Honble J.R. CHOPRA, J-—This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 18.4.1984 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused-persons Bhadar Ram and Smt. Gomati of the offence under S. 302 read with s. 120-B, IPC and has held the accused-appellant Krishanlal guilty of the offence under S. 302 IPC. The accused-appellant Krishanlal has been sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under s. 302 IPC. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that accused Krishanlal is the son of acquitted-accused Bhadar Ram and Smt. Gomati, who are husband and wife. Accused Krishanlal was married to Smt. Krishna, the daughter of P.W. 1 Kashiram Jat, resident to Khelieriya Tehsil Suratgarh before about three and half years from the date of the occurrence. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, Bhadar Ram and Krishanlal told P.W. 1 Kashiram that the dowry given by them is meagre and, therefore, he must give more dowry to them: P.W. 1 Kashi Ram refused to give more dowry and, therefore, they started showing their dis-pleasure to Mst. Krishna one way or the other. They nurtured a grouse against Mst. Krishan for bringing less dowry. So muh so, they started beating her and she complained about it to her parents. Before about one and half years or two years from the date of the occurrence a message was sent by Bhadar Ram and Krishanlal to P.W. 1 that either they should give more dowry to them or they will leave Mst. Krishna. On this, it is alleged that a Panchayat took place at the residence of P.W. 2 Hukmaram and it was ruled that Kashiram should pay Rs. 7500/- to Bhadarram and Bhadar Ram gave an undertaking that thereafter, they will not harrass Smt. Krishna. That amount was paid to Bhadarram then and there but still Mst. Krishan was not brought to her matrimonial home. However, after about one year, she was brought to her matrimonial home, by Bhadar Ram with all her ornaments. After this when P.W. 1 Kashiram went to meet his daughter Mst. Krishan, he was further told to pay Rs. That amount was paid to Bhadarram then and there but still Mst. Krishan was not brought to her matrimonial home. However, after about one year, she was brought to her matrimonial home, by Bhadar Ram with all her ornaments. After this when P.W. 1 Kashiram went to meet his daughter Mst. Krishan, he was further told to pay Rs. 5500/- by Bhadar Ram but Kashiram refused to pay that amount, and therefore, they again started harrassing her. Even accused-appellant Krishanlal wrote two threatening letters to his father-in-law P.W. 1 Kashiram from Bikaner. 3. Before one day of the occurrence, P.W. 3 Chandradutt informed P.W. 2 Hukmaram, the maternal uncle of Mst. Krishna that accused Krishanlal has beaten Mst. Krishan and he has told her that if more dowry is not given to them, he will kill her. When this fact was conveyed to P.W. 2 Hukmaram, he met Mst. Krishan, who reiterated this fact and he tried to pacify accused Krishanlal and came back. However, it is alleged that on the next day i.e. on 27. 12. 1982, at about 7 a.m. one Milkiyatsingh came to the house of P.W. 2 Hukmaram and informed him that Mst. Krishna has been killed and this fact was conveyed by P.W. 2 Hukmaram to P.W. 1 Kashiram. On this, P.W. 1 Kashiram told his brother-in-law to go to the house of Bhadar Ram so that the dead body may not be disposed of and the matter may be reported to the Police. The First Information Report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by P.W. 1 Kashiram at 11 A.M. on that very day, in which, the entire sequence events, which took place prior to the occurrence were rei-terated and it was claimed that he has been informed at 9 A.M. by P.W. 2 Hukmaram that Mst. Krishna has been killed by her husband Krishanlal in connivance with his father and mother Bhadar Ram and Smt. Gomati, respectively by throttling her neck. 4. This report was sent to the Magistrate on the same day but as the Magistrate was out, it was given to the Assistant Nazir and on this report, a case under ss. 302/120-B IPC was registered. The Police inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex.P. 3, Inquest Memo Ex.P. 4 and site inspection memo Ex.P. 8. 4. This report was sent to the Magistrate on the same day but as the Magistrate was out, it was given to the Assistant Nazir and on this report, a case under ss. 302/120-B IPC was registered. The Police inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex.P. 3, Inquest Memo Ex.P. 4 and site inspection memo Ex.P. 8. The two letters which were alleged to have been written by accused Krishanlal to P.W. 1 Kashiram were seized by the Police vide Memo Ex.P. 2. The postmortem examination on the deady body of Mst. Krishna was conducted by P.W. 7 Dr. S.B. Jhanwar vide Post Mortem Examination Report Ex. P. 7. The clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession by the Police vide Memo Ex.P. 11. The accused was arrested vide Memo Ex.P. 13. His specimen writing were taken and they were sent for experts examination. The report of the Hand-writing Expert, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has been marked as Ex. P. 12 which discloses that the writings on the letters Ex. P. 8 and 9 tallies with the specimen writing. 5. After usual investigation, the case was challaned in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarb, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hanumangarh. Accused-appellant Krishanlal was charged with the offence under s. 302 IPC whereas co-accused Bhadar Ram and Smt. Gomati were charged with the offence under ss. 302/120-B IPC. 6. The accused-persons denied the charges framed against them and hence, in all 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded and they took the plea of alibi. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has decided the case as aforesaid and hence this appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Krishanlal. 7. We have heard Mr. MM. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant Krishanlal, Mr. Hemant Choudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B.N. Kalla and Mr. J.R.. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the Complainants, and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. It has been contended by Mr. M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that this case entirely hinges on the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the occurrence. B.N. Kalla and Mr. J.R.. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the Complainants, and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. It has been contended by Mr. M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that this case entirely hinges on the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The chain of the circumstances, which have been prayed in the case are such that they do not point out the one and the only hypothesise that the accused-appellant Krishan Lal is the person who has killed his wife. According to him, the circumstances which have been relied upon by the learned lower court have not been put to the accused-appellant Krishanlal in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. and, therefore, those circumstances cannot be utilised against him and hence, it was submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant Krishanlal deserves to be set aside and he deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid offences. 9. Before discussing the case on merit, Mr. Singhvi has submitted that while appreciating the circumstantial evidence, certain basic principles have to kept in mind, and in this respect, Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1) wherein it has been held that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: 1. that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn,1 must be cogently and firmly established; 2. that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; and 3. that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." He has further submitted that where the accused, in his examination under s. 313, Cr.P.C. was not asked to offer any explanation, in regard to the statements made by the witnesses against him, and the accused in his appeal to Supreme Court pointed out such defect, not with a view to show that his conviction was bad on account of the defect, but only because the prosecution relied on the circumstance as being sufficient to sustain his conviction, it was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that the accused can be allowed to raise such a grievance. 10. Mr. Singhvi has also placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (2), wherein it has been held that if the circumstances appearing in the evidence are not put to the accused in his examination under s. 313 Cr. P. C. they cannot be used against him. This authority has also been relied upon by Mr. Singhvi as regards the appreciation of evidence of the close relation of the victim. Their lordships have held that in such cases, the close relatives of the victim have the tendency to exaggerate or add facts and, therefore, the Courts should examine their evidence with great care and caution. 11. Having canvassed these legal proposition, Mr. Singhvi has submitted that the entire evidence has to be examined on the touch stones of these legal propositions which have been approved by their lordships of the Supreme Court. 12. It has been contended by Mr. M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that it has been alleged in the F. I. R. that accused Krishanlal was aggrieved against his father-in-law P.W. 1 Kashiram for giving less dowry and it was because of this that he harrassed his wife Smt. Krishna. According to Mr. Singhvi, the entire evidence that has been brought on record shows that it was Bhadar Ram and his wife Smt. Gomati who were demanding more dowry and it was they who were harrassing Smt. Krishna on that account. According to Mr. Singhvi, the entire evidence that has been brought on record shows that it was Bhadar Ram and his wife Smt. Gomati who were demanding more dowry and it was they who were harrassing Smt. Krishna on that account. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that accused Krishanlal ever demanded more dowry from his father-in-law P.W. 1 Kashiram or that he was interested in having more dowry. Even in the letters Ex.P.9 and 10, which have been relied upon by the prosecution, accused Krishanlal has no where written to his father-in-law P.W.I Kashiram to give more dowry. It is true that when the Panchayat took place at the house of P.W. 2 Hukrnaram, it was accused Bhadarram who participated the Panchayat and when Rs. 5500/-were demanded from P.W.1 Kashiram by accused Bhadarram; accused Krishanlal was not there as per the statements of P.W.1 Kashiram, P.W. 2 Hukmaram and P.W. 6 Chananram. However, P.W. 1 Kashiram has categorically stated that after sometime of the marriage of Krishna with accused Krishanlal, i.e. almost a month after the marriage, accused Krishanlal and his father Bhadar Ram came to his house and they complained to him that he has given less dowry in the marriage of Krishna and, therefore, he should give more dowry. He has further stated that he refused to do so. There is no cross-examination on this point except that it was asked to him that he has not categorically got it recorded in the F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 that after one month of the marriage of Krishna with accused Krishanlal, accused Krishanlal and his father Bhadar Ram came to his house to demand more dowry, to which, the witness P.W. 1 Kashiram has replied that while lodging the FIR he has got that fact recorded that accused Krishanlal and his father Bhadarram came to his house after the marriage of Krishna to demand more dowry. However, the factum of time was not got specifically recorded. This is not a material omission. It has been recorded in the FIR. Ex.P. 1 that accused Krishanlal and his father Bhadarram came to his house to demand more dowry. 13. However, the factum of time was not got specifically recorded. This is not a material omission. It has been recorded in the FIR. Ex.P. 1 that accused Krishanlal and his father Bhadarram came to his house to demand more dowry. 13. It is true that in the letters Ex.P. 9 and 10, no demand has been made for more dowry but it has been written in the letter Ex.P. 9 dated 21.1.1982 that this is the last letter, which he is writing to his father-in-law and, therefore, either he should send his daughter with the entire ornaments to his house by 15th Feb. or else he will arrange his second marriage. Even in the first letter Ex. P. 10 dated 29.1.1990, he has stated that the relations have become strained and that they are going to further deteriorate and so, the matter cannot be reconciled. He insisted that his wife should be sent with all orna-ments. He was not ready to accept his wife without ornaments. In this respect, it was contended by Mr. M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant that these letters Ex.P. 9 and 10 cannot be used against the accused-appellant because they have not been put to him in his examination under s. 313 Cr. P.C. and the Magistrate who took his specimen writing has not been examined. This contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The circumstance that after one month of the marriage, he went to the house of his in-laws and demanded more dowry has been put to the accused-appellant Krishanlal, while recording his statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. in question No. 1. It has also been put to him in question No. 8 that the two letters written by him to P.W. 1 Kashiram were taken into possession by the police and his specimen writings were also taken and that were sent for Experts examination and the Expert has opined that the writings on the letters Ex.P. 8 and 9 tally with the specimen writings. 14. P.W. I Kashiram has stated that these two letters were received by him and he proved these letters in his statement. Not a single word has been asked in his cross-examination that these letters have not been written by accused-appellant Krishanlal. 14. P.W. I Kashiram has stated that these two letters were received by him and he proved these letters in his statement. Not a single word has been asked in his cross-examination that these letters have not been written by accused-appellant Krishanlal. When a particular assertion is made in the examination-in-chief and that assertion is not challenged in cross-examination, this clearly shows that the accused is not in a position to challenge this parti-cular assertion. Even the Investigating Officer P.W. 8 Abdul Razak has stated that the letters Ex.P. 9 and 10 alleged to have been written by accused Krishanlal to his father-in-law P.W. 1 Kashiram, were seized by him and they were sent for experts examination but not a single question has been asked to him as regards these two letters. That clearly shows that the accused-appellant Krishanlal was not in a position to challenge this fact- He had an ample opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses viz., P.W. 1 Kashiram and P.W. 8 Abdul Razak and when he has not utilised this opportunity, this circumstance can safely be utilised against the accused-appellant on the ground that when this fact was stated by the witness he has not challenged this circumstance. 15. The examination of the Magistrate, who took specimen writing of the accused-appellant Krishanlal hardly matters because it has nowhere been claimed in cross-examination of the witnesses that the letters Ex.P. 9 and 10 were not written by accused Krishanlal and, therefore, Vembu Amal v. Esakkia Pillai (3) wherein it has been held that any comparison of a disputed signature will be only useful when it is done with an admitted signature is of no avail. It is nobodys case that the disputed writing in the letters has not been compared with the admitted writing. The experts report Ex.P. 12 has been put to the accused in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. through question No. 8 and these two letters have been proved by P.W. 1 Kashiram and P.W. 8 Abdul Razak. These letters definitely go to show that relations between the accused Krishanlal and his in-laws were strained and he wanted that his wife should be sent with all ornaments. 16. The fact that the accused-Krishanial was interested in more dowry is further corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 3 Chandar Dutt. These letters definitely go to show that relations between the accused Krishanlal and his in-laws were strained and he wanted that his wife should be sent with all ornaments. 16. The fact that the accused-Krishanial was interested in more dowry is further corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 3 Chandar Dutt. He has stated that he met Smt. Krishna only a day before her death. He went to meet her at about 8 A.M. on that day because he was asked to do so by P.W. 1 Kashiram. He has further stated that when he met Smt. Krishna, she told him that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband harrass her for bringing more dowry and this fact should be conveyed to her maternal uncle and he should be told that either he should take her from here or some money should be paid to her husband or in-laws. He conveyed this fact to her maternal uncle P.W. 2 Hukmaram. There is some contradiction whether he met her on 25.12.1982 or 26 12.82 but that hardly matters. He has conveyed this fact to P.W. 2 Hukmaram and P.W. 2 Hukmaram has corroborated his statement. 17. P.W. 3 Chandradutt is the son of P.W. 2 Hukmaram. P.W. 2 Hukmaram has stated that when Chandradutt conveyed this fact to him, he went to village Nirwana at about 1 P.M. and met Smt. Krishna. He has further stated that Smt. Krishna told him that he should take her with him or else he must give more money to her in-laws. At that time, he only met accused Krishanlal and his grand-father because others in the family were not there. He requested Umaram to bring round accused Krishanlal and persuade him not to act like this which, it is alleged that accused Krishanlal told him that he does not listen to anybody except his mother and father. After this, he came to his brother-in-law P.W. 1 Kashiram and told every thing to him whereupon, P.W. 1 Kashiram told him that he will go to village Nirwana on the next day but before that could happen, it is alleged that Mst. Krishna was killed by her husband Kris-hanlal. It is, therefore, clear from this evidence that accused-appellant Krishan-lal was interested in having more dowry from his in-laws. Krishna was killed by her husband Kris-hanlal. It is, therefore, clear from this evidence that accused-appellant Krishan-lal was interested in having more dowry from his in-laws. It may be true that on some occasions,when more dowry was given or demanded, accused Krishanlal was not present but that hardly matters but from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that accused Krishanlal was very much interested in more dowry and that fact is further corroborated from the letters Ex. P.9 and 10, From letters Ex. P.9 and 10, it is further clear that relations between accused Krishanlal and his in-laws were strained and he was not ready to accept his wife without all ornaments. 18. From the evidence of P.W. 2 Hukmaram and P.W. 3 Chandradutt, it is clear that at the time of the occurrence, only Smt. Krishna, her husband accused Krishanlal and her grand father-in-law Umaram were present and accused Bhadarram and Smt. Gomati were not there. We will not be discussing the rest of the evidence about demand of more dowry because that relates to the demand of more dowry by accused Bhadarram and his wife Smt. Gomati and not by accused Krishanlal. 19. In the chain of the circumstances, now we will be considering the evidence of P.W. 4 Motaram. P.W. 4 Motaram is a Yaidhya. He has started a Ayurvedic shop at village Nirwana. He has stated that he does not know accused Krishanlal from before. He has alleged that before about 6-7 months of his statement, at about 6 A.M. Bhadarrams son came to him and told that his wife is suffering from fever and there fore, some medicines may be give to him. On this, he gave him two tablets of Metacin. He has further stated that after about 15-20 minutes, that boy again came to him and told that his wife is unconscious and she is not taking medicines and so, he should attend her at his residence. At that time, Umaram also came there and told him to accompany him immediately. On this, he went with Umaram but Bhadarrams son remained there. There, he found Smt. Krishna lying on a cot. Her body was covered with the quilt upto neck and her face was covered by a Odhna. When he saw her pulse, her nerve beating has already stopped. On this, he went with Umaram but Bhadarrams son remained there. There, he found Smt. Krishna lying on a cot. Her body was covered with the quilt upto neck and her face was covered by a Odhna. When he saw her pulse, her nerve beating has already stopped. Her body was cold and there was no pulpitation of the heart and therefore, he came to the conclusion that she has died. He disclosed this fact to Umaram and he came back. He has stated that till he remained at the house of Bhadarram, Bhandarams son, who came to call upon him to attend his wife, did not come there. It is, therefore, clear that P.W. 4 Motaram has trial to disclose the events as they have happened but he has tried to avoid the identification of accused Krishanlal and it was in these circumstances that his statement has not been put to the witness because he has refused to identify him. Rather P.W. 4 Motaram has stated that he does not know accused Krishanlal from before. He even did not identify him in the Court. It is true that this witness has been declared hostile, but simply because he has been declared hostile his testimony does not become unreliable. In this respect reliance is placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sat Paul V. Delhi Administration (4) wherein it has been held : "Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge, should as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto." On the touch stone of the principles, when we judge the testimony of P.W. 4 Motaram, we find that in spite of the fact that P.W. 4 Motaram has refused to identify the accused appellant Krishanlal, it is very much clear from his testimony that it was accused Krishanlal who went to P.W. 4 Motaram and told him that his wife is suffering from fever and, therefore, he may be given some medicines for her. Two tables of Metacine were given to him but after about 15-20 minutes, accused Krishanlal again came there and told him that she is not taking medicines as she is unconscious and, therefore he should accompany him to his residence to attend his wife. 20. After declaring P.W. 4 Motaram as hostile witness he was cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein he has stated that Bhadarram has two sons viz., Krishanlal and Jotram. Jotram is aged about 10-12 years and he lives in the village. Krishanlal is prosecuting his studies at Bikaner and it is he, who is married. He does not know him by face. Thus, this much is clear that it is only accused Krishanlal who is married. P.W. 4 Motaram has admitted that Jotaram has not yet been married. He has further admitted that the boy who came to call him was 18-20 years of age. If his entire testimony is taken into consideration, the only unescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that it was accused Krishanlal who went to P.W. 4 Motaram at 6 A.M. to take medicines for his wife on the pretext that she is under fever and therefore, he again went to him after about 15-20 minutes on the pretext that she is uncon-scious and, therefore, she is not taking medicines. This further proves that Mst. Krishna has already died and accused Krishanlal went to P.W. 4 Motaram after her death so that a story may be built up or concocted that she was under fever and became unconscious and later died. These facts have not been put to the accused in his statement under s. 313 Cr.P.C. to obtain this explanation. Krishna has already died and accused Krishanlal went to P.W. 4 Motaram after her death so that a story may be built up or concocted that she was under fever and became unconscious and later died. These facts have not been put to the accused in his statement under s. 313 Cr.P.C. to obtain this explanation. We may at once observe here that that question can hardly be put to a witness in his examination under s. 313 Cr.P.C. as regards the allegations which were not directly attributable to an accused on the basis of the statement that has been made by the witness but which flow from conclusions arrived at by a Court of law after close and rational scrutiny and assessment of the probative value of the evidence given by a particular witness. That actually depends on the Court as to how it assesses that piece of evidence to come to a particular conclusion. 21. P.W. 7 Dr. S.B. Jhanwar has stated that on 27-12-1982 at about 5 5 pm he has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Krishna daughter of P.W. 1 Kashiram aged about 20 years. She was healthy. From her nostrils, blood froth was coming out. Her face was tense and has become blue. Her eyes were little protruding and were open. Her tongue was swollen. She has urinated. There was an abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" in the middle of her neck below thyroid. There was an abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" below her right ear lobule. There was a contusion 2" x 1/2" on the right side of her neck. There were three contusions of the size of 2" x 1/2" on the left side of her neck. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. Her eyes were congested. Membranes were also congested. Larynx and Trachea were also congested. Both the lungs were also congested. Her liver, spleen and kidneys were also congested. Her bladder was empty. The cause of death was reported to be asphyxia due to throttling. It was put to him in his cross-examination that in such cases, the tongue should come out to which he replied that it is not necessary that the tongue must protrude out in every case of throttling. Her bladder was empty. The cause of death was reported to be asphyxia due to throttling. It was put to him in his cross-examination that in such cases, the tongue should come out to which he replied that it is not necessary that the tongue must protrude out in every case of throttling. He has stated that it is wrong to suggest that in cases of throttling, the eyes must also protrude out but they do not protrude to some extent. In this case also, he has observed that eyes were protruding out a little. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of P.W. 7 Dr. S.B. Jhanwar that it is a case of death by throttling which has resulted in asphyxia. It was also put to him in his cross-examination that there was no fracture of his thyroid bone, to which, P.W. 7 Dr. S.B. Jhanwar has stated that in every case, it is not necessary that the thyroid bone must be fractured. It is, therefore, clear that it is a case of throttling. It is not a case where the deceased was under fever. Even she was not unconscious. Actually Mst. Krishna has died on account of throttling and this is the opinion of the Medical Board. If the accused-appellant Krishanlal had nothing to do with Mst. Krishnas death then he should have reported the matter to the Police but instead of that, he was not traceable, after Umaram took Motaram with him and tried to concoct a false story of fever and resultant unconsciousness of his wife and projected it to Motaram knowingfully well that she was already dead and has died of throttling. 22. The accused-appellant Krishanlal had tried to say that he was at Bikaner and in this respect he has examined D.W. 1 Bhan Singh but that fact stands falsified from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, it is a clear cut case of culpable homicide. Accused Bhadarram and his wife Smt. Gomati were not there at the time of the occurrence and Umaram had nothing to do With this matter. There is not an iota of evidence to show that Umaram ever demanded more dowry or he had anything to do with murder of Smt. Krishna. Accused Krishanlal went to Vaidhya Motaram twice before Umaram came to fetch him on knowing about her death. There is not an iota of evidence to show that Umaram ever demanded more dowry or he had anything to do with murder of Smt. Krishna. Accused Krishanlal went to Vaidhya Motaram twice before Umaram came to fetch him on knowing about her death. Death took place in the night, when husband is expected to be with his wife. In this respect reliance has been placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar V. State of Maharashtra (5), wherein the deceased was killed in the night. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed: "that the other circumstances listed above had also been finally established. Once circumstance (a) is established, then taken in conjunction with the other circumstances, particularly the undisputed fact that at or about the time of Maltis death, no third person excepting the accused and the deceased was present in the house, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probabilities, it was the accused appellant and none-else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death." It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that on the date, Mst. Krishna was killed, she, her husband accused Krishanlal and Umaram were in the house, and Umaram had nothing to do with the murder of Mst. Krishna and, therefore, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and none-else who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death. 23. From the circumstances that have been explained above, the only inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that the accused-appellant Krishanlal has killed his wife Smt. Krishna by throttling her neck. All the three tests laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court as regards the appreciation of circumstantial evidence we satisfied in this case. The circumstantial evidence brought on record have been conclusively and cogently proved that it is accused Krishanlal who has killed his wife Smt. Krishna. Under these circumstances we are firmly of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned lower Court deserves to be sustained and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused-appellant Krishanlal deserves to be maintained. 24. In the result this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant Krishanlal is already under custody. Under these circumstances we are firmly of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned lower Court deserves to be sustained and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused-appellant Krishanlal deserves to be maintained. 24. In the result this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant Krishanlal is already under custody. The result of the appeal be conveyed to him through Jail authorities.