JUDGMENT : (PER : K. J. ROHEE, J.) 1. The appellant is the original accused who has challenged this conviction for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- in-default to suffer imprisonment for 3 months by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.15/1992 decided on 4.7.1995. 2. The appellant is the resident of village Mendha (Chapral) Tahsil - Lakhandur, District - Bhandara. He was residing with his mother and PW 12 Ravi s/o Zittu Madavi (the son of his maternal aunt). The appellant and PW 12 Ravi were taking education at Lakhandur. In May-1990, the appellant married to Shashikala alias Bhavika, the elder daughter of PW 6 Sau. Draupadabai w/o Bajirao Maldongre and PW 9 Bajirao s/o Madhav Maldongre. PW 6 Sau. Draupadabai was residing at village Kavalshi, Tahsil - Lakhandur, District . Bhandara and PW 9 Bajirao was serving as a Teacher at village Deutola, District . Bhandara. After marriage Bhavika went to her matrimonial house at village Mendha and stayed there for about a month. Thereafter, she was brought back to her mother's house at village Kavalshi. After the month of Kartik, Bhavika went to village Mendha at her matrimonial house. 3. On 26.11.1990 PW 12 Ravi returned to the house from school at about 5/6 p.m. He saw a dead body hanging from the rafter of the roof of the house. He thought it to be a ghost and rushed out of the house and informed the neighbours. On the same day, PW 14 Motiram s/o Pusaram Masram (the uncle of the appellant) prepared a report and through Police Patil took it to Police Station, Lakhandur. On the basis of the said report A.D. No.43/1990 u/s 174, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.11.1990. On the same day PSI Madavi (PW 18) visited the place of incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.45). He also prepared inquest panchanama (Exh.44). On that day PW 6 Draupadabai (mother of deceased Bhavika) lodged report (Exh.25) at P.S. Lakhandur alleging therein that the appellant had illicit relations with another woman, that he ignored his wife Bhavika and that Bhavika might have committed suicide because of the mental and physical torture. On the basis of the said report Crime No.100/1990 u/s 498-A and 306 of IPC was registered against the appellant at Exh.60. On the basis of the said report Crime No.100/1990 u/s 498-A and 306 of IPC was registered against the appellant at Exh.60. On 28.11.1990 autopsy on the body of Bhavika was conducted by PW 7 Dr. G.S. Lanjewar and a Lady Medical Officer Dr. S.D. Agrawal at Cottage Hospital, Sakoli. Continuous ligature mark around the neck was noted, so also contusions and abrasions on other parts of the body were noted. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to strangulation. Accordingly they prepared postmortem report (Exh.27). During the course of investigation two post cards dated 1.8.1990 (Exh. 35) and 24.9.1990 (Exh.34) written by the appellant to his father-in-law PW 9 Bajirao Maldongre were seized from PW 6 Sau. Draupadabai. On chemical analysis of viscera no recognisable poison was detected. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 302 of IPC. 4. The defence of the appellant is that on hearing the rumours of illicit relations between the appellant and Sunanda, Bhavika committed suicide. In fact, he had cordial relations with Bhavika. 5. In support of the allegations the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. PW 6 Sau. Draupadabai w/o Bajirao Maldongre is the mother and PW 9 Bajirao s/o Madhav Maldongre is the father of deceased Bhavika; PW 8 Sau. Sulochana w/o Sitaram Masram is the neighbour of PW 6 Draupadabai; PW 10 Yashwant s/o Kodu Maldongre is the uncle of deceased Bhavika; PW 1 Harishchandra s/o Vithoba Masram is the cousin and neighbour of the appellant; PW 1 Harishchandra is the husband of Sunita with whom the appellant had allegedly illicit relations; PW 2 Sau. Dhurpata w/o Ramchandra Masram, PW 3 Sau. Anusaya w/o Bajirao Sahare, PW 4 Sau. Geetabai w/o Hariram Masram and PW 5 Sau. Tuljabai w/o Shankar Kumbhare are on the quarrel between Geetabai and Sunanda prior to the death of Bhavika; PW 12 Ravi s/o Zittu Madavi is the first witness to have seen the dead body of Bhavika hanging to the rafter; PW 14 Motiram s/o Pusaram Masram is the uncle of the appellant who reported about the death of Bhavika to the Police; PW 16 Tukaram s/o Jairam Kumbhare, resident of Dahegaon, is a witness who had seen the appellant at village Dahegaon in the afternoon on the date of the incident; PW 7 Dr. G.S. Lanjewar is the Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Sakoli who conducted autopsy on the body of Bhavika; PW 11 Motiram s/o Nago Dighore and PW 13 Ghansham s/o Ravisinha Pawar are the panch witnesses; PW 15 Shriram s/o Motiram Nagtode prepared the map of spot (Exh.50); PW 18 PSI Madavi and PW 17 PSI Deshpande are the investigating officers. 6. On considering the above evidence, the trial Court held that the death of Bhavika was homicidal and that the appellant killed her by strangulation. The trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant subjected his wife Bhavika to cruelty. Accordingly the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and acquitted him of the offence punishable u/s 498-A and 306 of IPC. The State has not challenged the acquittal of the appellant. The conviction of the appellant is under challenge. 7. We have heard Shri V.J. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant and Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the State. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the sessions trial with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of Bhavika was homicidal. He submitted that there is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the death of his wife Bhavika. He submitted that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution further failed to prove that there was motive on the part of the appellant to kill his wife. The prosecution evidence does not show that there were illicit relations between the appellant and Sunanda (the wife of PW 1 Harishchandra). In fact, Bhavika committed suicide on hearing the rumours about the illicit relations between the appellant and Sunanda. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in fact the appellant was not at home at the time of the death of Bhavika and he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the parents of Bhavika. 9. The learned APP, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment. He submitted that there is ample evidence indicating that there were illicit relations between the appellant and Sunanda. He further submitted that Bhavika was residing with the appellant and was thus in his custody. So it was for the appellant to explain as to how she died. 9. The learned APP, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment. He submitted that there is ample evidence indicating that there were illicit relations between the appellant and Sunanda. He further submitted that Bhavika was residing with the appellant and was thus in his custody. So it was for the appellant to explain as to how she died. The appellant failed to explain it and took a plea that he was not at home. The appellant has, however, not adduced any evidence to establish his alibi. The learned APP submitted that though there is no direct evidence about the involvement of the appellant, the circumstances established by the prosecution unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. He submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt. The trial court was justified in convicting the appellant and that no interference is called for. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel. The first thing to be considered is whether Bhavika met with homicidal death as alleged by the prosecution or whether it was suicidal death as contended by the appellant. 11. The fact of death of Bhavika came to light in the evening of 26.11.1990. On the same day PW 14 Motiram Pusaram Masram (the uncle of the appellant) prepared report (Exh.47) and it was taken to P.S. Lakhandur on the next day i.e. on 27.11.1990 at 7 a.m. On the basis of the said report, A.D. No. 43/90 under Section 174 of Cr. P. C. was registered at Exh.48. On the very day PW 18 PSI Madavi visited the place of incident and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.45) between 7.30 and 8.15 a.m. 12. The spot panchanama (Exh.45) shows that the place of incident is the residential house of the appellant. There is a 5 ft. high wall dividing the front room and the kitchen. There is a loft to the room. There are rafters to the ceiling. The height of the rafters from floor is 8 ft. 5 inches. The toes of the deceased were tilted towards the floor. The noose of the rope was below the right ear of the deceased. The neck of the deceased was slightly tilted towards the left side. Blood had oozed out the nose of the deceased. Froth had come out of the mouth on the left side cheek of the deceased. The toes of the deceased were tilted towards the floor. The noose of the rope was below the right ear of the deceased. The neck of the deceased was slightly tilted towards the left side. Blood had oozed out the nose of the deceased. Froth had come out of the mouth on the left side cheek of the deceased. The pieces of bangles of the deceased were lying on the spot. 13. Inquest panchanama (Exh.44) was prepared between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m. Injuries on head and face of the deceased were noted. Both the lips were open, the tongue was caught between the jaws and was protruding out from the teeth. Abrasion marks were visible on the neck of the deceased. Abrasions were noted on both the knees and blood had oozed from those injuries. There was no injury on the private parts of the deceased. 14. On 28.11.1990 PW7 Dr. Lanjewar conducted autopsy. He prepared post mortem report (Exh.27) and noted that the face was congested and swollen, there was blackening of right eyelid, tongue was protuding out and was bitten between teeth, tip dark in colour, blood coming out from nostrils was dark in colour, blood stips were present on left cheek and chin, dry blood was present over feet and toe; dry mud was also present on feet and ash was present on toes of both feet. Dr. Lanjewar noted surface wounds and injuries as under:- .i) Contimes ligature mark 11 ½. X ½. around the neck, more marked in front of thyroid and on lt. Side,- knot present on Rt. Side below momdible dark red in colour, -transvears in direction- small abrasion near the margins of ligature mark ++ ii) contusion 3. X ½. on lt. Side of forehead half curved, bluish in colour, iii) Blackening of the Rt. Upper eyelid with swelling, iv) Abrasion 1 ¼. x ½. on the anterior aspect of both axillary line (Ant- bite), v) Abrasion ¾. X ½. on the anterior aspect on left knee, vi) Small abrasion on both knee + vii) Swelling over right temporal region + size 4. X 3... No other injuries were discovered by external examination or palpation as fractures etc. Injury no. (iv) and other ant-mark on abdomen and chest were post mortem injuries. There was extravesation of blood in right parietal and temporal region and muscle tissue was highly congested. X 3... No other injuries were discovered by external examination or palpation as fractures etc. Injury no. (iv) and other ant-mark on abdomen and chest were post mortem injuries. There was extravesation of blood in right parietal and temporal region and muscle tissue was highly congested. Walls, ribs and cartilages were intact; pleura was pale and larynx, trachea and bronchi contained dark blood; Extravesation of blood in the tissue under ligature mark was present; Both lungs were pale; Accumulation of blood in pelvic cavity about 102 contains dark blood; Tongue tip was dark; Liver, gall bladder, pancreas and suprarenals , spleen and kidneys were pale; Spine and spinal cord was not examined. In the opinion of the Dr. Lanjewar the cause of death was shock due to vaso-vagal effect due to strangulation. 15. The Chemical Analyser's report (Exh.28) shows that no recognisable poison was detected in the viscera. 16. Dr. Lanjewar deposed that since ligature marks were transversed , there was possibility of homicidal strangulation rather than suicidal strangulation. During crossexamination Dr. Lanjewar stated that in the rarest of rare case in spite of the transverse ligature mark, the death can be by hanging. Dr. Lanjewar further stated that abrasions are possible due to fall and the injuries are possible if the victim had tried to climb a wall to reach the roof of the house in order to tie the rope in an attempt to commit suicide. 17. It has been observed in Modi's Medical Jurisprudece (Twenty Second Edition) at page 257 that in India it is common practice to kill a victim and then to suspend the body from a tree or a rafter to avert suspicion. It is, therefore, necessary to find out if hanging was the cause of death in a suspended body. The presence of a ligature mark alone is not diagnostic of death from hanging 18. Strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. Death is usually due to asphyxia. Very rarely, the cervical vertebrae may be fractured. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence it is further observed that a suicidal strangulation is not very common. Homicidal strangulation is common. At page 270 in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence (Twenty-Second Edition) the difference between hanging and strangulation is given in tabular form. Death is usually due to asphyxia. Very rarely, the cervical vertebrae may be fractured. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence it is further observed that a suicidal strangulation is not very common. Homicidal strangulation is common. At page 270 in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence (Twenty-Second Edition) the difference between hanging and strangulation is given in tabular form. In order to examine the correctness of the opinion of Dr. Lanjewar, it would be beneficial to refer to some items in tabulated form:- Hanging Strangulation 2 Face . Usually pale and petechiae rare. 2 Face- Congested, livid and marked with petechiae. 4 Neck- Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. 4 Neck . Not so. 5 External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked 5 External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotio sinus effect). 6 Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rare. 6 Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears may be found. 7 Ligature mark . Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove on furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. 7 Ligature mark . Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 8 Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. 8 Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, common 10 Injury to the muscles of the neck- Rare 10 Injury to the muscles of the neck- Common 13 Fracture- dislocation of the cervical vertebrae- Common in judicial hanging 13 Fracture- dislocation of the cervical vertebrae . Rare 14 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body- Usually not present 14 Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face neck and other parts of the body- Usually present. 19. If we compare the observations in the post mortem report (Exh.27) with the above items, it would be seen that the death in the present case is by strangulation and not by hanging. 20. Besides medical evidence, the trial Court has also considered certain surrounding circumstances suggesting that it was not a case of hanging but of strangulation. 21. The trial court observed that there was a cot resting on the wall just near the dead body. 20. Besides medical evidence, the trial Court has also considered certain surrounding circumstances suggesting that it was not a case of hanging but of strangulation. 21. The trial court observed that there was a cot resting on the wall just near the dead body. However, it was not used for climbing the partition wall to approach the rafter or even as a support after hanging. The trial Court observed that no stool or box was used for support to feet before hanging and the door of the one room tenement was not latched from inside. The evidence of PW 12 Ravi does not show that when he returned to the house in the evening after attending school, the door was closed from inside. This shows that the door was not closed from inside. If it was a case of suicidal hanging by Bhavika, she would have taken precaution to close the latch of the door of the room from inside. One or two other circumstances are also noted by the trial Court, but they do not appear to be so important. In our opinion the trial Court has elaborately considered the medical as well as other aspects of the case in coming to the conclusion that it was a homicidal strangulation and not suicidal hanging. Noticing of broken pieces of bangles on spot also rule out possibility of hanging. We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the trial Court. 22. Now the question is who killed Bhavika. It may be noted that there is no eye-witness to the incident. Hence we have to consider the circumstances. 23. It has come in evidence that after the month of Kartik, Bhavika returned from her parental house to the matrimonial house at village Mendha. She was killed on 26.11.1990. During this period, she was staying with her mother-in-law, husband (namely the appellant) and PW 12 Ravi (the cousin of the appellant). The mother of the appellant must be quite old at the time of incident. Hence it appears improbable that she would have strangulated Bhavika who was quite young. The incident is of the year 1990 whereas PW 12 Ravi was examined in the year 1995. At that time he was studying in 6th Standard and his age was 16 years. It means that at the time of incident PW 12 Ravi might be hardly 11 years old. The incident is of the year 1990 whereas PW 12 Ravi was examined in the year 1995. At that time he was studying in 6th Standard and his age was 16 years. It means that at the time of incident PW 12 Ravi might be hardly 11 years old. So, it is equally improbable that PW 12 Ravi strangulated Bhavika. Secondly there is nothing on record to show that the mother-in-law of Bhavika or PW 12 Ravi had any motive to kill Bhavika. Thus the possibility of the mother-in-law of Bhavika or PW 12 Ravi having killed Bhavika by strangulation has to be ruled out. 24. The last occupant of the house is the appellant. He being the husband of Bhavika and residing under the same roof with her is expected to explain as to how she died. His defence is that on hearing the rumours about illicit relations between him and Sunanda, Bhavika committed suicide. As held earlier Bhavika did not commit suicide, but she was done to death by strangulation. In view of these circumstances there can be nobody else than the appellant who is responsible for causing the death of his wife Bhavika by strangulation. 25. In this respect it may also be noted that on the date of incident PW 16 Tukaram r/o Dahegaon saw the appellant coming on bicycle by Lakhandur-road between 3-4 p.m. On seeing the appellant PW Tukaram asked him as to whether he was coming from his own village. The appellant, however, did not respond and went towards the house of his maternal aunt. PW Tukaram specifically stated that the appellant was not seen at village Dahegaon either till that time i.e. on Monday or on the previous day i.e on Sunday. PW Tukaram denied that the appellant had visited his aunt's house on Sunday in the afternoon. During cross examination PW Tukaram admitted that Bajirao (father of deceased Bhavika) is his relative. However, he denied that on the say of Bajirao he was deposing false. It appears that the statement of PW 16 Tukaram was recorded by PW 17 PSI Deshpande after about 7 months. It is true that there has been delay in recording his statement. During cross examination PW Tukaram admitted that Bajirao (father of deceased Bhavika) is his relative. However, he denied that on the say of Bajirao he was deposing false. It appears that the statement of PW 16 Tukaram was recorded by PW 17 PSI Deshpande after about 7 months. It is true that there has been delay in recording his statement. However, PW Tukaram stated during cross examination that he did not go to the police himself to narrate that he had seen the appellant on the date of the incident at village Dahegaon in the afternoon. It may be noted that during cross examination PSI Deshpande was asked as to whether he had recorded the statement of PW Tukaram to which he answered in the affirmative, but no explanation was sought from him about the delay in recording his statement. In the circumstances of the case the delay cannot be said to be inordinate so as to discard the testimony of PW Tukaram. The trial court has relied on the testimony of PW Tukaram and we see no reason to disagree with the trial Court. 26. It is thus obvious that the appellant must have been at his house in the morning on the date of incident. In this respect the trial court observed that there was motive for the appellant to finish his wife Bhavika. It might be because she should not make query about his relations with Sunanda or it also might be possible that the presence of Bhavika was an hindrance in continuing his relationship with Sunanda. Thus there appears involvement of the appellant in the death of Bhavika by strangulation. 27. There cannot anybody else than the appellant who was interested in killing Bhavika because Bhavika had no enmity with anyone at village Mendha. Even she was not acquainted with the villagers because her stay was very brief. These circumstances clearly indicate the involvement of the accused and accused alone in the death of Bhavika. The trial Court rightly observed that the circumstances of the case are totally inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant. We see no reason to disagree with the conclusion. 28. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at correct finding of the guilt of the appellant. We confirm the same and pass the following order : The appeal is dismissed. We see no reason to disagree with the conclusion. 28. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at correct finding of the guilt of the appellant. We confirm the same and pass the following order : The appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He is directed to surrender within four weeks to serve out the sentence.