. Deshmukh contends that evidence is too artificial to deserve any credence. Now, it is true that the pestle has been ultimately discovered from the place, which is just a part of the house of the accused. But there is nothing on record to indicate that this pestle could have been seen or noticed by the panchas or other persons or the Police Officers, when they were in the house, while drawing the panchanama of the scene of offence, inquest panchanama and panchanama of the arrest of the accused. There is no good reason why the evidence of the panch and the Police Officer on this point should be doubted. Evidence of the planmaker indicates that cactus were 5 or 6 high. As stated earlier, it is not even suggested to the Police or panch that the fence was sparsely located and the article hidden inside thereof could be detected or seen by any one moving in the house. Evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Chakole (P.W. 7) indicates that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been accused by such a pestle. This furnishes another strong piece of evidence to connect that accused with this offence. Evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Chakole (P.W. 7) indicates that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been accused by such a pestle. This furnishes another strong piece of evidence to connect that accused with this offence. Then evidence of the panch Moreshwar Gaikwad and P.S.I. Patil indicates that when the Police arrived at the scene and arrested the accused, on interrogation the turbon on his person was found to have been blood stained. The same has been seized under panchanama Exhibit 17. The turbon was sent to the Chemical Analyser whose report at Exhibit 27 indicates that the blood of the turbon was human. This does again furnish one more link connecting the accused with the offence. 6. Once the accused was seen last in the company of the deceased and when the deceased and the accused were found to be the only inmates in the house at the time when the offence is proved to have been committed, burden is mainly on the accused to explain how the deceased met her death. That the deceased received violent death admits of no doubt. Post-mortem notes (Exhibit 14) and the evidence of Dr. Chakole (P.W. 7) indicates that fracture of the right ribs and the blood clotted inside the body was the cause of her death. This evidence unmistakably shows that some one assaulted the deceased with the pestle. The husband like the accused alone can shed light on the circumstances in which the deceased came to be assaulted. The accused not only has not made any attempt to explain the same but came out with a story which is proved by the prosecution to be false. His version finds place, in the first information report, which was conveyed to the Police Station through his father Navasha. According to Navasha, the accused had told him that the deceased died because of a fall and the fall was the result of the excessive drinking by the deceased. Medical opinion indicates that the internal and external injuries found on her person could not have been cause by any fall. In fact, the conduct of the accused in such a situation itself would have been quite different. He admits at the trial that he had so stated to his father Navasha. Medical opinion indicates that the internal and external injuries found on her person could not have been cause by any fall. In fact, the conduct of the accused in such a situation itself would have been quite different. He admits at the trial that he had so stated to his father Navasha. On the medical and other evidence it shall have to be held that this statement of the accused is utterly false. False statement by the accused in such a situation also furnished an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the accused as being the author of this offence. In this view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge does not appear to us to be in any manner erroneous. There is thus no merit in the appeal. 7. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. ------