Honble BALI, J.–Shivan Das @ Shiv Kumar has been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of his wife and has been sentenced to a term of life, as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months vide order of conviction and sentence dated 30.9.2000 recorded by learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. (2). The only question that needs to be determined in the present appeal filed by the Shivan Das against the order of his conviction and sentence is as to whether Smt. Rukmani - his wife, committed suicide due to the appellant persistently beating her while making a demand of money for liquor or that on one such occasion he himself killed her. (3). The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention to decide the question framed above, reveal that the occurrence leading to death of Smt. Rukmani had taken place on 20.6.1999 at 7.30 p.m. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Bishandas @ Vishan brother of the deceased on 22.6.1999 at 5.45 p.m. Bishandas had given a written report Ex.P8 to SHO Police Station, Bhattabasti, Jaipur. The special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate on 23.6.1999. (4). While unfolding the prosecution version Bishandas stated that his sister Smt. Rukmani was married to appellant Shivandas. His brother-in-law Shivandas some time after marriage started consuming liquor and used to demand money from his sister to buy and consume liquor. If his sister would refuse to give him money he would beat her because he was in habit of taking liquor. He used to go to his place of service only for 10 days in a month. His sister used to tell him to go to the place of his service and was not giving him money to buy liquor whereupon he used to bear her. In this connection, he had given beating to his sister in the presence of his mother Smt. Kalawati and her son-in-law Girdharilal. His sister had already told him and his mother about this fact and further that for not giving the money to him, appellant could kill her any time. He and his mother concealed with appellant on number of occasions upon which, he would beg pardon. His sister had already told him and his mother about this fact and further that for not giving the money to him, appellant could kill her any time. He and his mother concealed with appellant on number of occasions upon which, he would beg pardon. On 20.6.1999 he received information of death of his sister, upon which he went to her house and saw that his sister was lying dead in the room. She had ligature marks on her neck. From this fact, he was convinced that the appellant had killed his sister by throttling. Because of coming of relatives and performing last rites of his sister, he could not lodge the report earlier. (5). The prosecution in its endeavour, to bring home the offence against the appellant examined Dr.Suman Datt as PW 13. He stated that on 21.6.1999 he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Rukmani W/o Shivandas. The doctor found following injuries on the dead body of Smt. Rukmani. ``1. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm. left knee cap reddish in colour or diminish tissue staining. 2. A ligature mark of size 12 x 2 cm. present in front below thyroid cartilage. Ligature mark is going upward backward reaching on right side 5 cm. below Right ear lobule on left side reaches 8 cm. below left ear lobule. Ligature mark is slightly grooved brownish in colour hand shallow not deep consistency on dissection the ligature mark is parchement like underneath tissue found pale. There is no fracture of cricoid, arytenoid thyroid cartilage. There is no displacement of tracheal rings. The above ligature mark is ante-mortem in nature. (6). In his cross-examination he stated that the ligature marks were visible in front of the neck. There was no ligature marks on the back of the neck. He also stated that the injuries received by the deceased could be the result of hanging. From the ligature marks, symptoms were of hanging. Smt. Kalawati, mother of deceased, who was examined as PW1, stated with regard to habit of the appellant of consuming liquor, demanding money from his daughter and beating her in case she refuses to give him money. Smt. Kavita examined as PW2, residing on the first floor of the same house, where the appellant was residing, also deposed with regard to appellant giving beating to his wife in case she refuses to give him money. Smt. Kavita examined as PW2, residing on the first floor of the same house, where the appellant was residing, also deposed with regard to appellant giving beating to his wife in case she refuses to give him money. Smt. Janki Devi examined as PW-4 aunt of the deceased, corroborated the statements made by Smt. Kalawati and Smt. kavita with regard to the appellant being in habit of consuming liquor, demanding money from his wife and beating her in case she refuses to give him money. Gopal Gandhi examined as PW5, who is the neighbour of the appellant, who in fact was living in the same house where the appellant was residing confirmed what had been stated by the witnesses named above. Shri Devanand PW6 son of the deceased from her first husband also stated that his father used to bear his mother after consuming liquor. Babulal and Ramesh @ Manchchi examined as PW8 and PW9 respectively deposed with regard to `Chunni of the deceased that was recovered at the instance of the appellant pursuant to disclosure statement made by him. Matadeen Singh and Mohan Lal PW12 and PW14 are the police officials, who deposed with regard to the steps they had taken while investigating the case. (7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant while denying incriminating material put to him, pleaded his innocence and false involvement in the case. (8). Mr. Biri Singh, it appears to us, in view of overwhelming evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution with regard to the appellant being unkind to his wife, beating her frequently on account of demand of money so as to buy and consume liquor, has only argued that it is a case where Smt. Rukmani Devi committed suicide, even though, due to mental and physical agony caused to her by the appellant. He thus contends that the appellant, at the most can be convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting Smt. Rukmani to commit suicide but cannot be convicted for causing murder and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC needs to be set-aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel relies upon the statement made by Dr. He thus contends that the appellant, at the most can be convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting Smt. Rukmani to commit suicide but cannot be convicted for causing murder and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC needs to be set-aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel relies upon the statement made by Dr. Suman Datt PW13, who stated in his cross-examination that ligature mark was in front of neck and not on back of the neck and further that the injuries sustained by Smt. Rukmani Devi could have been caused on account of hanging of neck and further that symptoms of ligature mark would show hanging. (9). We have given out thoughtful consideration to the only contention of the learned counsel as noted above. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, we however, do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel. (10). Smt. Kavita PW2, who was residing in the first floor of the same house where the appellant was residing, stated that on the day of occurrence, the appellant picked up a fight with his wife and he demanded money from her, and at 5.00 p.m. in the evening, she had come on the ground floor to take water. She called her but got no reply from her. The appellant at that time was sitting on the cot. She sprinkled water on Rukmani but she did not get up. She asked the appellant to wake her up, upon which, he said that she should go and after some time she would get up of her own. Gopal Gandhi PW5 who too was residing in the same house stated that on 20.6.99 when he was going at the place where he works he had heard a fight going on between husband and wife. Appellant was beating Smt. Rukmani Devi. He came back to his house at 2.30 p.m. at which time also the appellant was abusing his wife. (11). The statements of two neighbours named above, would fully establish that on the day of occurrence, appellant had indeed given beating to his wife. Their presence in the very house where the appellant was residing in natural. They are wholly uninterested witnesses and there is nothing on record that may even remotedly suggest that they were inimically disposed towards the appellant. Their presence in the very house where the appellant was residing in natural. They are wholly uninterested witnesses and there is nothing on record that may even remotedly suggest that they were inimically disposed towards the appellant. The statement made by these two witnesses establishes that on the day of occurrence the appellant had not gone to the place where he might be working. He stayed in the house and on refusal of his wife to give him money, gave her beating. The presence of the appellant in the house at the time Smt. Rukmani died, is fully established. Much reliance, cannot be placed upon the statement made by Dr. Suman Datt PW13. In fact, his evidence does not appear to be correct. If it was a case of hanging by neck, as a sequel to suicide, in all probability ligature marks would have come on the back of the neck as well. Dr. Suman Datt PW13, it may be recalled, had stated that there was no ligature mark on the back of the neck and has yet stated that the symptoms of ligature marks would show it to be a case of hanging. That apart, if it was a case of suicide by hanging committed by Smt. Rukmani Devi, there would have been another other injury on her person. In the post mortem report Ex.P/15 abrasion was found on the left knee cap reddish in colour. If Smt. Rukmani had died by hanging herself, in all probability she would not have sustained any injury on any other parts of the body. As mentioned above, she sustained injury on left knee. This injury, would normally be caused if a victim in the process of throttling resists the attack. It thus appears that Smt. Rukmani received injury on knee while resisting an attempt to murder her. Further, ligature marks on the front of the neck would rather show that Smt. Rukmani Devi was killed by pressing `Chunni from the front of the neck and that is the precise case of prosecution. It appears to this Court that the appellant pressed `Chunni from front of the neck either against a wall or bed and it is for that reason that no ligature marks were found on the back of the neck. (12). It appears to this Court that the appellant pressed `Chunni from front of the neck either against a wall or bed and it is for that reason that no ligature marks were found on the back of the neck. (12). The appellant, whose presence at the time of occurrence stands established in the house, has come up with a false explanation. He stated to his neighbours that Smt. Rukmani Devi would get up of her own after some time. He did not at that stage tell anyone that she had committed suicide by hanging. We are conscious that a false explanation cannot be used against the accused and that whatever be the circumstances, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs but it is too well settled by now that before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the court must be satisfied that various links in the chain of evidence have been satisfactorily proved and that the said circumstances, point towards the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness. In the present case, it appears to us that the essential conditions for using false explanation given by the appellant have been proved. It is also a case where the appellant has not been able to explain factors which were in his special knowledge. As mentioned above, the presence of the appellant in the house when Rukmani died is proved. (13). Theory propounded by him at the stage of arguments taking clue from the statement made by Dr. Suman Datt PW13 that Smt. Rukmani Devi committed suicide, appears to be false. Even in the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he did not state that Smt. Rukmani Devi had committed suicide. He only made a bold denial of all incriminating material put to him. Though, this factor may not in itself be sufficient to fasten the guilt upon the appellant, however, considering totality of the facts and circumstances this factor cannot be lost sight of. (14). The Honble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (AIR 2003 3609) held that though the prosecution has to lead evidence to substantiate its accusations, if factors within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, it is a factor against the accused. No explanation was given by the accused during examination under Section 313 of the Code except making bold denial. No explanation was given by the accused during examination under Section 313 of the Code except making bold denial. Though this factor by itself cannot be sufficient to fasten the guilt of the accused, while considering the totality of the circumstances this is certainly a relevant factor. (15). In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in the only contention raised by the learned counsel that it is a case where the appellant can at the most be convicted for abetting Smt. Rukmani Devi to commit suicide and that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC. (16). Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed upholding the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.9.2000 passed by learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. _