C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted under section 302, I. P. C. for committing murder of his wife Mira by strangulation and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that deceased Mira was the married wife of the appellant and they were living together along with the parents of the appellant in village Harri, police station Bijon, district Shahdol Urmila (P. W. 6), minor sister of the deceased was also living with them. According to her, there used to be frequent quarrel between the husband and wife and the appellant used to beat and ill-treat her. On 8/12/1981 at about 12 in the noon, the appellant informed Rameshwar Prasad (P. W. 1) that his wife has committed suicide by hanging. When they came to the spot, they found the house closed from inside and getting no response, the appellant climbed the roof by ladder and then opened the door. It was found that the deceased was hanging from the roof with a rope tied round her neck: and her feet were touching the floor. Rameshwar then went and gave marg intimation Ex. p. i at 3. 30 p. m. in Ramnagar police-chowki, 15 kms. away. A. S. I. Damodar prasad (P. W. 20) reached the spot and prepared the panchnama Ex. P. J6 over the dead body which was then sent for postmortem examination. He also seized the rope hanging from the roof. On doing the autopsy, Dr. R. K. Verma (P. W. 16) opined that death was caused by strangulation, there were two ligature marks, one was ante-mortem and another post-mortem. She was done to death by strangulation and then the body was hanged from the roof wit-h a rope. Further investigation was taken up by S. O. Vikram (PW. 10 ). He registered the F. I. R. EX. P. 18 on 10. 12. 1981. He then took the appellant into custody who gave memorandum Ex. P. 2 that the pair of Payal belonging to the deceased have been sold by him to Sitaram (P. W 8 ). He then took the police party to the house of Sitaram and recovered the pair of Payal (Articles A, B. 1 and B. 2) which were seized as per Seizure memo Ex. P. 3. On completing the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted for the murder. He then took the police party to the house of Sitaram and recovered the pair of Payal (Articles A, B. 1 and B. 2) which were seized as per Seizure memo Ex. P. 3. On completing the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted for the murder. The defence is of denial. According to him, in the morning he had gone to Sarai tola along with Rarneshwar for doing Pooja and when he returned at about 11 to 12 in the noon, he saw his house locked from inside. He then called Rameshwar and since the door could not be opened, he climbed the roof through the ladder and on opening the door found his wife having committed suicide by hanging on the roof with a rope. Relying on the medical evidence coupled with the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to his maternal uncle Hetram (P. W. 10), the learned Addi. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant. ( 3 ) SHRI R. N. Rai learned counsel for the appellant contended that (i) the trial Judge erred in basing conviction of the appellant solely on the medical evidence. It is merely an opinion and it could very well be a case of hanging also because the distinction between the case of strangulation and hanging is very thin and some of the symptoms are common. The evidence of extra-judicial confession has been concocted to implicate him. According to Shri B. P. Singh, learned Addi. Govt. Advocate, the evidence on record proves beyond doubt that the appellant had strangulated his wife to death and then hanged the dead body from the roof of the house in order to show that she had committed suicide. There is no explanation by the appellant of the incriminating circumstances and evidence found against him. ( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of M. P. has held as under:in dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. ( 5 ) THE case is based on circumstantial evidence. The dead body of Mira, wife of the appellant, was found hanging with a rope tied round her neck from the roof of his house. The door was closed from inside and according to the learned counsel for the appellant this is the strongest circumstance to hold that the deceased herself committed suicide and, therefore, the medical evidence that it is a case of strangulation followed by hanging the dead body from the roof bas to be rejected. Urmila (P. W. 6), aged about 12 years, is the sister of the deceased. At the relevant time, she was living with her in the house of the appellant. After being questioned, her evidence was recorded as she was able to give proper answers. According to her, her sister used to be beaten by the appellant quite often. A day earlier, he had beaten her with the handle of the tangiya regarding dispute over jaggery. This is corroborated by Sitaram Pandey (P. W. 8) who is relation of the deceased. Urmila further stated that on the date of the incident, she was asked by the mother of the appellant to go and pick up cowdung saying that she would follow her. After sometime, she also joined her. Thereafter the appellants brother came and called his mother. Urmila further stated that on the date of the incident, she was asked by the mother of the appellant to go and pick up cowdung saying that she would follow her. After sometime, she also joined her. Thereafter the appellants brother came and called his mother. They then rushed to the house of the appellant where the door was closed from inside and when she enquired as to what has happened to her sister, she was not allowed to open the door and the mother-in-law told that she should not make any noise, otherwise the appellant will be involved in the case. This is corroborated by Kheladi (P. W. 14), younger brother of the appellant. The appellant had taken the plea of alibi that on the date of the incident he had gone with Rameshwar Prasad (P. W. 1) for performing some Puja in village Saraitola and had returned at about 12 in the noon but he is not corroborated by Rameshwar Prasad. On the other hand, Rameshwar Prasad has deposed that at about 12 in the noon the appellant came and told him that his wife i. e. , the deceased, has committed suicide by hanging from the roof of the house with a rope. As the door was closed from inside, it is not explained as to how the appellant learnt that his wife committed suicide by hanging. It if not disputed that the appellant possessed the ladder in his house, so it was not difficult to go in and out of the house by climbing through the roof. The ladder was seized by the police. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant alone was in the house with the deceased at the time of the incident. ( 6 ) AFTER Rameshwar came to the spot, the appellant climbed the roof, opened the door from inside and they saw the deceased hanging from the roof with a rope tied round her neck. The marg intimation Ex. P. 1 was given by Rameshwar in police outpost Ramnagar at 3. 30 p. m. , 15 Kms. away. A. S. I. Damodar Prasad (P. W. 20) reached the spot and prepared panchnama Ex. P. 16 over the dead body. He has been corroborated by Ayodhya Prasad and Dwarika (P. Ws. 17 and 18 ). The marg intimation Ex. P. 1 was given by Rameshwar in police outpost Ramnagar at 3. 30 p. m. , 15 Kms. away. A. S. I. Damodar Prasad (P. W. 20) reached the spot and prepared panchnama Ex. P. 16 over the dead body. He has been corroborated by Ayodhya Prasad and Dwarika (P. Ws. 17 and 18 ). Recital of the panchnama shows that there were two ligature marks on the neck of the deceased and the body was hanging from the roof with a rope tied round her neck and her right leg was touching the floor, this has to be accepted in preference to oral evidence. There were certain injuries below her knees. She was wearing bangles. It is, therefore, unlikely that when one of her foot was touching the floor, she could have committed suicide by hanging as there was support on the floor. ( 7 ) THE next most important evidence is that of Dr. Verma (P. W. 16 ). He did the autopsy. He found face congested and livid, right eye slightly opened, left closed. Tongue was bitten between the teeth, mouth closed, nails blue and cynosed. He found abrasion below both the knees, ligature marks encircling the whole neck below the thyroid gland and base of the neck. Ligature was continuous round the neck. On dissection, echymosis and effusion of blood was seen on underlying tissues. Echymosis on edges seen, ligature mark was ante mortem. There was another ligature mark on neck oblique with knot on right side of neck, 2 of breadth, no effusion of blood, no echymosis, post-mortem in nature. Second ligature mark was between chin and larynx. Membrane and brain were congested. All the internal organs of the body were contused and congested. Number 1 ligature mark was nearly 2 cm. in breadth and underlyingtssues were more injured while the other ligature mark was oblique on upper level of neck with knot of right side above the ligature mark No. 1. Dribbling of salive absent, face more congested and neck was not stretched. All these points indicate that the deceased died of strangulation and then hanged after death. She died of asphyxis due to strangulation and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is wrong to say that the deceased could not be strangulated without violence. All these points indicate that the deceased died of strangulation and then hanged after death. She died of asphyxis due to strangulation and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is wrong to say that the deceased could not be strangulated without violence. The death was caused by the first ligature mark. Modi in his book on Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology has given a table showing difference between hanging and strangulation. ( 8 ) THE evidence given by the doctor is fully supported by the authority of Modi. So there can be no doubt that the deceased was first strangulated to death and then her dead body was hanged from the roof. Investigating Officer Vikram (P. W. 20) after taking the appellant into custody interrogated him and he gave memorandum Ex. P. 2 that he had removed the silver Payal from the feet of the deceased and he had given them to Sitaram (P. W. 8) uncle of the deceased. He is corroborated by Thakurram (P. W. 2) and Sitaram (P. W. 8 ). In the panchnama Ex. P. 16 there is no mention of any Payal on the feet of the deceased, so it is apparent that Payal was removed after she was strangulated to death. Ex P. 3 is the seizure of pair of Payals (Articles A. B. 1 and B. 2 ). Though the two witnesses Thakurram and Sitaram have deposed that the appellant had handed over the pair of payal to Sitaram to meet the expenses of the last rites of the deceased but it is not explained by the appellant as to what was the occasion for removing the Payals surreptitiously before the door of the house was opened. The circumstantial evidence on record is fully corroborated by the extra- judicial confession made by the appellant to Hetram (P. W. 10 ). He is the maternal uncle of the appellant. According to him, the appellant came to him one day and told him that he has committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and then hanged the body from the roof in order to show that it is a case of suicide. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit him. The appellant has given no explanation of the incriminating circumstances proved against him. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit him. The appellant has given no explanation of the incriminating circumstances proved against him. This itself strengthens the case of the prosecution that he alone was the murderer and none else. ( 9 ) WITH the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. The appellant on bail is directed to surrender forthwith for undergoing the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .