Judgment :- T.V. MASILAMANI, J. The appellant is the accused convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A, 302, 201 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the II Additional District Judge, Trichirappalli. 2. The accused was charged with the offences under the said provisions of law as follows:- The accused and the deceased were married about 5 years prior to the occurrence and the accused harassed the deceased wife for dowry from her parents. While so, on that account, he used to harass and beat her causing cruelty. On 21.6.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. owing to an altercation with his wife for not getting dowry from her parents, he beat her and smothered her by pressing the mouth and nose with the intention to murder and thereby committed the offences punishable under the said provisions of law. 3. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 14 documents and produced 1 material object to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused has not examined any witness nor produced any document. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the evidence in the light of the arguments of both sides rendered a judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused and this appeal is preferred by him against such conviction and sentence imposed on him. 4. The case of the prosecution as discerned from the evidence may be stated briefly as follows:- (a) On 21.6.1989 at 3.00 P.M. when P.W.2 happened to pass through the house of the deceased and the accused, the accused called him and confessed voluntarily about the commission of the offence. When P.W.2 went along with the accused into the hut, he saw the dead body of the deceased hanging from the roof and both the accused and P.W.2 had brought down the dead body of the deceased and laid it on the ground. On the same day, the parents and brothers of the deceased were informed and they came to the occurrence village where the panchayat was held. When P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and others enquired the accused with reference to the occurrence, he admitted that he committed the murder of his wife. (b) The panchayatdars sent for P.W.1, Village Administrative officer who on receipt of such information went to the scene of occurrence on 22.6.1989 at 6.00 A.M and saw the dead body of the deceased in the pial of the house. (b) The panchayatdars sent for P.W.1, Village Administrative officer who on receipt of such information went to the scene of occurrence on 22.6.1989 at 6.00 A.M and saw the dead body of the deceased in the pial of the house. He did not find the accused available at that time and therefore he went to the T.Pazhur Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P-1 to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police who having received the said complaint registered a crime in Cr.No.154/1989 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and since the deceased Poovayee died within 5 years from the date of marriage, he prepared the printed form of F.I.R., Ex.P-9 and sent Exs.P-1 and P-9 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court and copies thereof to the Revenue Divisional Officer and higher police officials for necessary action. (c) P.W.11, Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur on receipt of the said document from P.W.10 on 22.6.1989 at 2.10 P.M. went to the occurrence village and conducted an enquiry and held an inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars. His enquiry report is Ex.P-11. On receipt of such report from P.W.11 on 24.6.1989, P.W.10 altered the offence into one under Section 302 and 498-A I.P.C. and sent express report, Ex.P-10 to the Court as well as to his higher officials. (d) P.W.12, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur having received the copy of the complaint, the F.I.R. from P.W.10 and the enquiry report from P.W.11 took up the investigation and went to the occurrence village on 25.6.1989, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P-2 and drew the rough sketch, Ex.P-12. Further he has examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26.6.1989 P.W.12 examined P.W.7 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. (e) P.W.11 Revenue Divisional Officer sent requisition Ex.P-3 to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jeyamkondam for conducting post-mortem on the dead body of Poovayee and thereupon P.W.6 along with another Doctor conducted the autopsy and gave the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-4. At the time of the post-mortem, they found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- Appearances found at the post-mortem: A decomposed female body lies on its back with arms flexed rigor mortis passed off in all the four limbs. Whole body clotted with bullae and blibs found all over the body. At the time of the post-mortem, they found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- Appearances found at the post-mortem: A decomposed female body lies on its back with arms flexed rigor mortis passed off in all the four limbs. Whole body clotted with bullae and blibs found all over the body. Both eyes opened and eye balls protruding outside. Mouth opened and tongue protruded. Bloody frothy fluid present over both nostrils and mouth. Post-reorference staining present over the back. Both breast enlarged and nipples prominent. Internal Examination: Hyoid bone intact. Thyroid cartilage laryngeal rings are intact. Congestion of laryngeal mucosa. Thorax: Blood clots present over the upper part of sternum. Lungs: Surface congested, intact. Dark colour fluid oozes. On cut section. Right side 550 gms. left 500 gms. Heart: Surface pale, chambers empty weight 300 gms. abdomen: Stomach distended with gas. Muscosa congested. 50 ml. of red colour fluid present inside. Liver: 1200 gms. Surface congested, intact. (Torn) Semi-solid 120 gms each. Intestine: Surface congested and distended with gas. Spleen: Semisolid, 150 gms. Uterus: Normal in size, empty. Bladder empty: Skull: No fracture of skull bone. Brain: Membrane present. Liquified 950 gms. P.W.6 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy on account of asphyxia due to smothering and Ex.P-6 is the opinion given by them after receipt of Chemical Examiner's report, Ex.P-5. (f) P.W.12 continued his investigation and arrested the accused on 23.7.1989 at 8.30 A.M. and he gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.9 and another and Ex.P-13 is the admissible portion. In pursuance of such confession, the accused took the police party and the witnesses to the occurrence village and he took M.O.1 (series) coir rope pieces from the granary in his house and the same was recovered by P.W.12 under cover of mahazar, Ex.P-14 in the presence of the same witnesses. On 21.9.1989, P.W.12 examined P.W.6, P.W.10 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He completed the investigation and laid the final report against the accused. 5. We heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the recorded evidence in this case. 6. The evidence of P.W.6, Autopsy Surgeon and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-4 are relied upon by the prosecution to show that the deceased died of homicidal violence. 5. We heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the recorded evidence in this case. 6. The evidence of P.W.6, Autopsy Surgeon and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-4 are relied upon by the prosecution to show that the deceased died of homicidal violence. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that due to smothering of the mouth and nose with a piece of cloth, the deceased would have died of asphyxia and that after receiving the Chemical Examiner's report, Ex.P-5 to the effect that there is no evidence of poisoning, both she as well as the other Autopsy Surgeon have issued the final report, Ex.P-6. Though she has been cross-examined at length to show that the deceased committed suicide by hanging, she has denied such possibility and stated categorically that there was no evidence of suicide by hanging. Further according to her evidence, since the deceased had been smothered, they found bloody frothy fluid present over both nostrils and mouth and both eyes opened and the eye balls protruding outside and mouth opened and tongue also found protruded. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that the symptoms found by the Autopsy Surgeon would undoubtedly point out that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to smothering. In view of the medical evidence as narrated above and in the absence of any contrary circumstance shown by the learned counsel for the accused, we are inclined to accept the contention put forth by the prosecution and hold that the deceased died of asphyxia due to smothering. Hence we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 7. There is no eye witness to the occurrence in this case and it is purely a case of circumstantial evidence. It is not in controversy that the deceased and the accused lived together in the same house where the occurrence took place. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused used to harass the deceased for getting money and other things by way of dowry from her parents. It is not in controversy that the deceased and the accused lived together in the same house where the occurrence took place. It is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused used to harass the deceased for getting money and other things by way of dowry from her parents. The evidence of P.W.11, Revenue Divisional Officer and the enquiry report, Ex.P-11 would indicate that on account of such dowry harassment, he rendered a finding that the deceased died of cruelty meted out by the accused on account of dowry demand and that therefore he directed the police authorities to initiate action against the accused in accordance with law. 8. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 would indicate that they are the panchayatdars hailing from the same village where both the accused and the deceased lived and therefore their evidence cannot be brushed aside. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 coupled with that of P.W.11 and Ex.P-11 in our opinion has proved beyond doubt that the motive for committing the offence has been clearly established. Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.5 who is an independent witness, such dowry harassment made by the accused 10 or 15 days prior to the occurrence has been proved and his evidence is in our opinion reliable. Therefore, we confirm the finding rendered by the trial court that the harassment and cruelty meted out by the accused on account of dowry demand was the prime motive for the commission of the offence. 9. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that when he saw the body of the deceased hanging from the roof top, the feet were resting on the floor and therefore it is probable in the normal course of events that the accused should have tied her neck with the rope M.O.1 and made it a scene of suicide by tying the other end of the rope on the roof top. At the same time, when he wanted to get the body down, he requested P.W.2 who happened to pass that way to help him in untying the rope from the roof top and to lay down the body on the ground which a single man could not be able to do properly. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while requesting for the help the accused had necessarily to make a confession to P.W.2 regarding the occurrence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while requesting for the help the accused had necessarily to make a confession to P.W.2 regarding the occurrence. Though the learned counsel for the accused has urged us to reject such confession on the ground that while the medical evidence shows that the deceased died of asphyxia due to smothering, P.W.2 has given another version that the accused had confessed to have beaten his wife which resulted in her death. It is seen from the evidence of the case that P.W.2 happened to be one of the panchayatdars in the village and therefore we are of the opinion that he has come out with the truth in the course of investigation. Therefore, we are unable to give much credence to the argument of the appellant's counsel and hold that such confession is true and voluntary one. 10. P.W.2 has stated that he does not remember to have stated to the Investigating Officer, P.W.12 that the feet of the deceased were resting on the floor when he found the body hanging from roof top. On the contrary P.W.12 however, admitted that during his investigation, P.W.2 told him that the feet of the deceased were resting on the floor when he found the body of the deceased hanging from the roof top. Therefore, the medical evidence to the effect that no ligature mark had been found on the neck of the deceased lends corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 12 on this aspect. It is therefore clear that the accused had deliberately hung the body of the deceased on the roof top to screen the evidence of the crime committed by him. In this regard the finding rendered by the trial Court has to be confirmed. 11. Nextly, the learned counsel for the accused has urged that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 in relation to the panchayat held on the date of occurrence and the alleged confession made by the accused to them are not believable in entirety. It is however admitted by the learned counsel for the accused that there was in fact a panchayat held on the date of occurrence, but he has argued that since the accused refused to pay the amount demanded by the panchayatdars towards the common fund maintained by the villagers, they reported the matter to P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer for taking action in accordance with law. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 would indicate that certain amount of pressure and coercion had been exerted on the accused to extract his confession and therefore, we are of the opinion that de hors such confessional statement alleged to have been made by the accused to P.Ws.3 to 5, the confession made by him to P.W.2 hold good to serve the purpose. 12. In these circumstances, we hold that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 would clearly indicate that even though the occurrence took place on 21.6.1989 at about 3.00 P.M., the complaint Ex.P-1 was lodged on the next day at 9.00 P.M. to P.W.10 Sub Inspector T.Pazhur Police Station and such delay has been clearly explained by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 that on account of the panchayat held in the village regarding the the occurrence, P.W.1 was requested only on the next day morning to lodge the complaint Ex.P-1. Hence, we are of the opinion that the delay in lodging the complaint has been reasonably explained by the prosecution side in this case. 13. The Supreme Court has laid down the ratio in PAKKIRISAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( AIR 1998 S.C. 107 ) that the subsequent conduct of the accused in absconding from the place of occurrence till he was arrested would lend support to the prosecution to prove his guilt. Though there is no eye-witness to the occurrence, the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.2 which in our opinion is true and voluntary one coupled with the non-explanation on the part of the accused for his absconding from the occurrence village till he was arrested by P.W.12 about one month later on 23.7.1989 clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Even during the questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has merely denied that he was arrested by P.W.12 on 23.7.1989, but failed to explain his whereabouts till that date. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on 22.6.1989, a day after the occurrence when he had gone to the occurrence place to verify the fact with reference to the information he received, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the pial of the house and that the accused was not found at that time. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on 22.6.1989, a day after the occurrence when he had gone to the occurrence place to verify the fact with reference to the information he received, he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the pial of the house and that the accused was not found at that time. Therefore, it is evident that immediately after the panchayatdars decided to request P.W.1, village Administrative Officer to lodge the complaint to the police, the accused absconded till he was arrested and therefore, the necessary presumption is that his absconding from the scene village would point out to his guilt only. Having regard to the above facts and circumstance in the light of the recorded evidence in this case, we are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court have to be affirmed. 15. Thus, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence.