Mr. P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) RAM Kishore, appellant, has been convicted of an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code of having caused the deathof his own wife intentionally or knowingly during the intervening night of 17thand 18/04/1986 at. House No. 284 Lane No. 1, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhivide judgment dated 31/07/1989 by an Additional Sessions Judge and vide aseparate order of the even date, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine toundergo simple imprisonment of three months more. The convict has challengedhis conviction and sentence byfiling the present appeal. ( 2 ). Facts of the case, in brief, are that PW. 1 Murti Devi, resident of Houseno. 284 Lane No. 1, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi had one daughter namelyvidyawati, since deceased. Vidyawati was earlier twice married to differentpersons but had apparently separated from those husbands without their beingany legal divorce proceedings taking place and she was married to the appellantwho was also having this as his second marriage, his previous wife is stated tohave died due to burns. This marriage took place in the year 1981 or so i. e. fiveyears prior to the occurrence. Two sons have been born to the said couple. Theywere aged about four and two years respectively at the time of occurrence. Theappellant is a resident of Village Kharkhoda, District Meerut in U. P. After marriage,the couple started living in that village. ( 3 ). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was not treating his wifeproperly as he could not provide her proper food and clothes and used to beather and harassed her for bringing more money from her mother. A complaintwas made by Murti Devi to the Police Post Incharge Shalimar Bagh on 4/10/1985, copy of which is Ex. PW1/b. It is alleged that a week before the occurrence the couple along with their two sons were visiting Murti Devi and at thattime Vidyawati, deceased, required her mother to shell out Rs. 2,000. 00 for constructing a house in the village of the appellant but Murti Devi mentioned thatshe was not in a position to arrange such money and thereafter the appellantalong with his elder son left the house and Vidyawati with her younger sonstayed back as Vidyawati had suddenly become ill. ( 4 ). 2,000. 00 for constructing a house in the village of the appellant but Murti Devi mentioned thatshe was not in a position to arrange such money and thereafter the appellantalong with his elder son left the house and Vidyawati with her younger sonstayed back as Vidyawati had suddenly become ill. ( 4 ). On 17/04/1986, the appellant is stated to have come alone to thehouse of Murti Devi at about 9 p. m. and Vidyawati cooked meals for him andthe appellant and his wife then took the meals and are stated to have gone onthe terrace for sleeping and they had been talking for some time and at about 5a. m. when Murti Devi got up, she did not find her daughter in the ground floorand she went upstairs and found her daughter lying dead on the terrace andappellant and the younger son of the appellant were not found there and she wastold by one of the tenants that the appellant along with his younger son had leftthe place at about 2 a. m. She found blood coming out of the mouth of the deadbody of Vidyawati and her stomach being bloated. It was also alleged that herdaughter Vidyawati did not want to go to her in-laws place but the appellant wasinsisting on taking her along with him to his native place. ( 5 ). Some unknown person, at about 7. 30 a. m. had rung up the Police Postjahangir Puri giving the information that a lady was lying dead in House No. 284, Lane No. 1, Village Shalimar. The information was reduced into writing inserial No. Daily Diary 4a, copy of which is Ex. PW3/aand S. I. lqbal Singh, PW-13, was deputed to inquire into the matter who along with Constables Satbir anddharam Pal proceeded to the spot. S. D. M. of the area namely Sh. Dadusahebalso came to the spot. It is the S. D. M. who held the proceedings at the spot withregard to the death of Vidyawati and he recorded the statement of Murti Devi,ex. PW1/a and of Babu Ram, Ex. PW2/a and also recorded the inspection ofthe site made by him and directed the registration of the case. The case was registered vide F. I. R, copy of which is Ex. PW8/a at 355 p. m. ( 6 ). Post-mortem on the dead body was performed, by Dr. L. T. Ramani, PW-5. PW1/a and of Babu Ram, Ex. PW2/a and also recorded the inspection ofthe site made by him and directed the registration of the case. The case was registered vide F. I. R, copy of which is Ex. PW8/a at 355 p. m. ( 6 ). Post-mortem on the dead body was performed, by Dr. L. T. Ramani, PW-5. Murti Devi had identified the dead body before the Doctor as that of her daughter Vidyawati aged about 22 years and the Doctor found following injurieson her person:- "external injuries1. Abruise bluish in colour was present on the under surface of chin l/2" X size. 2. There was bruising with laceration on mucus surface of the lower lipof 1" X " size with bruising on the lower gums. Internal Examinationscalp tissues were normal. Skull bones were in-tact. Brain was congested. Neck tissues under injury No. 1 and on the left side sub-mandibular regionshow effusion of blood. Hyoid bone and thyroid cartrilage were in-tact. Tacheal mucusa showed sub-mucos petechiae. Ribs were in-tact. Lungsshowed multiple sub-plerual petechial haemorrhages spots and congestion. Heart was normal. Liver - spleen and kidneys were normal. Stomach wasfull, semi-digested rice and dall particles could be identified. Stomach mucosawas pale. No typical smell was detected in stomach contents and bodyfluid. Bowels were normal. Uterus was empty and normal. Bladder contained clear urin and rectum contained faeces. " ( 7 ). The Doctor found that eyes were closed and there was sub-conjuctivitalhemorrhages in both the eyes. Mouth was closed and the tongue was in normalposition and nails were blue and food was regurgitating from nostrils. He opinedthat injuries were ante-mortem and caused by manual strangulation which weresufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the death was due toasphyxia resulting from manual strangulation and time since death was about 16hours which tallied with the night intervening 17th and 18/04/1986. Thepost-mortem report prepared by the Doctor is Ex. PW5/a. He had preserved theviscra and bloody which was sent for analysis but nothing untoward was foundin the said viscra and the blood. He had also found that body was having glassbangles, if. two on the right arm and three on the left arm besides some otherjewellery items which have been detailed out in the post-mortem report. ( 8 ). At the time lqbal Singh S. I. reached the place of occurrence, he found thedead body lying on the ground floor. He had also found that body was having glassbangles, if. two on the right arm and three on the left arm besides some otherjewellery items which have been detailed out in the post-mortem report. ( 8 ). At the time lqbal Singh S. I. reached the place of occurrence, he found thedead body lying on the ground floor. He prepared the inquest papers and hecollected from the terrace of the house broken bangle pieces which he duly sealedanddeposited in the Malkhana. He had prepared the site plan. Ex. PW13. G. Thesite plan shows that it was a single storeyed house having four rooms on theground floor in a row and in front of the rooms there is a Courtyard and thereare stairs located in between the four rooms going upstairs to the terrace. The coton which the appellant and deceased were allegedly sleeping after taking mealsis on the terrace which comes on the left side of the stairs while there is a terraceover the two rooms on the right side of the stairs. The dead body was lying onthe terrace on the left side of the stairs near the cot and the broken pieces ofbangles were also found lying near the said cot. ( 9 ). The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the post-mortemreport gave a finding that Vidyawati has met a homicidal death by manualstrangulation in the intervening night of 17th and 18/04/1986 which findingis not challenged before us and rightly so because the testimony of Dr. L. T. Ramanibased on the post-mortem findings is quite clear that death has occurred in thiscase because of manual pressure being applied on the neck structure under theinjury No. 1 and also on the left side of the neck where effusion of blood wasobserved in the internal examination of the dead body in the left side mandibularregion. A half-hearted contention was raised that if the death is by manual strangulation then the tongue would not have been in a normal condition. Thissuggestion was also given to Dr. L. T. Ramani which was negatived by the Doctor. So, it is proved beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt that death was causedby applying manual pressure not only under the injury No. 1 on the neck structure but also applying pressure on the left side of the neck of the deceased. Thissuggestion was also given to Dr. L. T. Ramani which was negatived by the Doctor. So, it is proved beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt that death was causedby applying manual pressure not only under the injury No. 1 on the neck structure but also applying pressure on the left side of the neck of the deceased. Sowe affirm the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that Vidyawati had beenkilled by manual strangulation during the said night. ( 10 ). The Additional Sessions Judge has held that from the testimony of Vidyawati and particularly from the previous complaint lodged by Vidyawati with thepolice, it has been established beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt that theappellant was maltreating, harassing and beating his wife and was also puttingpressure on her to get more money from her mother and a week prior to theoccurrence, the appellant had left his wife and younger son at the place of Murtidevi and Murti Devi could not arrange Rs. 2,000. 00 as demanded by Vidyawatifor constructing some house at the village of her in-laws. It has also been heldby the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant had come to the house ofmurti Devi in the evening of 17/04/1986 and he and deceased took mealsand slept on the terrace of the house and in the morning the dead body ofvidyawati was discovered on the terrace and appellant with her younger son hadgone away to his village and had not attended even the last rites i. e. cremationof Vidyawati. So, he held that circumstantial evidence produced on record by theprosecution clearly showed that it was appellant who had caused the murder ofvidyawati by manual strangulation and there is no circumstance which couldpoint out to the innocence of the appellant for this crime. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that thewhole case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of PW-1 which accordingto him is not consistent and credible inasmuch as many contradictions have beenmade by Murti Devi in Court viz-a-viz her police statement and she being aninterested related witness should not be believed to bring home the offence to theappellant. ( 12 ). ( 12 ). Before we deal with this contention of the learned Counsel for theappellant, we may refer to the statement of the appellant made under Section 313of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein the appellant, however, denied that hehad been maltreating Vidyawati or his having at any time asked Vidyawati tobring any money from Murti Devi. However, he mentioned that he had come tothe house of Murti Devi on 17/04/1986 in the evening and after taking mealshe had gone to the terrace for sleeping and he slept on that terrace and in thenight he was told about his wife Vidyawati becoming unwell and being in aserious condition who was at that time sleeping on the ground floor and hesuggested for calling some spiritual person called bhagat or siana for treatingvidyawati and a Doctor was called who suggested for removal of Vidyawati tohospital and he along with Murti Devi and a tenant took Vidyawati to Safdarjunghospital where the Doctor, after checking her pronounced her dead and askedthem to take her back and dead body was brought back and he was asked tobring his relations from the village and in the morning he had left for his villagewhere he fell ill and he had sent his brother Bhagwat for attending to the necessary ceremonies and on 19/04/1986, he was arrested when he was confined to the bed because of his ailment and he was admitted to Safdarjung Hospitalon 20/04/1986. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated. According to his statement, his wife Vidyawati had not come to sleep with him on theterrace on that crucial night. ( 13 ). Murti Devi in Court as PW-1 narrated all the material facts which havebeen already highlighted by us in the opening of the judgment and she categorically deposed that after taking meals on that particular night, the appellant andvidyawati had gone upstairs and had slept on the terrace and in the morningvidyawati was found lying dead on the terrace but she had made some contradictions with regard to the time when the appellant is stated to have left thehouse along with his younger son. She had stated in the examination-in-chief thatthe appellant was present in the morning when Doctor was called and declaredvidyawati as dead and the appellant left the house at about 5 a. m. along with theyounger son. She had stated in the examination-in-chief thatthe appellant was present in the morning when Doctor was called and declaredvidyawati as dead and the appellant left the house at about 5 a. m. along with theyounger son. She had also deposed that one of the tenants had asked the appellant that he should call his relations. As she had made certain variations from thepolice statement, she was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecutor and incross-examination, she admitted all the facts which she had narrated to the S. D. M. in her first statement. ( 14 ). In cross-examination, it came out in her statement that she was an illiterate lady and did not know how to write and read and the complaint which wasmade by her to,the police prior to the occurrence. Ex. PW1/b, was not thumbimpressed or signed by her but she had deposed that she had made a complaintto the police vide that writing about her daughter being maltreated by the appellanton account of demands of money and that she had been earlier meeting suchdemands. In cross-examination, her testimony that Vidyawati and younger sonhad been left at the house of Murti Devi by the appellant a week earlier was notchallenged. She had categorically deposed that on the night of occurrence theappellant was pressing Vidyawati to come with him to his native place butvidyawati was declining to go. ( 15 ). Murti Devi has three more daughters. They and Murti Devi claim tohave slept on the ground floor on the night of occurrence. If we peruse thestatement of Murti Devi, the only contradiction which has been highlighted bylearned Counsel for appellant is that perhaps the appellant has not left the housein the night along with his younger son but had gone to his place in the morningafter Doctor had pronounced Vidyawati as dead at the house. But that does notgo to the core of the point arising for decision in this case. ( 16 ). The recovery of broken pieces of bangles from the terrace give duecorroboration to the testimony of Murti Devi that during the said night theappellant and Vidyawati had slept on the terrace. But that does notgo to the core of the point arising for decision in this case. ( 16 ). The recovery of broken pieces of bangles from the terrace give duecorroboration to the testimony of Murti Devi that during the said night theappellant and Vidyawati had slept on the terrace. It is true that there is no directevidence available showing that appellant had manually strangulated Vidyawatibut the circumstantial evidence appearing against the appellant is so strong inthis case that an irresistible conclusion can be reached that it was the appellantwho must have strangulatedVidyawati on that night, may be due to some quarreltaking place between the two as mentioned by Murti Devi not only in her statement in Court but also in the F. I. R. that Vidyawati was not agreeing to go withthe appellant to his native place. It is to be emphasised at this stage that the elderson of the appellant was not brought by appellant with him on the said day. Hehad come alone and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-1, Murtidevi, that the appellant had come on that evening with a specific purpose ofpersuading Vidyawati to accompany him to his native place along with hisyounger son and Vidyawati was not willing to go with him. ( 17 ). A week earlier the appellant had left Vidyawati and younger son at thehouse of Murti Devi and had gone to his native place with his elder son. Thisstatement of Murti Devi also remained unchallenged in cross-examination. ( 18 ). There is no reason to doubt the evidence led by the prosecution in theshape of the previous complaint made to the police by Murti Devi which isex. PW1/b, in which she has categorically mentioned about the maltreatmentbeing given to Vidyawati by the appellant on account of her inability to complywith the repeated demands of the appellant for more money. PW-1 is quitetruthful in deposing in Court that the appellant has not directly demanded anymoney from her but it was Vidyawati who was demanding money from her atthe instance of the appellant. ( 19 ). It is also established in evidence that the appellant with his younger sonhad left the house of Murti Devi after Vidyawati was found dead and he had notreturned for attending the cremation ceremony of Vidyawati. ( 19 ). It is also established in evidence that the appellant with his younger sonhad left the house of Murti Devi after Vidyawati was found dead and he had notreturned for attending the cremation ceremony of Vidyawati. No question hasbeen put to Murti Devi or to other witnesses of the prosecution suggesting thatthe appellant or any of his relations had come to attend the cremation ceremonyof Vidyawati. This circumstance that the appellant had not cared to come backto attend the cremation of Vidyawati also is one of the circumstances whichshows that the appellant had some guilty mind. ( 20 ). The learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, has contendedthat there is no strong motive proved on the record to show that the appellantwould do away with the life of his wife. It is not necessary that there ought tobe some strong motive before a person resorts to killing another person. ( 21 ). In the present case, there is. convincing evidence led by the prosecutionto prove that the appellant was harassing and maltreating Vidyawati for notbringing sufficient money to his satisfaction from her mother and a few monthsearlier, a complaint was also lodged with the police by Murti Devi and a weekbefore the occurrence again Vidyawati pressed her mother to give Rs. 2,000. 00which her mother could not give and the appellant had gone back to his nativeplace along with his elder son leaving behind Vidyawati and the younger son. The appellant had come to the said house again on the said crucial day andevidence shows that he was pressing Vidyawati to accompany her which Vidyawati was resisting. So, it is quite evident that during the night the appellant juststrangulated Vidyawati. It is not possible to know now actually what transpiredbetween the appellant and his wife during that night but the fact that the appellant was the last person to see the deceased alive and that both the appellant anddeceased had slept on the terrace and broken pieces of bangles of deceased werefound on the terrace and in the morning dead body of Vidyawati was found onthe terrace clearly indicate that there was no one else but the appellant who hadthe opportunity to kill Vidyawati on that night. Except for bald statement ofappellant, when examined under Section 313, there is no evidence that appellanthad fallen ill at his village and thus could not attend cremation of his wife. No suggestion was given to the 1. 0. that appellant was ill and was got admitted ina hospital after being arrested. So, this explanation of the appellant is not credible. ( 22 ). Babu Ram is cousin brother of deceased s father and is also residing inthe neighbourhood. He came to the spot on hearing the cries being raised by thefamily members and found that Vidyawatiwas lying dead on the terrace and shewas brought down. He found that the appellant and his younger son were notpresent when he reached the place at about 6 a. m. He has witnessed the recovery memo. Ex. PW2/b, by which the pieces of bangles. Ex. P2, were taken intopossession besides one tumbler containing some water. Ex. PI from that terrace. He also deposed that the appellant used to beat and scold Vidyawati and hewanted money from Murti Devi. There is no reason to doubt his testimony onthese facts. The only suggestion given in cross-examination is that the appellanthad left the spot along with his younger son at about 7. 30 a. m. ( 23 ). We are of the opinion that even if the appellant had left the spot alongwith the younger son at about 6 a. m. or 7. 30 a. m. it does not make any difference to the prosecution case. The crucial fact is that after leaving the spot withthe alleged pretext of bringing his relations from his village, the appellant did notcome back to attend the cremation ceremony. There is no evidence availableshowing that any relation of the appellant from his native village attended thecremation ceremony. No such question has been put to PW-1 and PW-2 in thisregard suggesting that any relation of the appellant had come to attend thecremation ceremony. ( 24 ). PW-4, Ram Rati, PW-6 Dhan Prakash, PW-7 Rajinder Kumar wereresidents of the village of the appellant but they turned hostile and did notsupport the prosecution version that they were aware about the appellant maltreating Vidyawati at his house in his native village-The other tenants, who wereexamined by the police during investigation and were cited. ( 24 ). PW-4, Ram Rati, PW-6 Dhan Prakash, PW-7 Rajinder Kumar wereresidents of the village of the appellant but they turned hostile and did notsupport the prosecution version that they were aware about the appellant maltreating Vidyawati at his house in his native village-The other tenants, who wereexamined by the police during investigation and were cited. as witnesses, couldnot be examined by the prosecution as their present whereabouts could not befound out as those tenants appear to have left the house of Murti Devi duringthe trial before the Sessions Judge and efforts to effect service on them provedfutile. ( 25 ). Be as it may, we have no hesitation in holding that the testimony ofmurti Devi, PW-I, as supported by the circumstantial evidence, as discussedabove, is totally reliable. Mere fact that she is a relation, being the mother of thedeceased, is no ground to disbelieve her testimony. In our view, the Additionalsessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that it was the appellantwho intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Vidyawati by manual strangulation during the said night. ( 26 ). The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to argue that it was acase which falls under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code as in all probability, the appellant,in a fit of rage, might have strangulated his wife. We do not think that theappellant had no intention to kill his wife when he had manually strangulatedhis wife causing an injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinarycourse of nature. We find no merit in this appeal. We confirm the conviction and sentencesof the appellant and dismiss the appeal.