JUDGMENT B.P. SINGH, J.- We have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire evidence placed before us. We are satisfied that no interference with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is called for. 2. The victim, PW 8 was married to the appellant on 19-11-1984. It appears that their relations were not cordial on account of demands of dowry, etc. On the morning of 17-3-1985, the appellant called the doctor, PW 2 to his house complaining that his wife was unconscious. PW 2 finding the victim to be unconscious advised that another doctor PW 1 may be called. PW 1 also examined the victim and advised that she be removed to the Civil Hospital at Jalgaon. Accordingly, she was removed to Jalgaon Civil Hospital and examined there by PW 10 who was a medical officer attached to the hospital. PW 10 noticed the following injuries on the victim on 18-3-1985. "(1) Abraded contusion on the neck right side angle of mandible, size 1" x 1/4". (2) Abraded contusion over neck below the left of mandible, size 1/2" x 1/2". (3) Abraded contusion on the neck left side below angle of mandible, size 4" x 1". Blackish red in colour." 3. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. He could not give any opinion as to why she had become unconscious. His evidence further discloses that till she was removed from the hospital at Jalgaon on 25-3-1985 she was unconscious. 4. The victim was then removed to Jaslok Hospital at Bombay on 25-3-1985 and the evidence on record establishes beyond doubt that she remained unconscious for a very long period. It appears from the evidence on record that she could speak very softly only on 6-5-1985. On 9-5-1985 she desired that she may be discharged from the hospital. As she was in a position to make a statement the police recorded her statement on 10-5-1985. She was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 15-5-1985. The clear and categoric case of the victim is that while she was sleeping early in the morning on 17-3-1985, her husband, the appellant herein, attempted to strangulate her. He was pressing her neck. She resisted and caught hold of his hands. She was ultimately discharged from the hospital on 15-5-1985. The clear and categoric case of the victim is that while she was sleeping early in the morning on 17-3-1985, her husband, the appellant herein, attempted to strangulate her. He was pressing her neck. She resisted and caught hold of his hands. What happened thereafter, perhaps, she could not describe because she had become unconscious and continued to remain unconscious for almost one-and-a-half months. 5. If one were to closely examine the injuries found on the neck of the victim it would appear that she had abraded contusions on the right as well as on the left side of the neck. The nature of the injuries is fully consistent with an attempt to throttle her. Much was sought to be made of the fact that PW 10 stated that the injuries could be caused by a hard and blunt object. It was not put to any doctor that the injuries could not have been caused by hand if the appellant attempted to strangulate her with his hands. On the other hand the evidence of PW 8 is categoric and clear on this aspect of the matter. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this is not a case where the victim had been throttled by the appellant, but was a case of attempted suicide by the victim. There is no evidence to support this speculation nor was any question put to any witness even suggesting that the victim, PW 8 attempted to commit suicide. 6. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that the injuries were on the neck below the mandible. According to him the injury should have been found around the neck, meaning thereby in a circle around the neck. This argument is not tenable as that is not necessary in a case of this nature, because the victim was sleeping when the appellant tried to strangulate her and, therefore, the injuries were caused on the neck both on the left and the right side. 7. It was then submitted that PW 8 the victim cannot be relied upon. We have read her evidence and we are satisfied that she is speaking the truth. Much was sought to be made of the fact that she admitted that she was deposing at the instance of her father. 7. It was then submitted that PW 8 the victim cannot be relied upon. We have read her evidence and we are satisfied that she is speaking the truth. Much was sought to be made of the fact that she admitted that she was deposing at the instance of her father. This stray statement in her cross-examination cannot be of much assistance to the defence, because her first statement was recorded by the police on 10-5-1985 and the evidence on record discloses that at that time only her husband was with her. The statement that she gave to the police is fully consistent with her deposition in the Court, and no question was put to her to bring out any inconsistency in her statement in the Court and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. While granting special leave petition this Court confined the appeal to the question whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is proved. His conviction under Section 498-A IPC stands affirmed. The appellant has been sentenced to 5 years' RI for committing the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 and in default to undergo 2 years' RI. 8. Having considered all aspects of the matter and having perused the evidence on record, we find that no interference by this Court is called for. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.