J. S. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE following judgment of the Court was delivered by Malik, J. Respondent Asharam was prosecuted for the murder of his wife Mst. Inderka. He has been acquitted by the Sessions Court and the State has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story may be given in brief: On the early morning of 11th December, 1979, respondent Asharam went to the field of Balchand (P. W. 3) and told him that his wife was down with pneumonia and he should come to see her and give medicine. Balchand was a Vaidya and treated the villagers with herbs. It was 7 A. M. Balchand went to the house of the respondent and saw the lady lying on a cot, coloured with a quilt. He found her dead with some marks of injury on her face-some black spots on the right side of the face and around the right eye. He suspected that the lady had died due to violence. He did not express his suspicions to Asharam but just asked him to go to the Kotwar and tell him that his wife was dead. ( 3 ) AT about 8 A. M. , Asharam met Mi-th-than Kotwar (P. W. 1) and told him that his wife had died of pneumonia on the previous night. Mi-th-than was then going to the Sarpanch. He thought it was to see the deceased lady first. He, therefore, accompanied Asharam to his house. He lifted the quilt to uncover the face of the lady. He saw black marks on the face and suspected that the lady had not died of pneumonia but due to some violence. He came out of the house and went to inform the Mukaddam. Mukaddam was not available. Instead, his son Pirthiram (P. W. 2) was at home. Mi-ththan expressed his suspicions to him. Pirthiram then came to Asharams house and he also saw the dead body with marks of violence on the face. He asked the Kotwar to report the matter to the police. ( 4 ) THE police came and suspecting the death to be homicidal, sent the body for postmortem examination. The autopsy surgeon found the following injuries on the body. a. Contusion 21/2 X 2" on anterior portion of left shoulder. b. Contusion I X 1/2 on left supra calvicular region. ( 4 ) THE police came and suspecting the death to be homicidal, sent the body for postmortem examination. The autopsy surgeon found the following injuries on the body. a. Contusion 21/2 X 2" on anterior portion of left shoulder. b. Contusion I X 1/2 on left supra calvicular region. c. Contusion 6 X 2 forehead right side and right parietal region. d. Contusion 4 X 3 on right temporal region and cheek. e. Contusion 2 X 1-1/2 on anterior portion of right shoulder. f. Contusion 3-1/2 X 2-1/2 on right temporal region arid cheek. g. Contusion 1-1/2 X 1 an left zygomatic region. h. Lacerated wound 1/2 X 1/8 X 1/8 ort lower lip right side. i. Contusion 3 X 2 an right lip antere lateral partian. j. Contusion 1-1/2 X 1/2 an nose right side. The injury No. (iii) an the right parietal region had injured the brain though there was no fracture. The lady had died due to shack. In the opinion of the doctor, the head of the lady must have been repeatedly hit against the side of the cat. The Investigating Officer had seized the Patti of the cat, which was blood-stained. Opinion of the doctor was sought fin that basis. ( 5 ) THE death of Inderka was homicidal, could not be doubted at an. The defence of the respondent was that he was in his field that night. He returned home in the morning and finding. Inderka still on bed, wrapped in quite he thought, she was suffering from fever. He, therefore, went to call Balchand. Balchand told him that the lady was dead. So, the went to inform the Katwar. If the death was due to violence, she must have been killed by somebody, he said, who had also removed her gold ear-rings and silver Pattis. Those, ornaments were said to be missing from her person. ( 6 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent for the following reasons: (a) That the prosecution led no. evidence to show that the respondent was at his house an the night of the murder. The inmates of the house or the neighbours could tell that the respondent and his wife were together that night and the respondent had the opportunity to kill her. (b) That assault by the respondent should normally have attracted the attentions of the neighbours. evidence to show that the respondent was at his house an the night of the murder. The inmates of the house or the neighbours could tell that the respondent and his wife were together that night and the respondent had the opportunity to kill her. (b) That assault by the respondent should normally have attracted the attentions of the neighbours. The victim would have cried and raised alarm. The neighbours did not hear any quarrel. (c) The possibility of someone else killing the lady was not completely ruled out incase it were believed that the respondent was in his field that night. ( 7 ) IN our appreciation of the evidence, and the attending circumstances, the reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge are revolting to our sense of justice. There was history of misbehavior on the part on he respondent. He had only a couple of months ago given a sever beating to his wife. She had lodged a report at the police station and she was referred to Dr. R. M. Gupta (P. W. 10) for examination after injuries. She had on her person multiple contusions, abrasions and lacerated wounds. This happened on 9. 7. 1979. Indarka went to her parents but then returned to her husband is the hope that she would not be ill-treated again. ( 8 ) WITH this background, the conduct of the, respondent becomes relevant. He went to Balchand early in the morning saying that his wife was dawn with pneumonia. He thought, the black spots an the face may not be noticed and even if they were visible, they could mislead the Physician for some allergy. Balchand told him that the lady was dead. The respondent went to the Katwar and repeated that his wife had died of pneumonia. He told the same thing to Pirthiram. His attempt to misdirect and mislead these persons, clearly indicated that he was involved in the crime. He had killed his wife and wanted to create evidence that she had died a natural death. ( 9 ) IF somebody else had killed her and robbed her of her ornaments, the respondent would have raised all hue and cry. He would have rushed to the police station to report. It would be absurd to imagine that when he came home in the morning he thought, his wife was ill. ( 9 ) IF somebody else had killed her and robbed her of her ornaments, the respondent would have raised all hue and cry. He would have rushed to the police station to report. It would be absurd to imagine that when he came home in the morning he thought, his wife was ill. He would at once have known that she was dead, rather killed. I ( 10 ) WE have come to a definite conclusion that the respondent had given a beating to his wife, which caused her death. It must have been adomestic quarrel. The respondent may not have intended to kill her but all the same, knowledge must be imputed to him that his merciless beating was likely to cause her death. We convict the respondent under section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to R. I.-for 5 years. The State appeal is according allowed. The respondent shall surrender to bail to undergo the sentence. The detention during trial shall be given a set off. State Appeal allowed. .