JUDGMENT 1. The accused appellant Smt. Huki and one Soma were charged for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC or Sec. 302/34 IPC to the effect that on 29.5.89 in the night in Padla Handliyan, they killed Dungar (husband of accused appellant Mst. Huki) by strangulation. On their pleading not guilty, the prosecution during the trial before the learned Distt. and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, examined eight witnesses. They are PW 1 Punja, PW 2 Dungar, PW 3 Kanji, PW 4 Mangla, PW 5 Kachru, PW 6 Moti, PW 7 Dr. Mustaq Ali and PW 8 Rajendra Singh. The accused appellant and her said co-accused in their statements have denied the prosecution evidence and stated themselves to be innocent. The appellant in her statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C stated that during the night, she and her husband (deceased) were sleeping in the house and her two child (minor) daughters were also sleeping there; that all of a sudden, the deceased became indisposed and stopped speaking; that he fell down on a cot with his head and neck coming in between the strings of the cot and that she became panicky and woke up her daughters to call the father of the deceased. 2. No witness has been examined in her defence. 3. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 31.1.91 acquitted Soma but convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. fifty. Against this conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides. 5. A perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that none of the prosecution witnesses has seen the incident. There is no direct evidence on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime of murdering or killing the deceased. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence only. 6. Admittedly, the appellant is the wife of the deceased. 7. PW 3 Kanji, PW 5 Kachru and PW 6 Moti are the brother, father and the minor daughter of the deceased respectively. From their evidence, it is quite clear that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased were strained on account of one Soma. It seems that Soma used to visit the appellant and that was not liked by the deceased (husband of appellant). From their evidence, it is quite clear that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased were strained on account of one Soma. It seems that Soma used to visit the appellant and that was not liked by the deceased (husband of appellant). This seems to be the caused of strained relationship between the husband (deceased) and wife (appellant). The next circumstance that has come on record is that the deceased Dungar has met a homicidal death. He was throttled to death. The medical evidence of PW 7 Dr. Mustaq Ali, who conducted the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased, clearly shows that the caused of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and there were ligature marks on the neck of the deceased. The evidence of PW 7 is reliable and trustworthy. He has stated in definite terms that it is wrong tar suggest that the death took place due to epilepsy or the head and neck of the deceased coming in between the strings of the cot because in both the cases, there cannot be ligature marks on the neck of the deceased and the presence of ligature marks on the neck of the deceased goes to negate both the suggestions. 8. Another circumstance which has been proved against the appellant is that she was the only adult person with the deceased in the night during which the latter made the homicidal death. From the evidence of PW 2 and PW 6, it is evident that the deceased, his wife (the appellant) and their two minor daughters lived in the house, where the death took place and out of two minor daughters, elder one was PW 6, aged 7-8 years and other was even younger to her. Evidently, the minor daughters cannot cause the death by throttling or strangulation, which is possible only by an adult person. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and Soma were with the deceased during the fateful night cannot be accepted because Soma has already been acquitted by the trial court on the ground that his presence at the time of death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and no appeal has been filed against the acquittal as per what has been stated at bar by the learned Public Prosecutor. None of the prosecution witnesses has testified that Soma was also there, when the deceased met the death. 9. The statement of the appellant under S. 313 Cr.P.C also clearly shows that she was the only adult person, present with the deceased when he met the death. Thus, it is fully established that the appellant was the only adult person, who was with the deceased during the night when he met the homicidal death. 10. In the case Ganesh Lal v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1993 Cr.LR (SC) 311 , the accused and his family members were present in the house at the time when the deceased met the death by burning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that the accused was under obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death, concluded that in the absence of a plausible explanation, the inmates alone committed the crime and the accused was one among them and convicted him for the offence under S. 302/34 IPC. 11. In the case in hand, therefore, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death as she was the only adult person with the deceased when he met the homicidal death by strangulation. She has stated that the deceased all of a sudden became indisposed and speechless and fell on the cot with the head and neck coming in between the strings of the cot. Her explanation for the cause of death has been set at caught by the medical evidence of PW 7, who has specifically stated that it Is wrong to suggest that the death was caused by epilepsy or by the neck of the deceased coming in between the strings of the cot. According to PW 7, the cause of death was strangulation. Thus, the explanation offered by the appellant is false and unacceptable. 12. The circumstantial evidence thus discussed is complete and consistent with the only conclusion that the appellant alone committed the crime of murdering the deceased by strangulation. 13. In the case of Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of Maharashtra reported, In AIR 1982 SC 1217 , the accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. Relationship of the former with the latter was not happy at the time of wife's death. There was no other person except the accused. 13. In the case of Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of Maharashtra reported, In AIR 1982 SC 1217 , the accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. Relationship of the former with the latter was not happy at the time of wife's death. There was no other person except the accused. The doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that in all human probability, it was the accused husband and none else who murdered his wife by strangulating her to death. This Supreme Court case is application in four corners to the case in hand. Here too, the relation of the appellant with her husband (deceased) was not happy at the time of death of the deceased. The appellant has been proved to be the only adult person with the deceased. The doctor PW 7 has opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The explanation for the cause of death offered by the appellant is false. In these circumstances, it is clearly indicated that it was the appellant alone, who in all human probability has done away with the deceased husband. 14. We therefore, find that the accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. 15. The result is that the appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. *******