ORDER 1. The accused-appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his wife Annapumamma on 22-4-1996 at about 11.00 a.m. 2. The prosecution case is that it was a love marriage between Annapumamma, the deceased and Chandrashekarappa, the accused-appellant performed on 27-11-1995 in a temple. Ramalingappa, PW 3, the father of the deceased and Lolakshamma, PW 8, the mother of the deceased and their relations were not initially happy with the marriage as it was not to their liking. A little later, the parents of the deceased reconciled with the marriage and accepted the appellant as their son-in-law. However, the charm of the marriage did not last long and the deceased and the accused-appellant soon fell apart. Some difference developed between them and the deceased moved to her parents. Once again she joined her husband. A few days before the date of the incident, the father of the deceased was asked by the appellant to take the deceased with him. Ramalingappa, the father, insisted on the accused accompanying his daughter to his house on which condition alone, Ramalingappa said that he would take his daughter to his home. The accused a agreed. The accused, the deceased and Ramalingappa then left Village Bhadravathi where the accused resided, for Jeenahalli, the village where Ramalingappa resides, in a bus. The accused and the deceased reached the house of Ramalingappa. For 4 to 5 days before the date of the incident, the accused and the deceased were residing with Ramalingappa and Lolakshamma. There were only four inmates in the house on the date of the incident - the accused, the deceased and her parents. 3. On 22-4-1996 in the early morning, Lolakshamma left the house for collecting grass for the cattle, leaving behind Ramalingappa, the accused and the deceased in the house. In the morning, the accused had also gone out of the house for some time. He returned a little before 11.00 a.m. and entered the house whereon Ramalingappa went out of the house. As stated by Ramalingappa, he did not use to stay in the house when the accused and the deceased were inside the house. Ramalingappa was sitting outside the house at a short distance. A little later, he found the accused coming out of the house hurriedly and going away. Ramalingappa became suspicious. As stated by Ramalingappa, he did not use to stay in the house when the accused and the deceased were inside the house. Ramalingappa was sitting outside the house at a short distance. A little later, he found the accused coming out of the house hurriedly and going away. Ramalingappa became suspicious. He entered the house and found his daughter lying inside the kitchen room with her face upward. He was perturbed. He raised a hue and cry. The village people collected. They called Annapurnamma by name but she did not respond. Dr Basavarajappa, PW 2, a private medical practitioner was called to see Annapurnamma. He came and declared Annapurnamma dead. Ramalingappa then proceeded to police station and lodged first information report of the incident at about 5.30 p.m., at Police Station Nyamathi, situated at a distance of about 10 kilometres from the village. The FIR was taken down by K. Chandru, PW 20. 4. The dead body of Annapurnamma was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr H. Dayakar, PW 1 at about 2.30 p.m. on the next day. On external appearance of the body, it was seen that the eyes were closed and swollen; pupils dilated and fixed; mouth was open; tongue was bitten; bloodstained fluid was running from nostrils and mouth. Early signs of decomposition were visible. Three to five blisters were seen on both the lower arms. Dr H. Dayakar found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased: 1. Three abrasions one below the other on the right cheek measuring 2 cm in length and 1 cm in breadth. 2.An abrasion on the left cheek measuring 2 x 1 cm. 3.A bruise mark 2 x 2 cm below the right pinna on face. 4. Two abrasions on right side of the neck longitudinally measuring 1 1/2 x 1 cm. 5. Two abrasions on the left side of the neck longitudinally one below the other measuring 1 1/2 x 1 cm. 5. Colour of all the injuries was bluish-black. There was a mark of ligature present around the neck about the level of thyroid cartilage running horizontally measuring 25 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth. The skin over the mark was dry, hard and pale. Small abrasions were seen in the ligature mark. Ligature mark encircled the neck except on back due to hairs. There was a mark of ligature present around the neck about the level of thyroid cartilage running horizontally measuring 25 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth. The skin over the mark was dry, hard and pale. Small abrasions were seen in the ligature mark. Ligature mark encircled the neck except on back due to hairs. On dissection, extravasation of fluid was seen in the subcutaneous tissue of the neck beneath the ligature mark. The next muscles and intima of the carotid arteries were injured. Blood clots were seen on the injured areas and lower part of the neck. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of Dr H. Dayakar, the cause of the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. 6. There is no eyewitness to the incident. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the High Court have found the following circumstances proved: (i) the accused had motive for causing the death of the deceased, (ii) the accused and the deceased were last seen together, (iii) conduct of the accused as disclosed by his actions soon after the commission of the crime and subsequently his absconding, and (iv) the false plea of alibi taken by the accused. Though there is also the evidence of recovery of rope said to be used for strangulating the deceased, however, that recovery was made on 28-4-1996 from the house of Ramalingappa, PW 3. It is alleged that the recovery was pursuant to a statement made by the accused leading to discovery of the rope. But that recovery has been disbelieved by the High Court and as we would point out a little later we also do not attach much significance to that recovery. 7. So far as motive is concerned, there is overwhelming evidence available. The relations between the deceased and the accused were strained. Apart from the oral evidence coming from the mouth of Ramalingappa, PW 3, Lolakshamma, PW 8 and G.H. Prasad, PW 15 respectively father, mother and maternal uncle of the deceased, there is also documentary evidence available substantiating the existence of strained relationship between the deceased and the accused before the date of occurrence. On 9-1-1996, G.H. Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased had lodged a report, Ext. On 9-1-1996, G.H. Prasad, maternal uncle of the deceased had lodged a report, Ext. P-13 taken down by Y. Donnappa, PW 19, Head Constable wherein it was complained that the accused was misbehaving with and ill-treating the deceased. Donnappa, PW 19 had summoned the deceased and the accused-appellant. The statement of the accused was recorded. On 30-3-1996, the deceased herself had complained to the police that accused was ill-treating and assaulting her. The report lodged by the deceased was recorded as Ext. P-15 by K.S. Rashid, PW 18, Head Constable at Nyamathi Police Station. K.S. Rashid, PW 18 too had sunmoned the accused and advised him to behave properly in future. However. no cognizable offence was registered on any of the two reports but that is immaterial. This documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence leads to an irresistible inference that all was not well between the couple and the deceased was at the receiving end of the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused-appellant. 8. On 22-4-1996, the date of the incident, there were only four inmates in the house. Of these, Lolakshamma, mother of the deceased had left the house early morning in search of grass for the cattle. The accused had gone out of a the house, but just before the time of death of the deceased he had returned and entered the house in the presence of Ramalingappa, PW 3. Ramalingappa went out of the house and was available at a little distance therefrom. The accused and the deceased were the only two insiders of the house at the material point of time when the deceased met with her unnatural death by strangulation. The accused was seen leaving the house in a hurried manner, which aroused suspicion in the mind of Ramalingappa and he entered the house only to find his daughter having been strangulated and lying on the floor of the kitchen. Soon the village people collected, but Annapurnamma was already dead. The medical evidence positively indicates the death of the victim having been caused by strangulation and a rope having been used for the purpose. Soon the village people collected, but Annapurnamma was already dead. The medical evidence positively indicates the death of the victim having been caused by strangulation and a rope having been used for the purpose. The accused in the ordinary course of human nature should have been in the house or should have at least made inquiries to find out as to what had happened to his wife, but he just absconded and could be arrested only on 28-4-1996, that is, about six days after the date of the incident. 9. A piece of rope allegedly used by the accused in strangulating the deceased was recovered on 28-4-1996, from the house of Ramalingappa. Between the date of occurrence and the date of recovery the house was open and available to be used by the inmates. Moreover, there is nothing to connect this piece of rope with the occurrence. There is no material available to hold that this was the piece used for strangulating the deceased. The recovery is of no consequence. This is apart from the fact that the factum of recovery has been disbelieved by the High Court. 10. The plea taken by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that his relationship with his wife Annapurnamma was happy. He had left for Bangalore in search of employment after informing his wife as he was unemployed. He went to Bangalore. However, what he said the:-eafter is significant. To quote the words of the accused: "I returned after one week and went to Jeenahalli. Within two days I was arrested by Nyamathi Police. They told me that my wife complained for divorce and obtained my signatures. After 4-5 days I went to Bangalore and stayed in the house of my mothers cousin Ramappa. One day my father came to Bangalore and brought me to Jeenahalli. I went to police station. After two days I was sent to jail." (emphasis supplied) 11. In support of the plea of alibi so taken the accused examined Ramappa, DW 1 in defence. Ramappa is a retired military personnel running a security service in Bangalore. He is related with the accused as his uncles daughter was mother of the accused. That apart, the accused was friend of Ramappas son. According to Ramappa, the accused came to Bangalore on 44-1996 in search of job and stayed at Bangalore "nearly for 20 days". Ramappa is a retired military personnel running a security service in Bangalore. He is related with the accused as his uncles daughter was mother of the accused. That apart, the accused was friend of Ramappas son. According to Ramappa, the accused came to Bangalore on 44-1996 in search of job and stayed at Bangalore "nearly for 20 days". Thereafter, the father of the accused came to Bangalore and informed that the police was searching for him. The accused accompanied his father to his native place and thereafter the accused did not return to Bangalore. Without entering into deeper scrutiny of the evidence of this witness, it would suffice to observe that the statement of this witness is not consistent with the plea taken by the accused in his statement. Moreover, the statement of Ramappa, DW 1 was recorded in the court on 31-3-1997. The witness had not made any note of the date of arrival of the accused. It is difficult to appreciate how this witness would orally remember the exact date of arrival of the accused to his place and the number of days for which the accused stayed with him. There is a difference of 18 days between the date of the arrival of the accused at Bangalore as stated by the witness and the date of the incident while the statement of the witness is that the accused had stayed with him for nearly 20 days, that is, the witness is not sure as to the number of days for which the accused might have stayed with him. The trial court and the High Court have rightly discarded the plea of alibi taken by the accused-appellant as untrustworthy. 12. In such circumstances, it was for the accused to explain how the deceased met with her death and his own conduct which the accused has failed to do. The trial court and the High Court have rightly held that the chain of circumstantial evidence forged from the evidence adduced by the prosecution is enough for fastening the guilt on the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. He has been rightly held guilty for intentionally causing the death of his wife, Annapurnamma. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we find the appeal devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant along with the s~ntence passed on him are maintained. 14. He has been rightly held guilty for intentionally causing the death of his wife, Annapurnamma. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we find the appeal devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. The conviction of the accused-appellant along with the s~ntence passed on him are maintained. 14. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr Darshan Singh Chawla, the learned amicus for the appellant.