JUDGMENT 1. The appellants between them are father and son. They stand convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murdering the wife of the first appellant, Parabrahma Murthy on 15-3-1990. The Sessions Court convicted both of them and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences. 2. The marriage of the first appellant Parabrabma Murthy with the deceased Nagaratna was on 23-2-1989 which means her death had occurred within 13 months thereof. The gist of the case against the appellants was that they persecuted the deceased for more dowry amount. Her father and brothers tried their best to meet the demand but the greed of the appellants could not be satiated by them. Revengefully they killed her by throttling her. 3. There is no dispute that deceased Nagaratna died of asphyxia. There is no doubt that her death was neither due to ligature strangulation nor due to a hanging. This is very clear from the data supplied by the doctor who conducted the autopsy on her dead body (Ex. P-6 is the Post-Mortem Certificate). The learned counsel for the appellant, however, advanced an argument that death due to hanging cannot completely be ruled out even from the aforesaid data in the post- mortem report. 4. We have noticed from the report that there was no ligature mark on the neck, but small abrasions of varying sizes were observed on the neck. There was a fracture of the hyoid bone. But no other injury was found on the body. From the above facts we have no difficulty in agreeing with the conclusion of the High Court that death of the deceased was due to throttling. 5. The next contention advanced was that even if this was a case of homicide, two persons could not have been found guilty of committing the offence as one of them alone could have done it. We considered that contention in the light of other broad probabilities available in evidence in this case. It was normally not possible to throttle another adult by a single assailant without causing injury to the assailant himself because the resistance of the deceased would be very forceful with her hands unless she was trussed up or her hands held up by someone else, or at least without causing scratch injuries on her own body. It was normally not possible to throttle another adult by a single assailant without causing injury to the assailant himself because the resistance of the deceased would be very forceful with her hands unless she was trussed up or her hands held up by someone else, or at least without causing scratch injuries on her own body. Here, there is no case that the deceaseds hands were tied down before the act of throttling was perpetrated. In such a situation, the very fact that the deceased had injuries only on the neck and not on any other part of the body would lead to the irresistible conclusion that more than one assailant would certainly have been involved in the commission of the murder. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in concurrence with that of the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.