ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. The sole accused in the case is the appellant. He was tried for the offence of committing the murder of his wife, Maya Devi, by throwing her into a canal and who died as a result of the asphyxia due to drowning. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14-6-1980 at about 3 p.m. in area of Village Dholewal. The case rested mainly on the evidence of PW 4 corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 and the circumstantial evidence. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo further RI for six months. The appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the High Court. 2. According to the prosecution the accused had strained relations with his wife, Maya Devi and used to complain about the insufficiency of the dowry. The proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code were also instituted by the deceased. On the day of occurrence the accused and Maya Devi were seen grappling at the canal bridge and the accused physically lifted and threw her into the canal as a result of which she got downed. PW 4 who was passing that way saw this incident and according to him the accused thereafter ran away. PW 4 went and informed PW 5 and information was sent to the parents of the deceased. PW 2, brother of the deceased came to the village. A search was made but having failed to find the trace of the deceased, a report was lodged with the police in the next morning at about 10 a.m. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 17-6-1980 and after post-mortem the doctor gave the opinion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to drowning. 3. Shri Khera, learned counsel, contended that the conduct of PW 4 the principal witness in the case, is highly unnatural and it is impossible to believe that the accused could have lifted the deceased and thrown her into the canal as stated by him and that on suspicion the case has been foisted against the accused. 3. Shri Khera, learned counsel, contended that the conduct of PW 4 the principal witness in the case, is highly unnatural and it is impossible to believe that the accused could have lifted the deceased and thrown her into the canal as stated by him and that on suspicion the case has been foisted against the accused. It may be mentioned that at that stage the accused denied all the allegations but he admitted that proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code were launched but according to him relations between him and his wife were not strained. 4. The fact that the proceedings were initiated under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code would go to show that the relations between the wife and the husband were strained. Now coming to the evidence of PW 4 he has given his reasons for his presence near the place of occurrence. He deposed that he saw the accused and the deceased grappling and also heard the deceased raising cries for being saved and that he saw the accused physically lifting the deceased and throwing her into the canal. According to PW 4 soon after the occurrence he gave the information to PW 5. His evidence shows that he is an independent witness and there is no reason why his evidence should be discarded. PW 4's evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 who deposed that he was informed by PW 4 about the incident and he in turn sent word to the parents of the deceased. PW 2, the brother of the deceased reached the village on the very evening and he deposed that he searched for the body and not having found it he gave the report to the police stating all these facts. 5. It is also the evidence of PW 3, a member of the Panchayat who had found an attache case, a basket, a pair of chappals lying on the bridge and saw the appellant picking up those articles and on his ascertaining the appellant told him that his wife had jumped in the canal. This witness is also an independent witness. 6. In a case of this nature the conduct of the accused is also important. This witness is also an independent witness. 6. In a case of this nature the conduct of the accused is also important. No doubt the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but when the prosecution has established all the circumstances connecting the accused with a crime and in the absence of any explanation it cannot be said that the conduct of the accused has to be ignored and need not be taken into account. The appellant being the husband, it is within his knowledge as to how he parted his company with the deceased. The evidence on record shows that he was in the village. When once it is established that he was with his wife at the place of occurrence and when there is no explanation how he parted his company then it lends assurance to the evidence of PW 4 as to the manner of the occurrence. Both the courts have examined the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and have given good reasons for accepting the same. The evidence of these witnesses fully incriminates the appellant with the crime and we see no grounds to interfere. 7. The appeal is dismissed.