Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Chennai against the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The appellant/accused was put on trial on the following prosecution case:- P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased-Amudha and were residing at No.36, Ayyavu Naicken Third Street, Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai-83. The accused and the deceased got married on 15. 2003 without the consent of their parents in pursuance of the love affairs and were living at No.53, Kamaraj Street, Annai Sathya Nagar, Chennai-83. Though the accused was working as a Carpenter, he used to go to his work only for two days in a week and he used to scold and beat the deceased for not giving him money to drink alcohol. Hence the deceased informed her parents that she was not taken care of properly by her husband and she was even starving for food. Therefore, P.W.1 used to give Rs.200/- or Rs.300/-every week to her daughter. Likewise, the deceased was sent to her parental home three times and she also brought, ear stud, nose stud and cash from her parents and gave them to the accused. In continuance of the above quarrel, one week prior to the occurrence, the accused beat the deceased and sent her to her parental home for bringing cash and jewels. As the deceased did not return from her parental home, on 7. 2004, the accused went to her house and brought the deceased to his house. As the deceased did not pay the accused money and also he suspected her fidelity, on 7. 2004 at about 4.00 p.m., when the accused and the deceased were in their residence, a quarrel erupted in between them and with an intention to kill the deceased, the accused strangulated the neck of the deceased with a thupatta, as a result of which the deceased died due to asphyxia. 2004 at about 4.00 p.m., when the accused and the deceased were in their residence, a quarrel erupted in between them and with an intention to kill the deceased, the accused strangulated the neck of the deceased with a thupatta, as a result of which the deceased died due to asphyxia. Thereafter, the accused took the deceased to Government K.K. Nagar Hospital around 9.05 p.m., where she was examined by the doctor, P.W.9. He issued the Accident Register, Ex.P-5 with his opinion that the deceased was brought dead. 3. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased for giving her money one Saturday, but the neighbours informed him that his daughter had been taken to Government K.K. Nagar Hospital for treatment of stomachache. When P.W.1 went to the hospital, he saw the body of the deceased with strangulated injury on the neck of the deceased due to tightening of the thuppatta. Thereafter, he came and enquired the neighbours and they informed him that there was a quarrel in between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station and gave a written complaint, Ex.P-1 before P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police at 10.30 p.m., on 7. 2004 and the same was registered in Cr.No.723 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P-6. As P.W.1 informed P.W.10 that the body was in the hospital, P.W.10 along with the Head Constable, P.W.11 went to the hospital and saw the body of the deceased as well the bloodstains on her clothes. As the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage, he sent intimation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable, P.W.11 to the Government Royapettah Hospital for postmortem. 4. P.W.17, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar took up investigation. He gave a requisition under Ex.P-15 to the PA to the Collector, P.W.13 for conducting inquest on the body of the deceased. On 7. 2004 around 7.30 a.m., he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-4 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-16 in the presence of P.Ws.3 & 8. He also examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and recorded their statements. 5. On 7. 2004 around 7.30 a.m., he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-4 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-16 in the presence of P.Ws.3 & 8. He also examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and recorded their statements. 5. In pursuance of the directions of P.W.13, the PA to the Collector, P.W.12, the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Guindy-Mambalam Taluk proceeded to Government Royapettah Hospital on 7. 2004 and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars between 10.30 a.m., and 12.30 p.m., and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-7. He also examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement under Ex.P-3. P.W.1 has also endorsed the statement given by P.W.2 under Ex.P-2. He thereafter examined the accused and recorded his statement under Ex.P-8. He gave a requisition to the medical team for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He forwarded his report dated 27. 2004 under Ex.P-9 to the PA to the Collector, who in turn forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, P.W.17 along with his report, Ex.P-10. 6. P.W.15, Assistant Professor along with Dr. A.N. Shanmugham, Civil Surgeon, Dept. of Forensic Medicine attached to Government Royapettah Hospital commenced postmortem on the body of the deceased at 1.45 p.m., on 7. 2004 and they noted the following injuries:- "1. Reddish brown abrasions seen in the following areas of the body: 2 x 1 - 0.5 cms on the outer aspect of front of left elbow. 2 - 3 x 1 - 0.5 cms on the outer aspect of left elbow. 0.5 x 0.5 cm on back of left elbow. 2 - 8 x 0.4 cms on the upper part of chin. 2. Burns like injury reddish brown in colour measuring 2 x 3 -1 cms over back of left elbow. 3. Dark brown horizontal ligature mark seen around the neck at the level of thyroid cartilege. The ligature mark lies 6 cms above the supra-sternal notch on front. On the right side the ligature mark lies 8 cms below the right mastoid process. On the left side the ligature mark lies 8 cms below the mastoid process. Posteriorly the ligature mark lies 4 cms above the C7 vertebra. The length of the ligature mark is 23 cms. On the right side the ligature mark lies 8 cms below the right mastoid process. On the left side the ligature mark lies 8 cms below the mastoid process. Posteriorly the ligature mark lies 4 cms above the C7 vertebra. The length of the ligature mark is 23 cms. The breadth of the ligature mark is 3.5 - 1.5 cms.On dissection of neck: Bluish black contusion measuring 5 x 4 x 1 cms seen in the subcutaneous tissues underlying the ligature mark on the left side of the neck. Bluish black contusion measuring 4 x 3 x 1 cms seen in the subcutaneous tissues underlying the ligature mark on the right side of neck. Hyoid bone: intact. Thyroid cartilege : intact. Heart: Normal in size. Chambers contained fluid blood. Coronaries - patent. Valves - Normal Great Vessels - Normal Lungs: Multiple sub-pleural patechial haemorrhage seen over both lungs near the intersurface of lobes. Cut section congested. The mucous membrane of larynx and troches found congested. Stomach: Contained 240 gms of partly digested rice particles. Mucous - Normal. Liver - Spleen and Kidneys; Normal in size - congested. Intestines: Distended with gas. Bladder: empty Uterus: Normal in size. Empty. Brain: Dedematous. Surface vessels tortuous. Viscera preserved for chemical analysis. Swab taken from mouth for detection of poisons. Vaginal swab taken for detection of sperm and seminal enzyme." They issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-13 with their opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. 7. P.W.17, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, in the meanwhile examined the postmortem doctor, P.W.15 and recorded his statement. As he found during investigation that the deceased had been murdered, he altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC and sent the altered report, Ex.P-17 to the Court. He arrested the accused on 17. 2004 at 6.00 p.m., near the ESI bus stop at Ashok Pillar and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of the witnesses. He remanded the accused to judicial custody on the next day. He also seized the bloodstained thupatta, M.O.3, chudithar top, M.O.4, chudithar pant, M.O.5 and brascier, M.O.6 produced by the Head Constable, P.W.16 from the body of the deceased under Form-95 and sent the same to the Court. After receipt of the report of the Tahsildar on 18. 2004 as well after taking photographs of the scene place on 7. He also seized the bloodstained thupatta, M.O.3, chudithar top, M.O.4, chudithar pant, M.O.5 and brascier, M.O.6 produced by the Head Constable, P.W.16 from the body of the deceased under Form-95 and sent the same to the Court. After receipt of the report of the Tahsildar on 18. 2004 as well after taking photographs of the scene place on 7. 2004 with the help of the photographer, P.W.14 and after completing investigation on 11. 2004, he laid the final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 302 & 304(B) IPC before the Court. 8. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied the prosecution case as false. The Court below examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and admitted Exhibits P-1 to P17 and material objects 1 to 6 and had come to the conclusion after a full-fledged trial that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 304(B) IPC, and awarded the sentence as aforesaid. 9. Mr. T.R. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his arguments that the Court below had framed charges under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304(B) IPC and had come to a conclusion that the offence under Section 304(B) IPC was not made out, as the offence under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC has been made out, and in such a case, the charges framed are not in accordance with law. However, he has not pressed the said point as the ingredients of both the charges are one and the same. 10. However, he has not pressed the said point as the ingredients of both the charges are one and the same. 10. The learned counsel would further submit that when the complaint, Ex.P-1 made by P.W.1, the father of the deceased to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the accused had given a statement to the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, P.W.12 placing categorically that the fidelity of his wife, the deceased, was doubtful from the date of their marriage, as the accused found the relative man coming to his house and talking with the deceased and on one such occasion he witnessed the deceased sharing the bed with the said relative man, since he happened to return to the house on account of his illness, and when the said act was questioned by him, he was beaten by the deceased with a broomstick and thereafter when the accused and the deceased were in the house on 7. 2004 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused purchased briyani for both of them and after eating the briyani, when they were in the bed, he advised the deceased not to talk to any person much less the relative man and for that, the deceased provocatively replied that the relative man was better than the accused and enraged upon that statement, he had strangulated the neck of the deceased with the thupatta and when she became unconscious, he had taken her to the Government K.K. Nagar Hospital and thereafter he went to his aunts house. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the offence has been committed by the accused only out of a sudden provocation enraged by the statement of the deceased and hence the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC but only under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and in these circumstances, the learned counsel pleaded for the lesser sentence be imposed on the accused. 11. Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit in his arguments that the stand taken by the defence before the Tahsildar is that the offence has been committed out of a sudden provocation enraged by the derogating reply as well suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, whereas, in the trial, the accused had taken a stand that the deceased had committed suicide due to mental agony and he has not murdered her. The said suggestion made by the accused to the witnesses-P.Ws.1 & 2 is quite contrary to the statement of the accused before the Tahsildar. That apart, the suggestion put to the Tahsildar, P.W.12 that the deceased committed suicide due to the suspicion of the accused over her fidelity was also rightly denied by him. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed the murder of his wife with premeditation and the harassment meted out by him has been established. He would also submit that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through the doctor, P.W.15 would go a long way to show that the accused had strangulated the deceased and therefore it is purely a case of murder. Hence the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC need not be interfered with and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides. The case of the prosecution as put forth through the witnesses is that the accused and the deceased were living together after their marriage on 15. 2003 in pursuance of the love affairs at their house. Thereafter, the accused was harassing the deceased for bringing cash and jewels from her parental home and accordingly, the cash and jewels worn by the deceased were also taken by the accused, as he was penniless, and was also telling the deceased that he was perfectly employed and was earning money and in spite of all these, the accused had harassed his wife-Amudha and on the fateful day i.e., on 7. 2004 at about 4.00 p.m., when both were in the house, the accused with an intention to kill the deceased-wife had strangulated the neck of the deceased with a thupatta and thereafter when the deceased fell unconscious, he had taken her to the hospital where she was declared dead. Hence the prosecution has put forth the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304(B) IPC, as it was a case of dowry death. In the judgment of the Court below, it has been categorically found that the case is proved only under Section 302 IPC apart from Section 498(A) IPC. Hence the prosecution has put forth the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304(B) IPC, as it was a case of dowry death. In the judgment of the Court below, it has been categorically found that the case is proved only under Section 302 IPC apart from Section 498(A) IPC. The complaint, Ex.P-1 was given by P.W.1, the father of the deceased, to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police and the same was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and the inquest was done by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, P.W.12. In the meantime, the accused had given a statement under Ex.P-8 before the Tahsildar. In the said statement, he has categorically stated that one Friday, a relative man came to his house and was talking with his wife and when he was about to leave for his employment, the deceased asked him as to when he would return and he had answered that he would come late and went away. However, on the way when his stomach was upset, he returned to his house and at that time he saw the relative man sharing the bed with his wife and on seeing the accused, the relative man went in a bicycle. He had also beaten the deceased for that incident and on the next day (Saturday), after compromise, he had purchased briyani for both of them and after eating briyani, around 4.00 p.m., when they were in the bed, a dispute erupted in between them and when the deceased gave a provocative answer that the relative man is better than the accused, the accused had strangulated the neck of the deceased with a thupatta and since she became unconscious, he took her to Government K.K. Nagar Hospital and he gave a false statement before the doctor that his wife had consumed poison and thereafter he secreted himself by going over to his aunt’s house and since his wife answered in such a way lowering his sexual capacity, he had to take the decision to kill her. The said statement of the accused to the Tahsildar, P.W.12 would go a long way to show that the accused had caused the death of the deceased suspecting her fidelity and enraged upon her provocative answer touching the character of the accused. 13. The said statement of the accused to the Tahsildar, P.W.12 would go a long way to show that the accused had caused the death of the deceased suspecting her fidelity and enraged upon her provocative answer touching the character of the accused. 13. Whether this enragement could be true is the question to be answered after going through the evidence. According to the prosecution, the case of the defence was that the deceased had committed suicide out of mental agony and due to the suspicion of his husband namely, the accused over her fidelity. The said suggestion was put to P.Ws.1 & 2. On the other hand, it was not suggested to the prosecution witnesses about what he had stated to the Tahsildar for the cause of the death of the deceased. On a careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution, it is seen that the death of the deceased has been caused by the accused. The question is as to whether such reason assigned by the accused could be believed for the purpose of considering the nature of offence committed by him. On a careful perusal of the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-13 and the forensic lab reports, Exs.P-11 & P-12 of the deceased, we could see that there is no detection of semen on the vaginal swab of the deceased. In these circumstances, the stand taken by the accused in the statement, Ex.P-8 that after eating the briyani and after having the sexual intercourse, the deceased had provoked the accused by saying that the relative man is better than the accused cannot be taken as true and the theory of enragement on the part of the deceased for committing the murder of the deceased as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. As already discussed, it is the evidence of the prosecution that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased-wife at his residence. The stand taken by the accused in his statement, Ex.P-8 as to the place of occurrence is also the same. Therefore, the suggestion made by the accused during the course of trial that she had committed suicide cannot be accepted. Moreover, the false explanation given by the accused as to the cause of the death of the deceased could be taken as an additional link in the circumstantial evidence so as to form a chain against the accused. Therefore, the suggestion made by the accused during the course of trial that she had committed suicide cannot be accepted. Moreover, the false explanation given by the accused as to the cause of the death of the deceased could be taken as an additional link in the circumstantial evidence so as to form a chain against the accused. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Harendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1991 SC 1842 ), where the Apex Court has held that the false explanation by the accused can also be considered as an additional link to accept the case of the prosecution. In this case, the accused had given a false statement regarding the cause of death of the deceased and therefore the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed the murder of his wife is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge (Mahalir Court), Chennai is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) and 302 IPC and the consequential sentence imposed on him is also justified. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and it is dismissed.