Judgment : N. Dhinakar, J. 1. The appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal, on an allegation that at about 11.00 a.m. on 26.1.2000, he strangled his wife Latha, who was pregnant by five months, to death. The learned Sessions Judge, finding the appellant guilty, sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is this: Baby (PW-1) is the sister of the deceased Latha and the deceased is the wife of the appellant. The appellant married the deceased Latha in the year 1999 and after the marriage, they were residing together in a portion of the house at No. 18, Gnanaprakasam Street, Karaikkal, owned by Therasa (PW-2). PW-1 was living in another locality and working as servant-maid in the house of a soda-factory owner. After the marriage, the deceased was not visiting PW-1 though she used to visit her at the work-spot. On 26.1.2000, PW-2 heard the appellant scolding his wife for not giving him money. After getting some money from his wife, he went to a tea-stall, had tea and returned home. At about 3.00 p.m. the appellant went to the house of Pramila (PW-3), who was known to the appellant and his wife, and informed her that his wife was suffering from vomiting and dysentery and requested her to come and see his wife. PW-3 accompanied the appellant to his house. When she reached the house of the appellant, she found the deceased Latha lying on the floor, with inner skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. When she touched the body, she felt chillness and there was no response. She questioned the appellant as to what he had done to his wife for which, the appellant replied that Latha was suffering from vomiting and dysentery. Sensing that the appellant had done something to his wife, she scolded him and left the place. Thereafter, the appellant went to the work-spot of PW-l at about 4.00 p.m. and informed her that his wife is lying unconscious and requested her to come to his house. PW-l sent away the appellant telling him that she would come to his house some time later. After some time PW-l left her work-spot to the house of the appellant and when she reached, she saw PW-3 and others standing in front of the house. PW-l sent away the appellant telling him that she would come to his house some time later. After some time PW-l left her work-spot to the house of the appellant and when she reached, she saw PW-3 and others standing in front of the house. She went inside the house and saw Latha lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. She also found the broken pieces of bangles and cigarette-buds near the deceased. When she touched the body, she sensed the chillness. She screamed against the appellant as to what he had done to her sister. The appellant did not answer her. She asked the appellant to bring an auto. PW-l, along with PW-3, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karaikkal where, on being examined by the Doctor (PW-8) at about 4.15 p.m., she was pronounced dead. PW-8 sent Ex.P8 information to the police station. On receipt of Ex.P-8 at about 5.20 p.m., the Head Constable (PW-15) attached to the Karaikkal Town Police Station proceeded to the hospital along with the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-16). On reaching the hospital, they saw PW-1 there and PW-16 questioned PW-1 and recorded her statement (Ex.P-1). Thereafter, PW-15 and PW-16 returned to the police station at about 7.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2000 against the appellant under Sec.302, IPC. Ex.P-22 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. The express report was despatched to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Thereafter, PW-16 sent the information over telephone to the Inspector of Police (PW-17). On receipt of the information, PW-17 went to the police station where he obtained the copy of the printed first information report. He left the police station, accompanied by PW-15, PW-16 and other constables, to the hospital where he saw the dead-body of Latha and arranged a photographer for taking photographs of the dead-body. He went to the scene of occurrence and since it was late-night he posted two constables to guard the scene of occurrence and returned to the police station. In the police station, he examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He went to the scene of occurrence and since it was late-night he posted two constables to guard the scene of occurrence and returned to the police station. In the police station, he examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 27.1.2000 he again visited the scene of occurrence and took photographs of the scene of occurrence through photographer (PW-14) between 8.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. He then prepared the rough-sketch and observation-mahazar between 8.50 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. He seized the material object (MO-18) under mahazar in presence of the witnesses. He questioned some witnesses and their statements were recorded. On 26.1.2000, PW-2 heard the appellant scolding his wife for not giving him money. After getting some money from his wife, he went to a tea-stall, had tea and returned home. At about 3.00 p.m. the appellant went to the house of Pramila (PW-3), who was known to the appellant and his wife, and informed her that his wife was suffering from vomiting and dysentery and requested her to come and see his wife. PW-3 accompanied the appellant to his house. When she reached the house of the appellant, she found the deceased Latha lying on the floor, with inner skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. When she touched the body, she felt chillness and there was no response. She questioned the appellant as to what he had done to his wife for which, the appellant replied that Latha was suffering from vomiting and dysentery. Sensing that the appellant had done something to his wife, she scolded him and left the place. Thereafter, the appellant went to the work-spot of PW-l at about 4.00 p.m. and informed her that his wife is lying unconscious and requested her to come to his house. PW-l sent away the appellant telling him that she would come to his house some time later. After some time PW-l left her work-spot to the house of the appellant and when she reached, she saw PW-3 and others standing in front of the house. She went inside the house and saw Latha lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. She also found the broken pieces of bangles and cigarette-buds near the deceased. When she touched the body, she sensed the chillness. She went inside the house and saw Latha lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and the sari was spread on her body. She also found the broken pieces of bangles and cigarette-buds near the deceased. When she touched the body, she sensed the chillness. She screamed against the appellant as to what he had done to her sister. The appellant did not answer her. She asked the appellant to bring an auto. PW-l, along with PW-3, took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karaikkal where, on being examined by the Doctor (PW-8) at about 4.15 p.m., she was pronounced dead. PW-8 sent Ex.P8 information to the police station. On receipt of Ex.P-8 at about 5.20 p.m., the Head Constable (PW-15) attached to the Karaikkal Town Police Station proceeded to the hospital along with the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-16). On reaching the hospital, they saw PW-1 there and PW-16 questioned PW-1 and recorded her statement (Ex.P-1). Thereafter, PW-15 and PW-16 returned to the police station at about 7.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2000 against the appellant under Sec.302, IPC. Ex.P-22 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. The express report was despatched to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Thereafter, PW-16 sent the information over telephone to the Inspector of Police (PW-17). On receipt of the information, PW-17 went to the police station where he obtained the copy of the printed first information report. He left the police station, accompanied by PW-15, PW-16 and other constables, to the hospital where he saw the dead-body of Latha and arranged a photographer for taking photographs of the dead-body. He went to the scene of occurrence and since it was late-night he posted two constables to guard the scene of occurrence and returned to the police station. In the police station, he examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 27.1.2000 he again visited the scene of occurrence and took photographs of the scene of occurrence through photographer (PW-14) between 8.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. He then prepared the rough-sketch and observation-mahazar between 8.50 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. He seized the material object (MO-18) under mahazar in presence of the witnesses. He questioned some witnesses and their statements were recorded. He questioned some witnesses and their statements were recorded. As the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, PW-17 issued a requisition to the Tasildhar (PW-12) for conducting an enquiry. On receipt of the requisition, PW-12 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and questioned witnesses and gave his report Ex.P-17 with his opinion that the death has occurred under suspicious circumstances. PW-17 conducted the inquest in the presence of witnesses between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P-5). After inquest, he issued a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body of Latha. The Civil Surgeon (PW-10), attached to the Government Hospital, Karaikkal, on receipt of requisition from PW-17, conducted autopsy and found the following injuries on the dead body: “1. A pressure abrasion measuring 3 x 0.5 cm. ‘L’ shaped seen over lateral aspect of the neck on the right side at the level of middle of thyroid cartilage. 2. A pressure abrasion measuring 1 x 05 cm. Roughly circular was seen medial to injury No.l. 3. An Abrasion measuring 0.5 x 0.8 cm. seen over lateral aspect of right wrist. 4. A contusion 4x4 cm. with all defined margins seen over upper part of the right cheek. All lesions were ante-mortem and fresh in nature. Apart from the injuries mentioned above, no other external injuries/mark were applicable. There were no injuries or appreciable on or in and around external genitalia or vaginal orofide. Finger-nails trimmed, scrapping contents, nil.” PW-10 issued Ex.P-12 post-mortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased would have died on account of asphyxia as a result of throttling. PW-17 continuing with his investigation, searched for the appellant and arrested him at about 3.15 p.m. on 1.2.2000. He was brought to the police station and questioned. His statement was recorded. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the statement given by him, he took the police party to the scene of occurrence and produced the sari from his house. The same was seized under mahazar. The appellant was sent to the hospital for blood test. Thereafter, the appellant was sent to the Court for remand. The material-objects were sent to Court with a requisition to send them for analysis. PW-17 then examined the doctor who conducted autopsy and recorded his statement on 31.7.2000. The same was seized under mahazar. The appellant was sent to the hospital for blood test. Thereafter, the appellant was sent to the Court for remand. The material-objects were sent to Court with a requisition to send them for analysis. PW-17 then examined the doctor who conducted autopsy and recorded his statement on 31.7.2000. On the said date, post-mortem certificate was obtained from him and thereafter, final report was filed against the appellant on 28.12.2000. The appellant, when questioned under Section 313, Crl.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, denied the same. He did not examine any witnesses on his side. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is duty-bound to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution having failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, an acquittal. 4. On the above contentions, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. The appellant before us does not dispute the cause of death of Latha in that it was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy and who was examined as PW-10, issued Ex.P-12 post-mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Therefore, on the medical evidence, which was not contradicted by the defence, we hold that the deceased Latha died on account of homicidal violence as it is not the case of the defence that the deceased throttled herself and committed suicide. 6. The prosecution, to establish that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime, relied upon the circumstances and we will now analyse the evidence available on record to find out whether the prosecution has established all the links in the chain of circumstances to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. 7. The first circumstance which the prosecution relied on is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the land-lady of the house in which the appellant and the deceased were residing together. According to her at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.1.2000 he heard the quarrel between the appellant and his wife Latha. 7. The first circumstance which the prosecution relied on is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the land-lady of the house in which the appellant and the deceased were residing together. According to her at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.1.2000 he heard the quarrel between the appellant and his wife Latha. She stated in her evidence that the appellant, after taking some money from the deceased, went to the tea-stall, had tea and returned home and after that she did not hear the voice of the deceased Latha. She further stated at about 3.00 p.m. on hearing the cries of PW-3 questioning the appellant as to what had happened to the deceased, she came to the house of the appellant and saw the deceased lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and a sari was draped over her body. She also said that she saw broken bangles and cigarette-buds around the body of the deceased. PW-2 was treated hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution as she did not give evidence to the effect that she saw the accused beating the deceased. 8. The second link in the chain of circumstances is the evidence of PW-3, who is known to the appellant and the deceased. She in her evidence stated that on 26.1.2000 at about 3.00 p.m. the appellant came to her house and informed that his wife was suffering from vomiting and dysentery and requested her to come and see his wife and when she went to the house of appellant, she saw the deceased lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and sari draped over her body and when she touched the body, she felt chillness and there was no response from the deceased. 9. Though PW-2 was treated hostile because she did not speak about the statement made by the appellant to PW-3 when she questioned the appellant as to what transpired between him and the deceased, it is settled principle that the part of the evidence of a witness, who even if he turns hostile, can be accepted. 9. Though PW-2 was treated hostile because she did not speak about the statement made by the appellant to PW-3 when she questioned the appellant as to what transpired between him and the deceased, it is settled principle that the part of the evidence of a witness, who even if he turns hostile, can be accepted. Therefore, even though PW-2 did not say in her evidence as to what the appellant told PW-3 when she asked him as to what had happened to the deceased when she saw the deceased lying on the floor, it proves the fact that the when she went to the house of the appellant at about 3.00 p.m. on hearing the cries of PW-3, she saw the deceased lying on floor in unconscious state. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 therefore shows that the deceased Latha, who was seen alive by PW-2 at about 10/10.30 a.m. and was quarreling with the appellant, was found dead by PW-2 and PW-3 at about 3.00 p.m. and, in these circumstances, when the appellant and the deceased were living as husband and wife under one roof and was last seen together by PW-2, the onus is on the appellant to explain as to what transpired between him and his wife between 10/10.30 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. The appellant did not give any explanation when he was questioned under Sec. 3.13 of Crl.P.C. and the absence of explanation by the accused is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 10. The third link in the chain of circumstances is brought out by the evidence of PW-1, who is the sister of the deceased Latha. She, in her evidence, stated that at about 4.00 p.m. on 26.1.2000, the appellant came to her work-spot and informed that’ her sister Latha fell down and lying unconscious and requested her to come and see her. She further stated that when she went to the house of the appellant, she saw PW-3 and others standing in front of the house of the appellant and on entering the house, she saw her sister lying on the floor with inner-skirt and blouse and the sari was just draped over her body and that she also found broken bangles and cigarette-buds around the body and on touching the body, she found it to be in chill condition. When she questioned the appellant as to what transpired between him and his wife, she did not receive proper answer. The conduct of the appellant in not answering the question of PW-1, who is none else than the sister of the deceased, which is relevant under Sec.8 of the Indian Evidence Act, is yet another link in the chain of circumstances against him. 11. As we have already stated that since the deceased was found alive in the company of the appellant at 10/10.30 a.m. by PW-2 and was later on found dead at 3.00 p.m. in her house, it is for the appellant, as husband of the deceased, to explain as to what transpired between them. The evidence of PW-1 further disclosed that when she touched the body she found it to be chill which means that the deceased must have died much earlier. The evidence of PW-1 further disclosed that in spite of the fact that the body of her sister was chill, she took the body in an auto, accompanied by PW-3, to the Government Hospital probably with the fond hope that still there may life in her; but PW-8 on examining her at about 4.15 p.m. declared her dead. 12. It is also pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW-1 regarding the statement made by the appellant before the doctor (PW-8) who examined the deceased at the hospital. She stated in her evidence that when the appellant was questioned by the doctor, who was examining the body of the deceased, as to what had happened, he replied that he slapped his wife and, therefore, she fell down unconsciously. Though PW-1 has stated in her evidence about the answer given by the appellant to the doctor PW-8, the prosecution, for reasons best known, did not elicit this fact from the doctor (PW-8) when he was in the box. However, the evidence of PW-1 in this regard can be accepted under Sec.60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which contemplates that oral evidence must, in all cases be direct, that is to say if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it. However, the evidence of PW-1 in this regard can be accepted under Sec.60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which contemplates that oral evidence must, in all cases be direct, that is to say if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it. In this case, PW-1 was present at the time when the body was examined by PW-8, who questioned the appellant as to what had happened for which the appellant answered that he slapped his wife. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 on this point can be accepted even though PW-8 did not say in his evidence that he questioned the appellant and that the appellant had answered him that he slapped his wife. Once if we accept the evidence of PW-1 then it becomes clear that the said answer given by the appellant to PW-8 is false. 13. It is to be remembered that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling and the doctor (PW-10) noted several abrasions on the neck region, right wrist and right cheek of the deceased. If the death was accidental due to the slapping given by the appellant, the deceased could not have suffered abrasions on the aforesaid regions. The injuries found on the neck, right-wrist and right cheek, therefore, indicate that the answer given by the appellant before PW-8 was false and that the deceased struggled for her life before she breathed last. This is yet another link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 14. To sum up, tie following are the links in the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant in this case: l. The appellant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife under one roof and that there was no one else living with them; 2. They were seen together by PW-2 at 10/10.30 a.m. and at that time the appellant was quarreling with the deceased; 3. PW-2 did not hear the voice of the deceased thereafter; 4. The deceased was found lying unconscious on the floor by PW-3 and PW-2 at 3.00 p.m. and by PW-1 at 4.00 p.m., when they reached the scene of occurrence on the request made by the appellant; 5. PW-2 did not hear the voice of the deceased thereafter; 4. The deceased was found lying unconscious on the floor by PW-3 and PW-2 at 3.00 p.m. and by PW-1 at 4.00 p.m., when they reached the scene of occurrence on the request made by the appellant; 5. The appellant, as husband of the deceased, did not answer PW-3 and PW-1 when he was questioned by them as to what transpired between him and his wife; 6. False statement before PW-8 that the deceased fell down unconscious due to his slapping her; 7. Injuries found on the neck, right-wrist and right-cheek of the deceased; and 8. Presence of broken bangle-pieces around the body of the deceased and the injuries found on her neck, right-wrist and right-cheek show that the deceased struggled for her life and rules out the possibility of ‘suicide’ or ‘accidental death’ due to slapping. 15. The circumstances, which we have pointed out above, in our opinion, from a complete chain without any missing links and they unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant and the appellant alone, without giving room for any hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant to the crime in question. The trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 16. The appeal has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.