J. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21-11-80 passed by the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 134/80 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THIS case relates to the murder of Smt. Sureshan wife of appellant, who is alleged to have been strangulated in the night of 5-1-80 in her nuptial home situated in village Unchebara within the circle of police station Husainganj, district Fatehpur. Undisputedly the appellant was married to Smt. Sureshan about three years before her death. She was daughter of Dhunni, a resident of Mirzapur Bhitari. Harish Chandra P. W. 2 is admittedly younger brother of deceased while Babu Lal P. W. 1 is appellants father. The motive behind the murder is said to be non-fulfilment of dowry demand and also relations of the spouse being not cordial. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case, in brief, is that two days prior to the occurrence, Dhunni and Harish Chandra P. W. 2 had gone to appellants house for the vida of Smt. Sureshan but when the appellant and his parents refused to send her, Dhunni went back leaving behind P. W. 2 Harish Chandra with his sister. Smt. Sureshan. It is alleged that in the night of incident appellant and his wife Smt. Sureshan alone were present inside the eastern kothari of appellants house while his parents and Harish Chandra P. W. 2 were lying on cots outside in the Chaupal. The said kothari (Small room) is shown by letter a while the Chaupal by letter b in the site plan. Ex. Ka. 9 prepared by the Investigating Officer. At about 10 p. m. P. W. 2 Harish Chandra heard some noise coming from theabovesaid kothari and noticed that the same was on account of appellant abusing his wife and soon after he heard cries of Smt. Sureshan which attracted at the scene of occurrence some villagers also. Appellant came out of the kothari and closed the door from outside and went to Shiv Narain Vaidya quietly without telling as to what had happened inside the kothari between him and his wife. Appellant came out of the kothari and closed the door from outside and went to Shiv Narain Vaidya quietly without telling as to what had happened inside the kothari between him and his wife. Within a short time he came back with some medicine and tried to administer the same to Smt. Sureshan but she could not intake the medicine as she was already dead. One Ram Swaroop on coming to know of the sudden demise of Sureshan informed the police of P. S. Husainganj on the next day at 12. 05 p. m. which was recorded in General Diary at Serial No. 9 whose copy has been proved at Ex. Ka. 2. Sub-Inspector Devi Dayal P. W. 7 was the Station Officer at police station Husainganj. In his presence the aforesaid information regarding death of Smt. Sureshan was given by Ram Swaroop. He recorded the statement of Ram Swaroop and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He found the dead body of Smt. Sureshan lying in front of the appellants house. He appointed panchas and conducted inquest proceedings. Since some injuries were noticed on the dead body, it was decided to send the same for post-mortem examination for finding out the cause of death. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses Harish Chandra, Babu Lal and others and prepared site plan Ex. Ka. 9. Appellant Hari Lal was not found at his residence. After the receipt of result of post-mortem examination, case was registered under Section 304, I. P. C. Appellant Hari Lal was arrested on 11-1-80 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet Ex. Ka. 10 was submitted on 28-10-80. ( 4 ) AUTOPSY on the dead body of Smt. Sureshan was conducted on 7-1-80 at 2 p. m. by Dr. J. S. Rai P. W. 3. The deceased was of average built. Rigor mortis had passed off from the upper extremities but was present in lower extremities. The face was found swollen, lips and nails had turned blue. Blood with froth was coming out of the mouth and nostrils. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed :1. Abraded contusion 51/2" x 21/2 on front and side of neck below chin, transverse. 2. Abraded contusion 1/2" x 1/2" on back of right elbow joint. 3. Multiple abrasions over face varying 1/4" to 1/3" 1/5" to 1/4". 4. Abrasion 1" x 3/4" upper, outer, right thigh. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed :1. Abraded contusion 51/2" x 21/2 on front and side of neck below chin, transverse. 2. Abraded contusion 1/2" x 1/2" on back of right elbow joint. 3. Multiple abrasions over face varying 1/4" to 1/3" 1/5" to 1/4". 4. Abrasion 1" x 3/4" upper, outer, right thigh. ( 5 ) ABRADED contusion 1-1/4" x 1/2" on right side abdomen, 5" above right iliac. 5. On opening of the dead body, the internal examination revealed that brain was congested. Trachea was found congested and frothy blood was found present. Hyoid bone and the rings of trachea were found fractured. Both the lungs were congested. Right chamber of heart was found full whereas left chamber was empty. Stomach contained 5 ounces of semi-digested food. Large intestine contained faecal matter and gases. Spleen and kidney were also found congested. Uterus was empty. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of Dr. Rai death of Smt. Sureshan was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Post-mortem Report is Ex. Ka. 1. ( 7 ) AT the trial prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all, of whom P. W. 1 Babu Lal, P. W. 2 Harish Chandra, P. W. 5 Devi Dayal were witnesses of fact P. W. 3 was Dr. J. S. Rai who had conducted autopsy. P. W. 4 Ram Swarup was the person who had given information at the police station of the death of Smt. Sureshan in mysterious circumstances. P. W. 6 Suresh Chandra Dubey was posted as Constable Clerk at police station Husainganj, he proved relevant entries of the General Diary. P. W. 7 Sub-Inspector Devi Dayal was the investigating officer and P. W. 8 was Homeguard Moti Lal who had carried the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. ( 8 ) IN his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellant has admitted that deceased was his wife and his marriage had been duly performed about three years prior to occurrence in question. He has further admitted that Dhunni is his father-in-law while Harish Chandra is younger brother of his deceased wife. He has however, denied other allegations of the prosecution and stated that he had gone to his sisters place in village Khusropur about three days before the incident in question and came back to his house only after getting information of the death of his wife. He has however, denied other allegations of the prosecution and stated that he had gone to his sisters place in village Khusropur about three days before the incident in question and came back to his house only after getting information of the death of his wife. He also stated that after his arrival, his father-in-law Dhunni alsoarrived and Dhunni then went to police station and brought Darogaji who arrested him and foisted this case against him. The appellant produced two witnesses in defence. They are D. W. 1 Hori Lal and D. W. 2 Mohan Lal. They stated that the appellant was at his sisters place in village Khusropur when message of death of his wife was received there. ( 9 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, critically examined the evidence on record and after making an elaborate discussion thereon has found appellant guilty for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Sureshan and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. ( 10 ) WE have heard Sri K. K. Kapoor learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Sudhir Melhotra A. G. A. appearing for the State. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted before us that since P. W. 1 Babu Lal and P. W. 5 Devi Dayal had turned hostile the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of a single witness P. W. 2 Harish Chandra is not sustainable, whose presence at the time of occurrence itself is highly doubtful. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the house where Smt. Sureshan was alleged to have been strangulated, was inhabitated by other members also, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have proved it affirmatively without any shadow of doubt that the murder was committed by the appellant alone and nobody else. On the other hand learned A. G. A. submitted that it has been proved beyond doubt from the evidence on record that on the fateful night appellant alone was present with the deceased inside the room (kothari) and his post crime conduct also unequivocally leads to the inference that murder was committed by appellant alone and none else. ( 12 ) THE present is a case of murder of wife by her husband. ( 12 ) THE present is a case of murder of wife by her husband. The medical evidence on record leaves no room for doubt in our mind that Smt. Sureshan had died a homicidal death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Dr. J. S. Rai, P. W. 3 who had conducted autopsy, in his statement before the Court has categorically stated that injury No. 1 was the result of strangulation. This opinion of Dr. Rai is fully fortified from the condition of internal organs noticed in internal examination. Brain was found slightly congested. Larynx, trachea and bronchi were found congested and frothy blood was found present. Hyoid bone and rings of trachea were fractured. Blood with froth was also found coming from nose and mouth. Face was swollen. Lips and nails had turned blue. Both the lungs were found congested. Besides the said fatal injury on the neck, abraded contusions were also found on back of right elbow. Multiple abrasions all over face of varying size were also noticed. Dr. Rai expressed a clear and unshaken opinion that injury No. 3 could be the result of struggle made by the deceased at the time of strangulation, similarly, injuries Nos. 2, 4 and 5 could be caused due to friction while deceased was being strangulated. The ante-mortem injuries coupled with physical condition of the internal organs clearly go to show that the deceased had died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Dr. Rai was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel and all sorts of hypothetical alternatives were suggested to him but Dr. Rai denied all of them authoritatively. It was suggested that deceased could have committed suicide by tying a rope around her neck but Dr. Rai ruled out that possibility and in our opinion rightly so. Dr. Rai further negatived the suggestion that injury No. 1 could be caused by a fall from a ladder. It was also suggested that the deceased might have strangulated herself. But these suggestions were also categorically denied by Dr. Rai. He further answered in negative that it was not possible for the deceased to have pressed her neck herself. The suggestion of suicide seems to be more a matter of imagination than even a remote possibility warranted or could reasonably be inferred on the basis of medical evidence, rather it is completely ruled out in the present case. Rai. He further answered in negative that it was not possible for the deceased to have pressed her neck herself. The suggestion of suicide seems to be more a matter of imagination than even a remote possibility warranted or could reasonably be inferred on the basis of medical evidence, rather it is completely ruled out in the present case. We have ourselves minutely examined the post-mortem report and the statement of Dr. Rai and we agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that Smt. Sureshan died a homicidal death on account of strangulation. ( 13 ) IT has to be seen now, whether the appellant could be held guilty for committing murder of his wife Smt. Sureshan. ( 14 ) AS far as, motive is concerned, the prosecution came with the case that at the time of marriage father of Sureshan hadpromised to give a bicycle to the appellant but he did not fulfil that promise and the relations between the appellant and the deceased were not cordial and further that when two days before the incident father of the deceased and P. W. 2 Harish Chandra had come to appellants house for Vida of the deceased, she was not sent. P. W. 2 Harish Chandra has testified these facts in his statement recorded at the trial. He further stated that after the marriage the deceased remained at her nuptial home through out and was not allowed to visit her parents even for a day. After 15 days of the marriage of his sister he along with his father had come to appellants house for the Vida of his sister and had stayed for about two days but his sister was not sent. It has also come in his evidence that two days before the incident he along with his father had come to appellants house for the Vida of his sister but again this time also appellant and his parents refused to Vida Smt. Sureshan. While his father returned, he himself stayed back at appellants house. It has also come in his evidence that two days before the incident he along with his father had come to appellants house for the Vida of his sister but again this time also appellant and his parents refused to Vida Smt. Sureshan. While his father returned, he himself stayed back at appellants house. It is pertinent to point out here that P. W. 1 Babu Lal appellants father in his deposition has himself admitted in clear words that at the time of marriage of his son, Dhunni, father of deceased, had promised to give a bicycle to Hari Lal but the same was not given up to the time of death of Smt. Sureshan. ( 15 ) FROM the evidence on record it is thus fully borne out that there was some cause of annoyance to appellant Hari Lal and his parents on account of non-fulfilment of the promise made by Dhunni father of Smt. Sureshan at the time of appellants marriage and perhaps for that reason Smt. Sureshan was not being permitted to go to her paternal home. The circumstances further indicate that there were strained relations and serious differences between deceased Sureshan and appellant Hari Lal and they were not prolonging warm, friendly and cordial relations between them. ( 16 ) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that mere fact that appellant did not get a bicycle despite a promise made by his father-in-law at the time of marriage would not afford a strong and sufficient motive to appellant for committing murder of his own wife. According to him the motive alleged in this case is too meagre and insufficient which could be hardly relevant to connect the appellant with the offence in question. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal to us and we are not at all convinced by this argument because different persons react differently under given circumstances and it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to how and in what manner a person would react and to achieve his motive could go to what extent in the commission of crime under particular circumstances. It is not easy and practicable to measure up the extent of his feelings, sentiments and desire, particularly in cases of offences between husband and wife. It is not easy and practicable to measure up the extent of his feelings, sentiments and desire, particularly in cases of offences between husband and wife. There may be persons who under frustration and on mere trifling domestic matters, commit murder of their wife in contrast to others who may approach it with cool and calm mind and think more dispassionately before taking any hazardous and serious steps. It all depends on ones own reaction in a given circumstance and it is he alone who best knows his intention and motive to commit a crime and the extent thereof. Therefore, though motive is a relevant factor in every criminal case but the prosecution will not necessarily fail on account of its inability to prove a strong motive in general and in cases of offences between husband and wife in particular. How far prosecution evidence will be affected on that count in a given case is a question depending on facts of that particular case and no strait-jacket formula can be framed in this regard. While assessing evidence in a case of murder by husband of his own wife it should not be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to bring on record what was lurking in the mind of the husband at that particular moment when crime was committed. Even if the investigating officer succeeds in knowing it through interrogation of the accused that cannot be put as admissible evidence due to the ban imposed by law. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assessin is quite often not within the reach of others. It may not even be known to the victim of the crime as to why he/she has been assaulted by the accused and the same may be known only to the perpetrator of the crime and none else. A crime can take place even without premeditation or pre-planning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of moment. In cases of murder of wife by her husband, the task for the prosecution becomesall the more difficult to pronounce on the question as to what exactly triggered or sparked off the incident resulting in the death of the deceased. In cases of murder of wife by her husband, the task for the prosecution becomesall the more difficult to pronounce on the question as to what exactly triggered or sparked off the incident resulting in the death of the deceased. Where murder of wife is committed in a closed room, the reason why the deceased was assaulted would be known either to the deceased or her husband. In such cases the prosecution case cannot be thrown over board only for the reason of its failure to bring on record as to what motive the husband was exactly having to commit the murder of his wife. In such kind of cases it is almost an impossible task for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of the husband towards his wife as to what necessity arose to eliminate her. In the present case, however we find that the prosecution has succeeded in showing that there was some ire for the appellant towards the victim, his wife, and the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire or annoyance had swelled up in the mind of the appellant to such a degree as to impel him to strangulate his wife will be of no consequence and cannot be considered fatal to prosecution. At any rate it cannot be said that the present is a case of complete dearth of motive. ( 17 ) BEFORE launching discussion on the prosecution evidence and other circumstances appearing in the case, we feel it necessary to have in our view the topography of appellants house. The exit door of appellants house is in east. This door opens on inner-side in Chaupal shown by letter b in the site plan. This Chaupal opens in south in a Barauntha and abutting to it is courtyard in south. To the east of this courtyard, there is a kothari (small room) and the same is shown by letter a in the site plan. This room has only one opening in the courtyard and is closed on all other sides. In this room appellant and his wife Sureshan were said to be present all alone on the night of occurrence and deceased was strangulated in this very room. This room has only one opening in the courtyard and is closed on all other sides. In this room appellant and his wife Sureshan were said to be present all alone on the night of occurrence and deceased was strangulated in this very room. ( 18 ) IN order to connect the appellant with the offence of murder of his wife prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two witnesses namely, P. W. 1 Babu Lal and P. W. 2 Harish Chandra and some glaring and clinching circumstances of conclusive nature including false plea of alibi pleaded by appellant before the trial Court and his post crime conduct. ( 19 ) WE would first deal with the evidence of witnesses of fact. P. W. 1 Babu Lal is father of appellant Hari Lal. He admitted that Smt. Sureshan was his daughter-in-law i. e. appellants wife and she had died in his house on the night of sakath festival. In the examination-in-chief this witness stated that Smt. Sureshan had died a natural death and she was not murdered. He denied that Hari Lal appellant had caused the death of Smt. Sureshan by strangulating her neck. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by State counsel, wherein this witness gave a new twist to his earlier statement of deceased dying a natural death by inventing an imaginary story that Smt. Sureshan was white washing with the use of a ladder and she fell down due to breakage of one step of the ladder as a result of which ladder fell on her neck and she developed double pneumonia. He further stated that his son Hari Lal and his mother Sahdei then went to bring medicine from Shiv Narain Vaidya and when the medicine was administered by appellant the same could not be swallowed by Smt. Sureshan and she died in the morning at about 4 a. m. He also stated that the condition of Smt. Sureshan had started deteriorating from 10 p. m. Being father of appellant he tried to save and protect his son on every count by inventing imaginary stories regarding cause of death of the deceased but could not stop the truth coming out from his mouth as he admitted that on the fateful night, only appellant Hari Lal and Smt. Sureshan were lying in the innermost kothari of his house while he and his wife were lying in chaupal. He also could not digest the truth in stating that while they were about to take the dead body of Smt. Sureshan for cremation, Dhunni along with police arrived there and the police took the dead body of Smt. Sureshan in its custody. ( 20 ) P. W. 2 Harish Chandra is younger brother of the deceased. Besides stating about the strained relations of the appellant with his wife, he categorically stated that along with his father he had come to appellants house two days prior to the incident for the Vida of his sister and when she was not permitted to leave, his father went back while he himself stayed with his sister. He also stated that on the night of occurrence his sister Sureshan and his brother-in-law, appellant, were lying inside the easternkothari of the house while he along with parents of Hari Lal appellant were lying in the Chaupal. At about 10 p. m. he noticed that appellant Hari Lal was hurling abuses in his kothari and his sister Smt. Sureshan was crying, whereupon he along with parents of appellant and some neighbours went inside the house. Accused-appellant was asked if he would kill his wife but the appellant did not open his lips and quietly left the place after closing the door of kothari and went to Shiv Narain Vaidya, and came back with some medicine which he tried to administer to Smt. Sureshan but did not succeed. The witness further stated that he had noticed some injuries on the person of his sister. The witness further stated that he had noticed some injuries on the person of his sister. It has also been stated by him that appellant Hari Lal and his parents wanted to cremate Smt. Sureshan hurriedly but they were not permitted to do so by Indrapal Devi Dayal and others. He then left for his own village for giving information to his father of this incident. The witness was put to a grueling and lengthy cross-examination but nothing material could come out to shake his testimony and he firmly stood to that test. We could find no sufficient reason to discard his evidence so far as it goes. ( 21 ) THUS, from the evidence on record the following established facts have emerged. The witness was put to a grueling and lengthy cross-examination but nothing material could come out to shake his testimony and he firmly stood to that test. We could find no sufficient reason to discard his evidence so far as it goes. ( 21 ) THUS, from the evidence on record the following established facts have emerged. (i) that appellant was married to Smt. Sureshan about three years before the incident in question; (ii) that at the time of marriage Dhunni, father of deceased, had promised to give a bicycle to the appellant which promise he did not fulfil up to the date of occurrence; (iii) that the deceased, since the date of her marriage had not been permitted to visit her parents even once and was being subjected to ill treatment and the relations of the spouse were not cordial and warm; (iv) that on the fateful night appellant alone was present along with deceased inside the innermost kothari of his house while other members of his family and P. W. 2 Harish Chandra were lying outside the courtyard in Chaupal; (v) that on the same night at about 10 p. m. some quarrel ensued between appellant and the deceased inside the above said kothari and appellant started hurling abuses on her and then shrill sounds of the deceased Sureshan were heard; (vi) that soon after appellant came out of the kothari and when questioned about the quarrel, he whisked away quietly without answering the question; (vii) that after a short while appellant re-appeared at the scene of occurrence bringing some medicine with him which he tried to administer to the deceased but did not succeed as perhaps by that time Smt. Sureshan had either gone in coma or was already dead; (viii) that medical evidence fully proved that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the possibility of her committing suicide or of her dying an accidental death are completely ruled out; (ix) that appellant and his parents tried to carry the dead body for cremation hurriedly even without waiting for the arrival of the deceaseds father but were not allowed by the villagers to do so and Ram Swarup P. W. 4 informed the police; and (x) that the appellant slipped away and was not present at his house when investigating officer arrived at the scene of occurrence on getting information from Ram Swarup regarding death of Smt. Sureshan; ( 22 ) THE cumulative effect of above established facts will unerringly lead to the inference that the deceased was strangulated by appellant alone and nobody else. ( 23 ) WHEN appellant was examined by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant who, instead of explaining the above incriminating circumstances took a false plea of alibi that he was not present in the house on the night of homicidal death of the deceased and was away at his sisters place in another village. In support of this plea of alibi, he produced two witnesses in defence, namely, Horilal D. W. 1 and Mohan Lal D. W. 2. Hori Lal stated that sister of Hari Lal appellant was married to Ganga Sagar of his village and about nine months ago appellant had come to his sisters place where he received information regarding death of his wife. He was there at his sisters place since three days. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was related to Hari Lal appellant. Ganga Sagar is his first cousin. He further admitted that appellant Hari Lal is son of his brother-in-law. D. W. 2 Mohan Lal is also a resident of Khusropur where appellants sister was married. He also made a similar statement as was given by Horilal D. W. 1. In cross-examination this witness also admitted that Ganga Sagar was closely related to him. The evidence of these defence witnesses is of negative character and we are not at all impressed and convinced with their testimony and it appeared to us that with a view to save the appellant they have deposed his favour due to their close relationship with him. Had it been a fact that appellant was not present in his house on the fateful night and had gone to his sisters place in Khusropur village, there was no reason for Babu Lal P. W. 1 to have admitted the presence of his son Harilal inside the Kothari with the deceased Sureshan on the fateful night. It may be pertinent to point out here that P. W. 1 Babu Lal not only admitted the presence of appellant along with the deceased in the kothari but he further stated that appellant had brought medicine from a Vaidya and tried to administer the same to the deceased. If appellant was not present as claimed by him, Babu Lal P. W. 1 would have been the last person to have deposed of the presence of appellant on the fateful night, he being his father. If appellant was not present as claimed by him, Babu Lal P. W. 1 would have been the last person to have deposed of the presence of appellant on the fateful night, he being his father. It is also noteworthy that it was not even suggested to P. W. 1 Babu Lal that on the relevant night appellant was not present in his house as he was away at his sisters place in another village. We, therefore, find that the plea of alibi pleaded by appellant for the first time in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is totally false and was put forward ruthlessly before the trial Court. ( 24 ) WE have already found above that it is fully established beyond any reasonable doubt that on the fateful night only appellant and deceased were present inside the kothari and when the appellant had left the kothari after some dispute with his wife Smt. Sureshan she was not seen alive. This important and glaring incriminating circumstance could only be explained by the appellant and by nobody else being personally and exclusively within his knowledge. Instead of giving any explanation of this incriminating circumstance the appellant took a somersault by offering an altogether false explanation of plea of alibi. ( 25 ) OF late, the Apex Court has laid much emphasis in a number of decisions that false explanation and answers of accused given under Section 313, Cr. P. C. offers an additional and missing link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. This principle was expressed in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 2000 SCC (Crl) 263, Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 5 SCC 7 and Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 : ( AIR 2000 SC 1608 ). ( 26 ) IN another recent decision in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana, (2000) 6 JT (SC) 465 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2138 ) in paragraph 7 it has been observed, "where accused on being asked, offers no explanation or the explanation offered is found to be false, then that itself forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt. " ( 27 ) BEARING in mind the aforesaid principle and on examining the evidence of witnesses and considering various circumstances appearing in the case so also the false defence plea of alibi and post crime conduct of the appellant, no room for doubt is left in our mind that within all human probability the deceased was strangulated to death by the appellant himself and nobody else. The appellant, therefore, in that event can safely be held guilty of committing the murder of his wife as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 28 ) LASTLY it was submitted by the appellants counsel that since the appellant was a child within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of the U. P. Children Act, he should have been dealt with under the provisions of the said Act instead of being sentenced to life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. which was recorded on 17-10-80 stated his age as 16 years. Therefore, on the date of incident which occurred in the night between 5/01/1980 the appellant was below 16 years of age. It appears that no such plea was raised before the trial Court. In any view of the matter, it may be pertinent to point out that when the appellant disclosed his age as 16 years in the trial Court, the learned trial Judge made an observation, "the accused appears to be aged about 16/18 years old. " ( 29 ) IN the charge sheet Ex. Ka. 10 the age of appellant was mentioned is 22 years. As per the evidence on record the deceased was aged about 20 years and the post-mortem report indicated probable age of the deceased as 18 years. Admittedly marriageof appellant with the deceased had been performed about three years before the incident in question. If appellant was about 15-15/1/4 years old at the time of commission of the present crime, it does not seem probable that he was married to the deceased when he was a child of 12 or 121/4 years old only. Admittedly marriageof appellant with the deceased had been performed about three years before the incident in question. If appellant was about 15-15/1/4 years old at the time of commission of the present crime, it does not seem probable that he was married to the deceased when he was a child of 12 or 121/4 years old only. The deceased and appellant appeared to be of same age group and in all probability the deceased was about 15-16 years old when she was married and the appellant in all probability must have been also more or less of the same age group and therefore, he was certainly above 16 years of age at the time of the present incident. We find absolutely no material on record to extend to the appellant benefit of the provisions of U. P. Children Act. ( 30 ) FOR the reasons assigned above, we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. and also the sentence of life imprisonment. ( 31 ) ACCORDINGLY this appeal is dismissed. ( 32 ) THE appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court and upheld by this Court. The C. J. M. concerned shall take immediate steps in this regard and send his compliance report to the Court without any delay. Appeal dismissed. .