Judgment P. B. GAIKWAD, J. ( 1 ) ORIGINAL accused no. 1 - Narayan Pisaram Chauragade being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence dated 04-01-2001 by Additional sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Case no. 73/98, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and directing him to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- i/d to suffer R. I. for two months and also convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - i/d to suffer R. I. for six months, filed present appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that:- the marriage of deceased Dhanwantabai was performed with the present appellant on 15-06-1997. After her marriage she started residing with accused/appellant at village mundhari, Tq. Mohadi, Dist. Bhandara, who used to reside along with his brother - Premlal, father - Pisaram, mother - Parbatabai and sister - Shardabai. She was taken to her parents house at the time of Dipawali festival of 1997 and thereafter at the time of Holi festival of 1998. It is alleged that since the marriage of dhanwantabai with the accused, there was ill- treatment and harassment to Dhanwantabai on account of unlawful demand. It is also alleged that on 15-11-1997 appellant had been to parents house of Dhanwantabai i. e. village mohadi, Tq. Goregaon, Distt. Gondiya, to take dhanwantabai for co-habitation as she had been to her parents-house for Diwali Festival and at that time the accused demanded an amount of rs. 15,000/ -. The brother of Dhanwantabai namely Umesh PW-2 paid the amount of rs. 15,000/- and thereafter the appellant took dhanwantabai for co-habitation to village mundhari. It is further alleged that at the time of Holi Festival in the year 1998, the appellant along with Dhanwantabai had been to her parents' house and at that time he demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. However, the brother of Dhanwantabai showed their inability to pay the amount, at that time the accused/ appellant extended threats to them andansisted for payment of amount. 25,000/ -. However, the brother of Dhanwantabai showed their inability to pay the amount, at that time the accused/ appellant extended threats to them andansisted for payment of amount. Appellant at that time took Dhanwantabai to his house at Mundhari and thereafter within 15 days the alleged incident took place i. e. on 06-04-1998 at about noon time at the house of appellant. ( 3 ) KHUSHAL Chauragade from village mundhari had been to the parents' house of dhanwantabai i. e. at village Mohadi, Tq. Goregaon, Distt. Gondiya and informed that dhanwantabai is dead. PW-1 and PW-2 who are the brothers then made inquiry with Khushal chauragade about the cause of death, however, he has not stated anything about the cause of death. PW-1 and PW-2 i. e. Chandrakumar and umesh along with some other including Rita pw-9, wife of Umesh, came to village mundhari, found the dead body of dhanwantabai. The accused was not found at the house at that time and therefore, PW-1 and pw-2 made inquiry with the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dhanwantabai about the cause of death, however, they have not stated any thing in that respect and therefore, chandrakumar PW-1 then immediately made a report about the suspicious death of his sister dhanwantabai Exh. 64 on the basis of which a. D. No. 9/98 is registered under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code. PSI Kamalakar jadhav PW-13 attached to Police Station mohadi made inquiry in the said A. D. and after recording statement of certain witnesses and considering the post mortem report, he himself filed complaint for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which Crime No. 25/98 is accordingly registered, F. I. R. which is proved is at exh. 110. As there were allegations about ill- treatment and harassment to Dhanwantabai by the accused, therefore, Section 498-A was added. During the course of investigation of the above crime, PW-13 prepared Spot panchanama, attached the clothes which were on the person of the deceased, requisition letter was given to the Circle Inspector (Revenue) for preparing map, which is proved at Exh. 100. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and 4 others including his father, mother, brother and sister for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. 100. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and 4 others including his father, mother, brother and sister for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THE Judicial Magistrate, First class committed the case to the Court of sessions, Bhandara, as the offence under section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. The Sessions Case No. 73/ 98 was accordingly made over to Additional sessions Judge, Bhandara, who framed charge against the accused on 03-08-2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the same was read over and explained to the accused, however, they pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE prosecution to connect the accused with the above said crime, examined near about 13 witnesses. PW-1 is chandrakumar Budharam Chauragade, resident of Mohadi, Tq. Goregaon, Distt. Gondiya, brother of deceased, his evidence is at Exh. 83 while the report given by him to the Police station, correctness of which are not disputed is at Exh. 64, on the basis of which A. D. No. 9/ 98 was registered. PW-2 is Umesh Budharam chauragade, elder brother of deceased, his evidence is at Exh. 86. PW-3 Mohd. Shafi s/o. Abdul Sattar Ansari, a Panch Witness, his evidence is at Exh. 87 and through his evidence inquest Panchanama Exh. 88 and Spot panchanama Exh. 89 are got proved. PW-4 is mahadeo Gonnade, a Panch Witness. PW-5 is wasudeo Bante, resident of Kardi. However, both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution. PW-6 is Dharmpal Shende, he also has not supported the prosecution. PW-7 is Ramesh Bhuloba Sonawane, maternal uncle of the appellant while PW-8 is one Gayabai, resident of Mundhari Khurd. Both these witnesses again turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution. PW-9 is Ritabai, wife of Umesh Chauragade, sister-in-law of deceased and wife of PW-2. Her evidence is at Exh. 96. PW-10 is Bhagwati Dohale, a neighbour of PW-1 and PW-2 from village mohadi, her evidence is at Exh. 97. PW-11 is jagdish Chauragade, his evidence is at Exh. 102 while PW-12 is Dr. Male war, who performed post mortem over the dead body of deceased, his evidence is at Exh. Her evidence is at Exh. 96. PW-10 is Bhagwati Dohale, a neighbour of PW-1 and PW-2 from village mohadi, her evidence is at Exh. 97. PW-11 is jagdish Chauragade, his evidence is at Exh. 102 while PW-12 is Dr. Male war, who performed post mortem over the dead body of deceased, his evidence is at Exh. 103 while the post mortem report which is proved through the evidence of this witness is at Exh. 104, while the PW-13 is Kamlakar Jadhav, Investigating officer. ( 6 ) THE defence has not disputed the correctness of certain other documents i. e. report of PW-1 Exh. 64, Marg Report Exh. 65, letter given by PSI for performing the post mortem Exh. 66 and Exh. 67. Then at Exh. 72 there is a panchanama of Arrest of Accused no. l on 07-04-1998 at about 7. 00 p. m. ( 7 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record adduced by the prosecution concluded that the prosecution succeeded in proving that Dhanwantabai met homicide death, further concluded that the circumstances brought on record to connect the accused with the said crime form a chain from which the only conclusion that is drawn is that the accused is a person who committed an offence and further held that the evidence of PW-1, pw-2, PW-9 and PW-10 about the ill-treatment and harassment being satisfactory, convincing, accordingly convicted only accused No. l for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code, directing him to suffer R. I. for one year for offence under section 498-A and imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code along with fine. The said order of conviction and sentence by Additional Sessions Judge of 04-01-2001 being challenged by filing present appeal. ( 8 ) IN the appeal, we heard Shri. Sudhir Malode, Advocate for the appellant and additional Public Prosecutor Shri. Jichkar for the State at length. It is submitted by Shri. Malode, Advocate, that the order of conviction and sentence is not proper. Firstly, according to him, that the Court below has practically failed to scan and scrutinise the evidence on record in proper perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion and convicted the appellant. Secondly, according to him, the report Exh. It is submitted by Shri. Malode, Advocate, that the order of conviction and sentence is not proper. Firstly, according to him, that the Court below has practically failed to scan and scrutinise the evidence on record in proper perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion and convicted the appellant. Secondly, according to him, the report Exh. 64 does not disclose anything about the ill- treatment, harassment to Dhanwantabai, inspite of this the Court below has wrongly concluded that the appellant/accused has committed offence under Section 498-A. Thirdly, according to him, the witness PW-1, PW-2 and pw-8 are close relatives of deceased, they are interested and in such circumstances it was necessary for the Court below to scan their evidence properly, however, their evidence has been wrongly relied by the Court below. Fourthly, according to him, one Vithabai is a material witness, who would be in a better position to give details about the incident, however, the prosecution has not examined the said witness. Fifthly, according to him, the evidence of Medical Officer PW-12 has not been properly assessed as in cross-examination he admitted that if some body puts hand on the neck, the injury mentioned in column No. 17 is possible and therefore, the opinion given by the doctor as regards cause of death of dhanwantabai has been wrongly accepted by the Court below as she met homicidal death. Lastly, according to him, the defence as set up by the appellant/accused has not been considered as at the relevant time he was not present at his house, even the other family members had gone to field for work and therefore, somebody with a view to commit theft entered and alleged incident took place, but the Court below has wrongly discarded the said contention. According to him, the prosecution case solely based on circumstantial evidence and as in the present case the circumstances brought on record are not of conclusive nature, nor they formed a chain so as to infer legitimately that accused being the only person who committed the offence. The circumstances are inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, however, the Court below has wrongly convicted the appellant and the judgment and order being solely based on surmises, conjecture and without any satisfactory evidence on record, he therefore requests to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. In support of his contention, Shri. Malode, Advocate, placed reliance on certain authorities i. e. Ramesh Babu Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) Bom. Criminal case (Cri) 60 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3317]. He also placed reliance on one another authority i. e. Vilas Pandurang Patil Vs. State of maharashtra. 2005 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri) 143 (S. C.) : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2195 (S. C.)]. ( 9 ) ON the other hand it is submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. Jichkar that the prosecution succeeded in proving that dhanwantabai met homicidal death, evidence of PW-12, Dr. Malewar is satisfactory in that respect. He further submitted that evidence so far as regards ill-treatment, harassment to dhanwantabai since her marriage at the hands of present appellant/accused has also been satisfactorily proved, even the alleged unfortunate incident took place within the 10 months after the marriage of Dhanwantabai with the present appellant and that too when she was pregnant and the period of gestation was about 5 to 6 months approximately. He further submits that so far as regards offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are of conclusive nature as, firstly, according to him, the death of Dhanwantabai occurred at the house of the present appellant, secondly, the death is within 10 months after her marriage and when she was pregnant, thirdly, there was harassment on account of unlawful demand, fourthly, though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 made inquiry about the cause of death to father-in- law, mother-in-law of Dhanwantabai, however, they have not stated anything about the cause of death. After the incident, the present appellant left the place and was not present when PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 visited the village mundhari. The false defence of accused about alibi is an additional link to connect him with the said crime. Even the accused when the opportunity was given to him has also not explained about the cause of death of dhanwantabai and, according to him, as this being custodial death, it was for the accused to explain the circumstances under which she died. Even the accused when the opportunity was given to him has also not explained about the cause of death of dhanwantabai and, according to him, as this being custodial death, it was for the accused to explain the circumstances under which she died. Lastly, according to him, if the circumstances on record brought by the prosecution taken together, they formed a chain from which the only and legitimate interference can be drawn that the accused is a person who committed murder of dhanwantabai and therefore, according to him, the order of conviction and sentence is proper and justified. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal as the same being without merit. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the submissions on behalf of the parties to the appeal, it is now necessary to consider the evidence on record so as to see whether the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code is proper and justified. Firstly, it is necessary to see whether prosecution succeeded in proving that dhanwantabai met homicidal death and for which the evidence on record needs to be considered. Reference in this respect to the evidence of PW-3 Mohd. Shafi, Inquest exh. 88, evidence of PW-12 Dr. Kishor malewar and post mortem report Exh. 104 is necessary. On perusal of Inquest Exh. 88, it is specifically mentioned to the following effect; on perusal of evidence of PW-12 Dr. Kishor Malewar, according to him, he along with Dr. Lanje performed post mortem over the dead body of Dhanwantabai and noticed following injuries. Disc shaped bruise of 1. 5 cm. diameter on (Rt.) side of neck and two bruises of 1 cm. (one) below others on (It.) side of neck at the level of thyroid cartilages. The Doctor further made it clear that all other organs found congested. He also noticed that Dhanwantabai was pregnant and period of gestation was about 20 to 24 weeks. Considering the external and internal examination, the Doctor has given opinion as to cause of death as, "asphyxia due to throttling". The post-mortem report Exh. 104 is proved through the evidence of this witness. On perusal of Exh. 104 - post mortem report, it is further seen that the said document is consistent with the evidence of Doctor in material particulars. The post-mortem report Exh. 104 is proved through the evidence of this witness. On perusal of Exh. 104 - post mortem report, it is further seen that the said document is consistent with the evidence of Doctor in material particulars. Considering the above aspect on record, we find that the Court below is definitely justified in concluding that dhanwantabai met homicidal death, even this aspect is also not much disputed by the accused/present appellant. ( 11 ) THE another aspect is whether the court below is justified in concluding that the accused being author of said injuries to dhanwantabai and in this respect, it is necessary to make it clear that the prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. Before considering the evidence on record, it is desirable to give certain guidelines in scanning and analysing the evidence on record when the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. A reference in this respect is necessary to one authority i. e. AIR 1952 SC 343 (Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), wherein it is observed to the following effect; "circumstantial evidence - Duty of court. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, the rulesspecially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " the reference is also necessary to one another authority i. e. AIR 1954 SC 621 (Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab), wherein it is observed to the following effect; "circumstantial evidence - Appreciation. " the reference is also necessary to one another authority i. e. AIR 1954 SC 621 (Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab), wherein it is observed to the following effect; "circumstantial evidence - Appreciation. In a case depending on the conclusions drawn from circumstances, it is well settled that the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring the offences home to him beyond any reasonable doubt. "the reference is also necessary to one another authority i. e. AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein it is observed to the following effect; "circumstantial evidence - Onus on prosecution to prove that chain is complete - Infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall in its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court. " the Court further observed to the following effect; "before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (2) the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstances is in proximity to the time and situation. It is further observed in the said authority to the following effect; "the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established; (l)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (2)the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the ratio laid down in the above authorities, now it is necessary to see whether the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to connecmhe accused/appellant with the above said crime are of conclusive tendency and whether they formed a chain so complete and from which the only inference can be drawn that the accused is the person who committed the said offence. ( 13 ) SO far as regards circumstances brought on record by the prosecution i. e. (1) the marriage of Dhanwantabai was performed with accused/appellant on 15-07-1997 and within 10 months of her marriage with the accused, she met homicidal death; (2) that she was found dead at the house of present appellant on 06-04-1998 and that too at noon time approximately between 2. 00 p. m. to 4. 00 p. m. where the present appellant along with his family members including father, mother, brother and sister used to reside; (3) that since the marriage of Dhanwantabai with the accused, she being ill-treated, harassed on account of unlawful demand and (4) the conduct of the accused before and after the said incident on 06-04-1998. ( 14 ) SO far as regards ill-treatment, harassment to Dhanwantabai since her marriage on account of unlawful demand, a reference to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW- 10 is necessary. ( 14 ) SO far as regards ill-treatment, harassment to Dhanwantabai since her marriage on account of unlawful demand, a reference to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW- 10 is necessary. It is clear from the evidence of these four witnesses that after the marriage of Dhanwantabai, she started residing at the house of accused at village Mundhari, she was taken for the first time to her parents house at the time of Dipawali Festival of 1997 and after dipawali Festival the appellant/accused had been to the village Mohadi where brothers of dhanwantabai resides to take her to village mundhari and at that time the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for business purpose and to deposit the same in the Bank. PW-2 - Umesh, elder brother of dhanwantabai, accordingly paid the said amount to the appellant and thereafter appellant took Dhanwantabai for cohabitation on 15-11-1997. Evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Rita PW- 9 further makes it clear that Yeshwant, the uncle of PW-1 and PW-2, had been to village mundhari to take Dhanwantabai for Holi festival, however, accused/appellant refused to send her and after two days of Holi Festival, he along with Dhanwantabai then came to village Mohadi i. e. parents' house of dhanwantabai and at that time insisted for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from PW-1 and PW-2 and further extended threats that on failure to pay the said amount, they will not be in a position to see the face of Dhanwantabai. It is further clear from their evidence that they showed their inability to pay the amount, the accused then took Dhanwantabai to village mundhari for co-habitation and thereafter within 15 to 20 days the alleged incident took place on 06-04-1998 at his house. On close scrutiny of evidence of PW-1, pw-2, PW-9 and PW-10, so far as regards harassment, ill-treatment on account of unlawful demand, we find that the said evidence being consistent, satisfactory, trustworthy and acceptable and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Even their evidence further makes it clear that the present appellant used to assault deceased Dhanwantabai. On close scrutiny of evidence of PW-1, pw-2, PW-9 and PW-10, so far as regards harassment, ill-treatment on account of unlawful demand, we find that the said evidence being consistent, satisfactory, trustworthy and acceptable and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Even their evidence further makes it clear that the present appellant used to assault deceased Dhanwantabai. On perusal of ingredients of Section 498-A and the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, we find that Clause (B) of Explanation to Section 498- a is attracted in the present case and the Court below is definitely justified in convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A. We do not find any infirmity in the said conclusion nor there is any reason to discard the said evidence which is otherwise convincing and acceptable. ( 15 ) FROM the evidence on record it can be seen that when the alleged incident took place, Dhanwantabai was residing with the accused at village Mundhari. In this respect a reference is necessary to Section 106 of evidence Act which reads as under; "s. 106 When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. " it is true that burden of proof of guilt of accused lies on prosecution and it never shifts, however, the prosecution in exceptional cases and to limited extent can rely on Section 106 of Evidence Act. The aid of Section 106 can be taken in a criminal trial only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out prima facie case. Here from the circumstances on record, it can be said that it is a custodial death and it is for the accused to explain the circumstances under which she met homicidal death and therefore, the only legitimate inference can be drawn that the appellant/ accused participated in the said crime and therefore, in the present case, the prosecution can take help of Section 106 to limited extent as in the present case there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of accused as cause of the death of Dhanwantabai is within the special knowledge of the accused. A reference in this respect is necessary to one authority i. e. 1953 cri. L. J. 649 (Mysore) [gullegar Shetty Vs. A reference in this respect is necessary to one authority i. e. 1953 cri. L. J. 649 (Mysore) [gullegar Shetty Vs. State of Mysore], wherein it is observed to the following effect; "evidence Act, Sec. l06-Scope section 106 cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances necessary to prove the guilt of the accused. But where the facts proved by the evidence give rise to a reasonable inference of guilt unless the same is rebutted, and such inference can be negatived by proof of some fact which in its nature can only be within the special knowledge of the accused, section 106 can be applied and its effect considered while weighing the evidence. "a reference is also necessary to another authority i. e. 1989 Cri. LJ. NOC 13 (Punjab and Haryana) [amarjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab] wherein it is observed to the following effect; "deceased last seen alive in company of accused - Defence taken by accused found to be false - Deceased dying unnatural homicidal death - Person in whose care victim was entrusted must necessarily account for crime, as he was supposed to have special knowledge about crime. "a reference is also necessary to one another authority i. e. AIR 1956 SC 404 [shambhu nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer] wherein it is observed to the following effect; "section 106 is an exception to Section 101. The latter with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he would prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. "thus considering the ratio laid down in the above authorities and factual aspect in the present case, we find that false defence by the accused gives an additional link and that he failed to explain the circumstances under which deceased met homicidal death! The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. "thus considering the ratio laid down in the above authorities and factual aspect in the present case, we find that false defence by the accused gives an additional link and that he failed to explain the circumstances under which deceased met homicidal death! ( 16 ) IT is true that Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden proving a criminal charge, however, it is simply designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he would prove without difficulty. In the present case, as it will be seen that from the evidence on record it can be gathered safely that after the incident the accused/appellant left the house, had gone to the village where PW-7 - his maternal uncle Ramesh resides. From the evidence on record it is further seen that he reached there at about 9. 30 p. m. on 06-04- 1998. The another circumstance in respect of which a reference is necessary is that when khushal had been to village Mohadi to give information about the death of Dhanwantabai to PW-1 and PW-2 and when they visited village Mundhari at about 11. 00 p. m. on 06- 04-1998 and made inquiries about the cause of death of Dhanwantabai, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Dhanwantabai has not given any satisfactory reply and the present appellant was found absconding. Considering the above aspects on record and more particularly, the conduct of the present appellant after the incident and a false plea taken by him about the alibi, we find that this gives an additional link to connect the accused with the above said crime. The cumulative effect of the circumstances on record referred to above, we find that they form a chain so complete from which the only and legitimate inference can be drawn that the accused is the person who committed the abovesaid crime as from the other evidence on record, it is further seen that the map as regards place of incident is at exh. 100 and the place of incident is a bed-room of the present appellant which is on the first floor and thus we find that the Court below is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appeal is definitely without merit, the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.