JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Puri in which the Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The Appellant is the husband of the deceased. Case of the prosecution is that six to eight years prior to the date of occurrence the Appellant had married the deceased. At that point of time the Appellant was staying with his parents and other family members at Jagannath prasad. After the marriage the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment cruelty as a result of which she came back and took shelter in her parents' house. Thereafter the Appellant shifted the village Adakata Chhak where the deceased joined him. But even when were staying separate from in-laws the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured. Once the deceased had come to her parents' house and she got information that second marriage of the Appellant was being planned, she filed a suit for restitution of conjugal life. After receipt of notice in the Said suit the Appellant and his brother compromised the matter with the deceased and her parents. After compromise was arrived at the in the said suit the Appellant and the deceased again lived together for sometime. The deceased again forced to go out of the house and she had to file an application for maintenance u/s 125. Code of Criminal Procedure After receipt of notice in the said case the Appellant came forward for compromise and the compromise having been effected the deceased came back to the house of the Appellant. Fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence again the deceased was driven out of the house. On the date of the occurrence the deceased had come to the house of the Appellant to take clothes and when she was leaving the house of the Appellant the Appellant requested her to return to his house. Though they had two children because of ill-feeling between the husband and wife the eldest son was staying in the house of maternal grand-father and the youngest was one and half years old at the time of death of her mother. At the request of the Appellant the deceased came back and stayed with the Appellant. Though they had two children because of ill-feeling between the husband and wife the eldest son was staying in the house of maternal grand-father and the youngest was one and half years old at the time of death of her mother. At the request of the Appellant the deceased came back and stayed with the Appellant. Next day morning she was tound dead in the house of the Appellant. The Appellant himself lodged FIR before the OIC Gania Police Station stating that on the date of occurrence at about 12 in the night the deceased complained about ill-health and thereafter went to sleep, but early in the morning she was found dead. On the basis of such information investigation was taken up and on consideration of materials collected during investigation charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence u/s 302 and 498-A of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The Appellant took plea of the denial of allegations levelled by the prosecution. 4. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and several documents were exhibited, Learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1.17 and documents such as opinion of doctor expressed in the post mortem report, report of the S.F.S.L. etc. came to conclusion that the death was homicidal one. On consideration of the evidence of other witnesses learned Sessions Judge though did not find any supporting materials for offence u/s 498-A of the Penal Code or Section 4 of the D.P. Act, found that materials were available to indicate that the Appellant was the author of the crime so far as murder of the deceased is Concerned and accordingly convicted him u/s 302 of the Penal Code. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenged the findings on the ground that even accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 17 and the relevant records in Exts. 1, 20. 21 and 23 it can never be said that the death was homicidal. On the other hand, such evidence indicates a natural death. He further challenged the finding of the learned Sessions Judge stating that there is no reliable material on the basis of which it can be held that the Appellant committed murder of the deceased. 6. 1, 20. 21 and 23 it can never be said that the death was homicidal. On the other hand, such evidence indicates a natural death. He further challenged the finding of the learned Sessions Judge stating that there is no reliable material on the basis of which it can be held that the Appellant committed murder of the deceased. 6. So far as the first question raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is concerned -it appears from the evidence of P.W.I that she was present when post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. B.B. Padhi who has been examined as P.W.17. From the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that on 23.12.1991 she was working as Gaynic Specialist at Daspalla Govt. Hospital, where P.W.17 was working. At about 7 P.M. on the said date the dead body of the deceased was received in the hospital. On 24.12.1991 at about 8.45 A.M. P.W.17 took post mortem examination in presence Of this witnesses. During such examination both of them noticed bruise of the size 4 cm x 1.5 cm above the thyroid and across the neck. They also noticed six small abrasions over the neck, i.e. on the front part of the neck varying in the sizes from 1.5 cm to 0.5 cm in length and 0.5 cm to 0.3 cm in breadth. She also saw two small abrasions over right middle and ring finger. They were of the opinion that the aforesaid bruises and abrasions were ante mortem in nature and they suspected that the death was due to asphyxia but to confirm the same they "preserved the viscera for chemical analysis. In para-7 of the deposition she has specifically stated that death was homicidal in nature and the bruises and abrasions which were found on the back of the dead body were possible in a case of throttling to cause suffocation. She ruled out possibility of a suicide P.W.17 who conducted post mortem examination in presence of P,W.1 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and in para 9 of the deposition he has specifically stated that after receipt of report (Ext.20) they were of the view that the cause of death was due to asphyxia. We have perused the report vide-Ext. 20 and the result of the examination as mentioned is quoted below: common insecticidal, alkaloidal and metallic poison could not be detected in the viscea described above. We have perused the report vide-Ext. 20 and the result of the examination as mentioned is quoted below: common insecticidal, alkaloidal and metallic poison could not be detected in the viscea described above. Opinion of the P.M. & T. Department was Ext. 21. Dr. H.K. Sahoo, Professor and Head of the Department on perusal of the post mortem report as well as the report in Ext 20 was of the following opinion: The death might have occurred due to vagal inhibition leading to failure of the heart as a result of attempted compression of the neck as stated in the post mortem report. Ext. 23 is the opinion of doctors P.W.1 and P.W.17 after receipt of report in Ext. 20. In the said document both the doctors were of the opinion that death may be due to axphyxia. In view of the injuries found on the neck of the deceased during post mortem examination and in view of the report of the chemical examiner and opinion of the F.M. & T. Department as well as P.Ws. 1 and 17. submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased's death is natural cannot be accepted. Question of suicide is also ruled out in view of the specific materials available on record in the reports vide Exts. 20 and 21. We. therefore, agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 7. Coming to the second question as to whether the Appellant is the person who committed murder of the deceased or not, we proceed to examine the evidence of those witnesses who have spoken about the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased. P.W.11 is the brother of the deceased. He in his evidence, has stated that after the marriage the Appellant and the deceased pulled on well for about a month and thereafter his sister was ill-treated and assaulted by the Appellant on the issue of demand of dowry. Three months after the marriage the deceased had to come to her parents' house because of ill-treatment received. About one month thereafter, the Appellant came and promised not to ill-treat and his sister went with the Appellant. This kind of incident took place 3 to 4 times and every time the Appellant used to come and apologise and promised not to repeat such behaviour in future. About one month thereafter, the Appellant came and promised not to ill-treat and his sister went with the Appellant. This kind of incident took place 3 to 4 times and every time the Appellant used to come and apologise and promised not to repeat such behaviour in future. On one such occasion the deceased was informed that the Appellant was planning for second marriage and apprehending such second marriage the deceased had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal life. After receipt of notice in the said suit the Appellant and his brother begged apology and the dispute was compromised. Again one such occasion the deceased had to file an application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. In the said case also after receipt of notice the Appellant came forward for a compromise. Such evidence of P.W.11 stands unaffected in the cross-examination. In support of the aforesaid evidence of P.W.11 documents were filed, such as. Ext. 6 and an agreement between the Appellant and the deceased, a letter (Ext. 9). These documents also support the evidence of P.W.11 with regard to existence of a bad relationship between the Appellant and the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.11 it further appears that a fortnight before the date of occurrence there was a similar incident of quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased, and the deceased had apologised for his misbehaviour. P.W.8 who is an independent witness stated that fifteen days before the death of the deceased at about 1 to 2 P.M. while he alongwith his friends were standing in front of the Society Office they saw deceased coming away with annoyance. The Appellant and his brother and Anr. man came behind the deceased and consoled her and took her to the house of the Appellant. In view of such evidence it is clear that few days before the occurrence there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. On the date of occurrence there is no dispute that the Appellant and the deceased were together in the house and possibility of presence of somebody else is not found in the evidence. The death was due to asphyxia as found by the doctors and confirmed by the reports vide Exts. 21 and 22. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Appellant is the author of the crime. The death was due to asphyxia as found by the doctors and confirmed by the reports vide Exts. 21 and 22. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Appellant is the author of the crime. This view of ours gets support from the fact that from the date of marriage till death of the deceased on several occasions the deceased and the Appellant had quarreled, resorted to periodical separation and filing of suit for restitution of conjugal life and application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. Even few days prior to the date of occurrence such incident occurred and while the deceased was leaving the house of the Appellant, on the day she was consoled by the Appellant and his brother and they brought back the deceased to the house Of the Appellant. Considering such evidence, we have no doubt that the Appellant and the deceased were not pulling on well since the date of marriage. The most important circumstantial evidence against the Appellant is that on the date of occurrence there is no material to show presence of any other person in the house except the Appellant. Death occurred due to asphyxia and such finding is supported by opinion of the doctors. Since the Appellant was the only person available in the house and was also not pulling on well with the deceased from the date of marriage and in absence of any evidence of presence of any other third person, we have no hesitation to hold that the Appellant is the author of the crime. 8. We do not find merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. R.K. Patra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed