JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by Shri Janeshwar Goel, Sessions Judge, Sirmour district at Nahan. Vide impugned judgment dated 4-6-1996 in Sessions Trial No. 35-N/7 of 1994, the appellant has been held to be guilty under Sections 302 and 304-B of the! Indian Penal Code and has been convicted for life imprisonment as also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence has been inflicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. It has also been ordered that the period during the inquiry as well as trial when the appellant was in custody will be set off against his sentence under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is this conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal who has prayed for his acquittal. 2. The brief facts of the case, out of which the present appeal has arisen, are that Lalita Devi-deceased was married to the appellant on 7-6-1993 at Pipliwala. Lalita Devi while residing in the house of appellant at Devi Nagar (Paonta Sahib) died on 22-3-1994. The prosecution had lodged the case against the appellant as well as his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi but the latter has been acquitted of the charges and as informed during the course of arguments by the learned Additional Advocate General, no appeal had been filed against such acquittal although, the appellant was convicted as detailed hereinabove. On the statement of Smt. Vidya Devi, mother of deceased, made vide Ex. PB, a case was registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Paonta Sahib. Investigation revealed that the marriage between the appellant and deceased was solemnized on 7-6-1993 and the appellant as well as his mother started making demands of dowry from her. First demand of a golden chain was made after 5/6 months of the marriage which was fulfilled by Smt. Vidya Devi, mother of the deceased. Further, illegal demand was made by both, mother and son to the tune of Rs.10, 000/- but the mother of the deceased was not in a position to meet the same which annoyed both of them. Further, illegal demand was made by both, mother and son to the tune of Rs.10, 000/- but the mother of the deceased was not in a position to meet the same which annoyed both of them. Further case of the prosecution was that on the night of 22-3-1994, Smt. Vidya Devi received a message about the death of her daughter-Lalita Devi as such, she along with other persons reached the house of the appellant at Devi Nagar in the morning of 23-3-1994 where she found her daughter lying dead on the floor, which was having injuries on her head and other parts of the body and blood was oozing out from her nostrils as well as mouth. Post-mortem on the person of deceased was performed by Dr. Kastoori Lal Bhagat on 24-3-1994, when it was found that death was due to head injuries. The police after recording the statements of witnesses and collecting other materials, filed the challan under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant as well as his mother in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, as such both the accused were committed to the court of Sessions. The trial court after being satisfied that there exists a prima facie case under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against his mother, Smt, Pushpa Devi (Since acquitted), framed charges against both of them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to sustain charges against the respondents, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses as also placed on record number of documents. The appellant as well as his mother in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while admitting the factum of marriage of the deceased with the appellant on 7-6-1993 as also her having died in their house at Devi Nagar on 22-3-1994, denied other incriminating circumstances put to them. Illegal demands of dowry including of a golden chain as well as Rs.10, 000/- and the deceased having died unnatural death were specifically denied by both of them. Illegal demands of dowry including of a golden chain as well as Rs.10, 000/- and the deceased having died unnatural death were specifically denied by both of them. Smt. Pushpa Devi, mother of the appellant, pointed out that she had gone to Rajpura and then to Anandpur Satsang Ashram, Manimajra on 13-3-1994 and then came back on the evening of 22-3-1994 and in these circumstances she showed her ignorance as to how Smt. Lalita Devi had died. Whereas the appellant pointed out that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and thus was using medicine on that account. According to the appellant when he got up on 22-3-1994 in the morning, he did not find the deceased on the bed, he thought probably she may be in the kitchen, but she was also not there. However, she was found in an unconscious state in front of the bath-room near the stairs. Then the appellant brought her to the bed, but the deceased did not regain consciousness. According to the appellant, he showed her to Dr. Amarjit Singh at Paonta Sahib and then took her to Christian Hospital, Herbatpur, who advised him to take the deceased to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh and while he was taking the deceased to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, she died on the way. According to the appellant, Lalita Devi-deceased might have taken excess dose of medicine of epilepsy resulting in her collapse. The appellant further denied that the deceased had any injuries much less those found on her head or that she died because of said injuries, possible cause of death was stated to be due to over-dose of medicine as aforesaid. The appellant examined four witnesses in defence. 4. Record of the trial court further shows that when the case was fixed for the judgment after conclusion of the arguments, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code for leading further evidence, however; instead of doing so on 20-5-1996, the date fixed for reply and further arguments, written arguments were filed on record on behalf of both the accused before the trial court which were taken on record and despite opportunities having been given, the learned Public Prosecutor did not file any written argument as according to him detailed arguments had been heard on 9-5- 1996. This application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the appellant was dismissed because the witness that was sought to be examined in defence Dr. G. Gamer had after leaving the service of hospital at Christian Hospital, Harbatpur had migrated to United States of America with no intention to return, therefore, in the opinion of the trial Judge, it was not possible to call the said witness without inordinate delay and in any event documents Ex. DB and DC intended to be proved through the said witness G. Garner had already been duly exhibited on the file. On the other hand, ground to call some other expert to give opinion regarding head injuries on the person of the deceased as detailed in post-mortem report of Sin t. Lalita Devi vide Ex. PA, there was already opinion of Dr. Kastoori Lal (PW I) and thus, in these circumstances the permission to examine an expert was declined by the court below. 5. In this case material witnesses are PW-1 Dr. Kastoori Lal Bhagat, who conducted the post-mortem examination along with Dr. Subhash Pandey, PW-3 Vidya Devi mother of the deceased, PW-4 Gian Chand an uncle (Masar) of deceased, PW-5 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta brother of the deceased and PW-15 Subhash Chand maternal uncle of deceased. 6. PW-1, on examination, has found the following injuries:- 1. Bruise on the right thigh, medial aspect sized 2 "x 1". 2. Bruise on the left shoulder joint upwards down 4 "xl 1/2" bluish black in colour. 3. Bruise on the left scalplor region 5"x3" blue black. 4. Clotted blood on both the nostrial and mouth. 5. Swelling of both the thighs bluish black in colour. 7. After receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the cause of death was opined to be injury received on the head of deceased-Lalita Devi. He has denied the defence suggestion that in the case of epileptic fits, injuries found on the person of the deceased can be there, on the other hand he has stated that such injuries would not be of the shape, style, nature and dimension of the one as described by him in the case of deceased Lalita Gupta. In the opinion of this witness in case of epilepsic fit the patient falls involuntarily and further only contusions are sustainable in case a fit by such a patient. In the opinion of this witness in case of epilepsic fit the patient falls involuntarily and further only contusions are sustainable in case a fit by such a patient. He has also denied the suggestion made on behalf of the defence that without external injuries no fracture could occur in any scapular are and similarly he has ruled out the death of Smt. Lalita Devi due to excessive consumption of drugs and medicines. 8. Regarding the demands having been made of gold chain and Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and her having been compelled to ask her mother to do the needful is clearly established from the statements of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 15. So far the demand of gold chain is concerned, it was met with by the mother of the deceased but because of her financial position, she was unable to meet the demand of cash in the sum of Rs.10, 000/-. No doubt, mother of the deceased (PW-3) has admitted that the appellant had come to see the girl i.e. deceased and it was then there that the marriage was performed by Chunni ceremony on 7-6-1993 itself. All these witnesses have in one voice stated that they saw the blood oozing from nose, mouth and ears of the deceased when they reached the house of the appellant on the morning 23-3-1994. PW- 3 has further admitted that the deceased had one attack of epilepsy and medicine was administered to her. Though these prosecution witnesses have stated that the appellant was informed regarding the deceased suffering from epilepsy, although DW-2 Joginder Singh, who had arranged this marriage, has stated that the appellant was not informed in this behalf. Similarly, there is contradiction as to who came to inform PW-3 in the statement as in her statement, it was come that Gian Chand did not come to inform her at Chandigarh, whereas PW-4 Gian Chand has stated that he went to Chandigarh to inform this witness. Gian Chand (PW-4) besides other things, has stated that Lalita Devi disclosed to him during her life time that after 4-5 months of her marriage the appellant demanded a gold chain from PW-3 and the same was given by the said PW. Thereafter demand of Rs.10,000/- was also stated to have been made by Om Kishan-appellant as he was informed when the deceased along with Smt. Pushpa Devi had visited this witness. Thereafter demand of Rs.10,000/- was also stated to have been made by Om Kishan-appellant as he was informed when the deceased along with Smt. Pushpa Devi had visited this witness. To similar effect is the statement of PW-5 Sanjeev Kumar, brother of the deceased which position is corroborated by PW-15 Subhash Chand, maternal uncle of the deceased. So far PW-3 is concerned, there was no suggestion put to this witness regarding either the demand and thereafter demand of Rs.10,000/- having been made from her. Similarly, no suggestion in this behalf was given even to PW- 15m aternal uncle of the deceased and the position remains the same so far Pw-4 Gian Chand is concerned. On the other hand the stand of the appellant, as is evident from the trend of cross-examination of sic as well as his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code together that the defence witnesses examined by him indicate that the deceased was suffering from epileptic fits. As a result of such fits, she was under-going treatment and was taking medicines. According to the appellant this was a case of over- taking of medicine resulting into the deceased going into Coma and having sustained injuries as a consequences thereof. It may be appropriate to reproduce here questions No. 16 to 18 along with their respective answers under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code:- "Q.No.16. Why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against you? Arts. AH the witnesses have close relatives of the deceased, hence they are deposing falsely against us. There is no independent witnesses.1 Q.No.17. Why this case against you? Ans. Due to wrong suspicion, the police has planted this case against us. Q. No. 18 Do you want to say anything else? Ans. I am innocent. Since 13-3-1994 my mother Smt. Pushpa Devi was out of station. On 22-3-1994 when I woke up I do not find my wife on her bed. I thought that she may be in kitchen, but she was not there. 1 found her lying unconsciously before the front of bath room and near the stairs towards roof of the house. I took and put her on the bed She might have consumed excess doze of medicine of epilepsy before convolsive disorder or fit, because she was chronic patient of epleptic fit from child-hood and she was using eptoine and phana barbone treatment of PGI. Dr. I took and put her on the bed She might have consumed excess doze of medicine of epilepsy before convolsive disorder or fit, because she was chronic patient of epleptic fit from child-hood and she was using eptoine and phana barbone treatment of PGI. Dr. Amer Jeet and Dr. Vohra examined the patient and advised to admit her in Christian Hospital, Harbetpur, because it seems that she had consumed excess doze of epileptic medicines which arc very harmful in nature. I took her in Taxi No.HI-17-1535 to Herbetpur Hospital. Referred to PGI for further treatment. We rushed to the PGI, but when we were on the way and reached near Raipur Rani she was no more. We came back. The police has planted this false case against us at the instance of my in-laws. I did the second marriage with intention to look after my son, who was born from my first wife. 9. On behalf of the appellant, DW-1 is Amarjit Singh, who had first of all examined the deceased on 22-3-1994 at 9-30 A.M. and according to him there was no injury on any part of the body of the deceased as also there was no bleeding from her nose. It may be appropriate to point out that this witness was examined by the police but was given up. DW-2 is Joginder Singh, who had arranged the marriage between the appellant and the deceased and according to this witness the marriage between the parties was solemnized by Chunni ceremony at Pipliwala and the fact of the deceased suffering from Epilepsy was not disclosed at the time of marriage, but after 15 days mother of the appellant informed him in this behalf. Sharwan Kumar is the brother of the first wife of the appellant. His statement does not improve the case of the appellant in any improve the case of the appellant in any manner, whereas Sheema Devi (DW-4) is resident of Manimajra, who has tried to show that the other co-accused i.e. Pushpa Devi (since acquitted) was staying at Shri Anandpur Satsang Ashram, Manimajra between 19-3-1994 to 22-3-1994 on which date she left at about 10 or 11-00 A.M. The statement of this witness is also not material as Smt. Pushpa Devi has since been acquitted and the State has not filed any appeal against her acquittal. This is the entire material evidence in the light of which the case of the parties has to be examined. 10. Shri Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and in such cases motive plays an important part and unless all the links are complete, the benefit must be given to the appellant. Further, it was urged that conduct of the appellant is such which leads towards his innocence and as such the appeal deserves to be allowed. In this behalf, it was also urged that before her death the deceased had been examined by different doctors i.e. DW-1 Dr. Amarjeet Singh and Dr. G. Garner at Herbatpur hospital. As such, if the death was intended to be caused by the appellant then instead of taking the deceased to the doctors, the appellant could easily do away with the life of his wife by finishing her, instead of acting as her saviour. According to Shri Chandel, deceased, was suffering from epilepsy and the death being the out- come of her having over-drugged herself and then sustained injuries under a fit. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that nothing was found to suggest the commission of the offence by the appellant. Statements of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 15 were attacked being interested witnesses and their statements are nothing but purely imaginary and the opinion of the doctor was also tried tot be shaken by referring to the statement of PW-1. In the end an argument in the alternative was urged by Shri Chandel that in case his submissions are not accepted then from the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in any case there is no legal evidence to make-out a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, according to Shri Chandel for the aforesaid reasons, his client is entitled to acquittal. 11. On the other hand, Shri Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that in the given situation it is the relations and none else who would come forth to establish the case. Besides this, these witnesses have of the marriage of the appellant with deceased and about a month thereafter a demand of dowry of a cash of Rs.10,000/-. 11. On the other hand, Shri Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that in the given situation it is the relations and none else who would come forth to establish the case. Besides this, these witnesses have of the marriage of the appellant with deceased and about a month thereafter a demand of dowry of a cash of Rs.10,000/-. In these circumstances Shri Pathik has urged that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the courts below and no fault can be found therewith. 12. It was further urged that in the instant case motive is writ large i.e. demand of dowry in the first instance of a chain and thereafter Rs.10,000/- in cash. Because the deceased and her mother being unable to meet this demand, the former was done to death, that too within less than a year of her marriage which had taken place on 7th June, 1993. With the aid of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it was pointed out that in the present case not only the presumption is there regarding the fact that the deceased had been subjetc by the appellant to cruelty as well as harassment in connection with demand of dowry but even from oral evidence it stands clearly established beyond any shadow of doubt that the demands were being made and ultimately unable to bear the pressure of such demands and harassments at the hands of the appellant, Smt. Lalita-deceased was done to death by the appellant. It was also pointed out by Shri Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General, that theory of over drugging/over medication by the deceased of medicines which, according to the appellant, she was taking is purely and an after-thought and falls to the ground, in this behalf it was further urged that when explanation is false, as in the present case, then this is an additional circumstance against the appellant. In these circumstances it was forcefully argued by the learned Additional Advocate General to dismiss the present appeal. 13. With reference to the commencement of investigation, it was urged by Shri Chandel that Ex. PE cannot be taken into account for the purpose of registration of F.I.R. vide Ex. PB/1 as the police was already aware regarding the death of Lalita-deceased and thus, Ex. PB is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 13. With reference to the commencement of investigation, it was urged by Shri Chandel that Ex. PE cannot be taken into account for the purpose of registration of F.I.R. vide Ex. PB/1 as the police was already aware regarding the death of Lalita-deceased and thus, Ex. PB is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reference was made to AIR 1988 Criminal Law Journal 1835, Dulal Chandra Ghosh & Ors. v. The Slate and AIR 1964 Supreme Court 221, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi. In this context it may be appropriate to mention that the purpose of recording statement is to put the police machinery into action as also to provide necessary information regarding the nature of offence and suspected accused, if are known. As such even if Ex. PB is excluded that would not make much difference in the background of the present case. Accordingly, this submission of Shri Chandel does not advance the case of the appellant in any manner whatsoever. 14. So far the circumstances of this case are concerned, when statements of PW-3 Vidya Devi, PW-4 Gian Chand, PW-5 Sanjeev Kumar and PW-15 Subhash Chand are read together, they not only complete the chain of circumstances but also inspire confidence. In fact, the defence put forth by the appellant is not only excluded but it also stands completely shattered from the statement of PW-1 Dr. Kastoori Lal Bhagat. He has categorically given the^ details of the injuries as well as opinion regarding the cause of death. In this context conduct as well as behaviour of the appellant was most suspicious and unnatural. He has not said a word as to how the injuries were sustained by the deceased, particularly when he admits that the deceased was residing with him though he has tried to give explanation that when he checked her on the morning of 22nd March, 1993, she was not found on the bed and thereafter when he tried to locate her in the house, she was seen lying unconscious near the stairs. He has stated anything regarding the fact as to whether she was in an injured state appellant from the fact that he gotthe deceased examined from different doctors at different places, after he had found Lalita in an unconscious state. He has stated anything regarding the fact as to whether she was in an injured state appellant from the fact that he gotthe deceased examined from different doctors at different places, after he had found Lalita in an unconscious state. It may further be appropriate to mention in this context that the cause of death which has been suggested by the appellant is not made out ut all and in case it is so made out, then in that event possibility of the deceased having sustained injuries found on her person and narrated in Ex. PA has been completely ruled out In this behalf statement of PW-1 Dr. Amarjeet Singh is of no significance and thus, no benefit can be taken by the prosecution from such a statement. 15. Besides this, under Section 113-B burden was upon the appellant to show that it was not dowry death but suicide and that too due to over-dose of medicine, which burden the appellant has failed to discharge, this is in addition to the fact that the prosecution has otherwise proved all the circumstances leading to the death of Lalita, wife of the appellant and the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court. In this context, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case not only all the links in the chain have been completed, but complete chain is of such a nature which further rules out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the appellant. Besides this circumstances of the present case point out to the appellant being guilty of the offences for which he was charged, with reasonable defitness and approximately to the deceased, particularly regarding time and situation and the explanation offered by him is not only after-thought but in the facts and circumstances is false. Besides this, even if the explanation is accepted though not proved by the cogent and reliable evidence, yet it affords a reasonable basis for concluding that on the entire case consistent with his innocence, a false explanation is an additional link which completes the chain against the appellant to establish his guilt. In this view of the matter, case of the prosecution stands established beyond any shadow of doubt. 16. In this view of the matter, case of the prosecution stands established beyond any shadow of doubt. 16. Similar is the statement of PW-1 though assailed on numerous grounds on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel, but when a reference is made to such a statement, the same is unassailable. A feeble attempt was made by referring to the provisions of Evidence Act that post-mortem report Ex. PA does not say if the injuries were enough to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature and at the same time it does not say that whether the death was homicidal or otherwise. In these circumstances, according to Shri Chandel, this statement deserves to be ignored. PW-1 has given definite opinion regarding the nature of injuries and the cause of death and has further ruled out sustaining of said injuries on account of fall of an epileptic patient as put forth by the appellant and consequently suffering of those injuries. In the face of this position, this ground raised on behalf of the appellant is hereby rejected. 17. Now coming to the alternative plea set-up on behalf of the appellant that this is not a case under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his this submission, Shri Chandel has referred to AIR 1979 Criminal Law Journal 1434, Md. Isak Md. & Ors. v. Stale of Maharashtra and has pointed out that this is a case which falls within Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Reference is also made to 3 other cases i.e. AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1151, Gurdip Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab; 1596 Criminal Law Journal 3634, Pichapillai, Appellant v. The State, Respondent and 1977 Shimla Law Cases 135, Kishori Singh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. So far reference to these cases is concerned, suffice it to say that they have no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case only advance the case of the appellant when facts exist on the file which is not the situation in the present case. It may be reiterated here that the prosecution evidence leaves no room for doubt as well as it establishes that it is the appellant and none else who is responsible for the death of Lalita in the given facts and circumstances of the case 18. It may be reiterated here that the prosecution evidence leaves no room for doubt as well as it establishes that it is the appellant and none else who is responsible for the death of Lalita in the given facts and circumstances of the case 18. From whatever angle the case of the appellant may be examined, it is clear that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.