JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.04.2005 in Sessions Case No.353 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the appellant/sole accused was found guilty of the offences, (i) under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted therefor and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; (ii) under Section 498A I.P.C., convicted therefor and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: Marriage of the accused with Ch.Aruna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was performed about 14 years prior to the incident. They were blessed with two sons. Thereafter, they migrated to Mallampally village and for about 30 days prior to the incident, they started living in a rented house belonging to P.W.4. During the lifetime of the deceased, the accused was suspecting her fidelity. He never allowed her to speak with anybody. On the next morning of the incident, P.W.4 and her daughter-in-law went to the rented house to water to the newly constructed walls, and the former opened the doors of the house and found dead body of the deceased covered with blanket and bed sheet. She pulled the same and found her neck was tied with a saree and blood was oozing from head injury. She raised cries and on hearing her cries, neighbourers came there. They informed about the incident to P.W.1, who is no other than the mother of the deceased. When she came to the scene of occurrence, the accused and his two sons were found missing. Thereafter, she lodged Ex.P2-complaint. Police registered the case and investigated into. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The scene of occurrence was observed, and incriminating material seized from the scene of occurrence, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, found that the deceased died as a result of head injury. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet. 3. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The scene of occurrence was observed, and incriminating material seized from the scene of occurrence, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, found that the deceased died as a result of head injury. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet. 3. The substance of the charges framed against the appellant/ accused are as follows: Firstly, that on or about 2.8.2003 at 2.00 AM, at the house of P.W.4 at Mallampally village, the accused did commit murder by intentionally causing death of his wife Ch.Aruna by beating with an iron rod and by strangulation and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Secondly, that on the same date, at the same time and place mentioned in the first charge, and also from about 20 days prior to the incident, the accused subjected his wife Ch. Aruna to cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked 15 documents Exs.P1 to P15 besides case property M.Os. 1 to 3. 5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the case. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. 6. Accepting the circumstantial evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges, accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused. 7. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned State brief appearing for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was in the company of the deceased on the fateful day of the incident; similarly there is absolutely no evidence to show that prior to the incident or after the incident, the appellant was seen in the company of the deceased; that the case is foisted against the appellant only on mere suspicion; that Ex.P1-letter is not shown to have been written by the accused, and therefore the contents thereof cannot be taken as admission. She further contended that the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has not been examined to show the cause of death of deceased; that there is no legal evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased; that on mere surmises and conjectures, the appellant is falsely roped in. Hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that for about 20 days prior to the incident, both the accused and deceased along with their children started residing in the house of P.W.4 on rent and that immediately after the incident the accused left the place; that there is no scope or possibility for any third person to enter into the house and commit murder of the deceased; that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against the accused ? 10. Admittedly, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, is not examined. Ex.P10-post mortem certificate was marked through P.W.9-investigating officer. There cannot be any dispute that post-mortem report cannot be looked into as evidence, unless the contents thereof are proved, by the person who issued it or by any one of the modes contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that Ex.P10 was marked with consent during the evidence of P.W.9. The core question to be decided is whether Ex.P10 can be read as evidence in the absence of examination of the Doctor, who issued it. 11. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A.P.1 wherein it is held as follows: "... Merely because a document is obtained from the custody of the Government Hospital, its genuineness is not automatically proved. 11. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A.P.1 wherein it is held as follows: "... Merely because a document is obtained from the custody of the Government Hospital, its genuineness is not automatically proved. The person who has authored the said document or who has issued such document must come and depose before the Court with regard to its contents. Unless such document is proved, it cannot ensure to the benefit of the party on whose behalf it is marked. .." 12. There is no dispute about the fact that unless a document is proved in accordance with law, it cannot be read as evidence. But, Section 294 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "No formal proof of certain documents – (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3)Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved." A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that when a document is included in the list and when the accused is called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the document and when the accused has not disputed about the genuineness of the document, then such document can be read in evidence, and the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. So, when a document is marked by consent, without there being any objection, especially as regards the genuineness of the document, the contents of the document can be used as evidence. 13. In a decision in Sowam Kisku & Ors. So, when a document is marked by consent, without there being any objection, especially as regards the genuineness of the document, the contents of the document can be used as evidence. 13. In a decision in Sowam Kisku & Ors. V. The State of Bihar it is held as follows: (para 11) "In this background, when we look at the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., it could be seen that if any document is to be filed before the Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document and that the list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. The prosecution, not having taken recourse to Section 294 and the postmortem certificate having not fallen within the ambit of Section 293, cannot examine the compounder for marking the post mortem certificate to establish the cause of death of the deceased. The prosecution, therefore, has miserably failed even to establish the cause of death of the deceased Dugu Ram Das Kisku. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not necessary to go into the other evidence of the prosecution as it could not establish the first part of the case. It is, therefore, also not necessary for this Court to go into other questions whether the appellants caused injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased." From the above decision, it is clear that when the prosecution has not taken recourse to Section 294 Cr.P.C., examination of the person who issued the document is very much essential. 14. In another decision in Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra, it is held thus: "... It is enough to mention that the memorandum of the postmortem examination is not a document the proof of which can be dispensed with by resorting to the provision of Sec. 294 of the Code. Indeed, the memorandum of the post-mortem examination does ot prove by itself. It is enough to mention that the memorandum of the postmortem examination is not a document the proof of which can be dispensed with by resorting to the provision of Sec. 294 of the Code. Indeed, the memorandum of the post-mortem examination does ot prove by itself. As we have already mentioned earlier, a document which is not a substantive evidence by itself, and the contents of which have to be deposed to by a witness, can never be tendered in evidence by following the procedure mentioned in Section 294 of the Code. ..." No doubt, the above decision makes it clear that examination of the Doctor who issued the postmortem certificate, is very much necessary to decide the nature of injuries and cause of death. 15. But, in a decision rendered by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Siddiq & others v. State4 case, it is held as follows: "... Under sub-section (3) of Section 294, Cr.P.C., an injury report filed by the prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 294, Cr.P.C., may be read as substantive evidence in place of the deposition of the doctor who prepared it if its genuineness is not disputed by the accused. If its genuineness is disputed then the doctor who examined the injured person must appear in the witness box to prove his injuries and also to prove the injury report and in such a case the statement of the doctor would be the substantive evidence and the injury report may be used to corroborate or discredit his testimony." From the above decision, it is clear that when the genuineness or correctness of the document is not in dispute and it is marked by procedure prescribed under Section 294(1) Cr.P.C., it can be read as evidence. 16. Further, in a Division Bench decision of this Court in K.Pratap Reddy & others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh5, it is observed that Section 294 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr.P.C. viz. when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. It is also a case where the Doctor was not examined to prove postmortem report. when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. It is also a case where the Doctor was not examined to prove postmortem report. Therefore, from the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that when the document is admitted as evidence under Section 294(1) Cr.P.C. and no objection is taken as to the admission of the document, examination of the Doctor is not required. In the case on hand also, the postmortem report was marked by consent, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the Doctor to prove the contents of Ex.P10. 17. As seen from Ex.P10, the deceased sustained the following injuries. 1. An injury on the left Ear measuring 1/2" x 1/2" x 1" depth inch x inch x inch; 2. Another injury on the left ear at the distance of 1/2 inches measuring 1/2" x 1/2" x 2" depth Lengthy bread x depth; 3. Fracture of skull bone on the middle of the skull near the left ear at parietal region measuring 3 inches x 2 inches fracture noted; 4. Bleeding present on the scalp region clotted blood present corresponding to the fracture i.e. third injury; 5. Ligature mark present around the neck measuring 10 inches x 1/4 inches length. On examination of neck, a ligature mark was present around the neck with 10" length x 1/4" breadth. Cause of death of the deceased is noted as head injury produced due to blunt object leading to haemorrage and shock. So, from Ex.P10, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. 18. Coming to the facts of the case, as seen from Ex.P10, there was a fracture of skull bone. It is not shown to have been caused by self-infliction or by accidental fall. Even it is not the case of the accused that the deceased fell from a considerable height and sustained the head injury. The dead body was found in the house of P.W.4, who is owner of the house in which the deceased and the accused were residing as tenants. The body was lying on a cot and there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The dead body was found in the house of P.W.4, who is owner of the house in which the deceased and the accused were residing as tenants. The body was lying on a cot and there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. Therefore, all these circumstances would show that the deceased met with homicidal death, but not suicidal or accidental. 19. Entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence only. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of prosecution. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the following points have to be proved by the prosecution in view of principles laid down by the Apex Court in a decision in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others: 1)the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4)the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen that whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the appellant/accused as the assailant of the deceased. 20. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 would clearly go to show that the accused and the deceased were residing in the house of P.W.4 on rent from about one month prior to the incident. The said fact is not in dispute. The accused and the deceased along with their two sons came to Mallampally village to ekeout their livelihood. No doubt, there is no evidence to show that the accused came to the house as usual on the date of the incident also. The said fact is not in dispute. The accused and the deceased along with their two sons came to Mallampally village to ekeout their livelihood. No doubt, there is no evidence to show that the accused came to the house as usual on the date of the incident also. At the same time, since only the accused and the deceased were residing in the house, the reasonable inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case, is that the accused must have been present in the house on the fateful day of the incident. Further, on the next day morning, when P.W.4 went to the house for watering newly constructed walls, she found dead body of the deceased covered with blanket and bed sheet. The accused was not present at that time. Similarly, his two sons were also not present. It is not the case of the accused that he was not present at the relevant point of time of the incident. 21. Another strong circumstance is the evidence of P.W.5, which shows that in the early morning of 2.8.2003, the accused and his two children came to hotel of P.W.5 and took tea in his hotel and went away by boarding a jeep going towards Hanamkonda from Mulug. P.W.5 is resident of Mallampally village and he was running a hotel since 10 years near bus stop of the village. No doubt, he admitted that the accused was not acquainted with him prior to the date when he visited the hotel and thereafter he was seeing him on the date of examination in the Court. But, at the same time, the accused is not totally stranger to P.W.5, as the accused started living with his wife in the village from a considerable period prior to the incident. Therefore, mere non-acquaintance with the accused by P.W.5 cannot lead to a conclusion that the accused was stranger to P.W.5. Though there was no acquaintance, there was every scope or possibility for P.W.5, who was having hotel located near bus stop of the village, to see the accused when he was moving in the village, and so he could be in a position to identify him. P.W.5 stated that immediately after the accused left the hotel of P.W.5, the latter came to know through villagers, about the accused killing his wife. P.W.5 stated that immediately after the accused left the hotel of P.W.5, the latter came to know through villagers, about the accused killing his wife. That apart, at that odd hours, there was no reason for the accused to leave the village along with his two children. There is no need for P.W.5 to speak false or say anything, against the accused. 22. P.Ws. 1 to 4 found Ex.P1-letter in the cup-board of the rented house of the accused. In Ex.P1, nowhere it is stated in what manner and under what circumstances, he caused injuries to the deceased. But, it shows that prior to the incident, the deceased was eloped with somebody on 3 occasions and he spent thousands of rupees to trace her, and about the conduct and behaviour of the deceased. Therefore, the contents of Ex.P1 cannot be taken as extra-judicial confession because nowhere it is stated that the accused was responsible for causing death of the deceased. 23. Further, there was motive for the accused to kill his wife. Though motive is not one of the circumstances required to be proved by the prosecution, it is only a mode in assessment of criminality. There is evidence to show that the accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife all the time and he did not allow the deceased to talk to any person and he was feeling happy in ill-treating and harassing her by beating and abusing. Motive plays an important role in a case solely resting upon circumstantial evidence. So, motive is established by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion, the circumstances established by the prosecution, could be said to be conclusive in nature with complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading to an irresistible and unmistakable conclusion that it is the accused and he alone, who has committed this crime. 24. The other evidence is formal in nature. P.W.6 is one of the inquest mediators when police conducted inquest. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury and strangulation. P.W.7, who was allegedly present when police observed scene of occurrence, did not support the case of prosecution. 25. P.W.8 is the mediator who was present when the accused gave confession statement leading to discovery of M.O.1-iron rod. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury and strangulation. P.W.7, who was allegedly present when police observed scene of occurrence, did not support the case of prosecution. 25. P.W.8 is the mediator who was present when the accused gave confession statement leading to discovery of M.O.1-iron rod. The evidence of this witness is not much relevant in view of the fact that when M.O.1 was analysed by the Public Analyst, no human bloodstains are found on it. 26. P.W.9 is the investigating officer. He deposed about holding of inquest, observing scene of occurrence, seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3, arrest of accused and seizure of M.O.1-iron rod. But, there is no evidence to show that M.O.1-iron rod would cause head injury as mentioned in Ex.P10. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 28. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 16.04.2005 in Sessions Case No.353 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in all respects.