Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the Judgement and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 366/02, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 as well as for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 3 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution, the accused-appellant initially on 18.10.2001, at about 9.30 AM, declared before the police that when the appellant had gone for leaving his daughter for the school in the morning and when he came back, he found that in the kitchen, his wife Dipika had burnt and she had died. He also stated that his wife was suffering from mental unsoundness and she was also given treatment for such purpose. He declared that in the morning, when she lit the gas stove, she appears to have received burn injuries. He stated that there is no dispute or any such incident with his wife Dipika. But, since his wife has expired due to accident, on account of putting fire on the gas, he has come for making declaration. Such was registered by the police under Section 174 of CrPC. 3. It appears that thereafter, when the police found that there was smell of kerosene in the dead body, the accused-appellant changed the version and made a further declaration on the very day that she has died by sprinkling kerosene over her body and has committed suicide. After inquest panchnama, the dead body was sent for postmortem and the Doctor had withheld the final conclusion till the report of Histopathological examination of skin and neck was received. After having received the report of the Histopathological ex pert, the Doctor who performed postmortem opined that the cause of death is “asphyxia due to strangulation”. After inquest panchnama, the dead body was sent for postmortem and the Doctor had withheld the final conclusion till the report of Histopathological examination of skin and neck was received. After having received the report of the Histopathological ex pert, the Doctor who performed postmortem opined that the cause of death is “asphyxia due to strangulation”. The police on account of the aforesaid opinion of the ex pert, further inquired into the matter and as per the complainant, who is police officer, the accused-appellant confessed that on account of the dispute with his wife due to share of the property to his daughter Gayatri, who is the daughter of his former wife, he has caused death by strangulating the neck of the deceased and thereafter, has to put fire on the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, the complaint was filed by the police officer vide C.R. No. 56/02 with Dahod Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for causing death and offence under Section 201 of IPC for destroying the evidence, against the appellant-accused. 4. The police thereafter, investigated into the complaint. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused. 5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 15 witnesses whose details are given in the Judgement of the learned Sessions Judge at Para 5. The prosecution in support of its case also produced various documentary evidence, about 9 in number, details of which are given in the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge at Para 5. 6. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrC, in which the accused-appellant denied the evidence against him. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter heard the prosecution as well as the defence and ultimately, found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence under Section 302 and for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for both the aforesaid offences. The learned Sessions Judge also heard the matter before imposition of punishment and thereafter, imposed sentence upon the accused for the offence under Section 302 as well as for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC as referred to herein above. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for both the aforesaid offences. The learned Sessions Judge also heard the matter before imposition of punishment and thereafter, imposed sentence upon the accused for the offence under Section 302 as well as for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC as referred to herein above. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 7. We have heard Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Counsel for appearing for the appellant-accused as well as Mr. Raval, learned APP for State. 8. We have gone through all the evidence as that of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence led and produced before the learned Sessions Judge. 9. It appears that there is no direct eyewitness to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Before we examine the facts of the present case, the reference may be made to certain case laws which are relevant for the facts of the present case. 10. In the case of Mangatrai vs. State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1997 SC 2838 , the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the case based on circumstantial evidence, wherein the charge was against the accused husband having killed his wife by poisoning. The Apex Court considered the relevant aspects as that of— 1. the death of the deceased at the residential house of the husband. 2. unhappy relations between husband and wife. 3. false declaration by the husband to the police. 4. The report of the Chemical Analyser stating that alcohol did contain the poison. 5. The consumption of alcohol with poison could not be said to be voluntary act for committing suicide by the wife. 6. The appellant in capacity as the medical practitioner had an opportunity coupled with the knowledge of the poison to be administered in the mixture of the alcohol. 7. Anti-mortem injuries detected by the Doctor on the body of the deceased. 8. The accused having created false evidence of hanging by rushing to the police. 9. The subsequent conduct of the accused of not immediately informing his in-laws and relatives. 10. It came on evidence that the accused Doctor was dissatisfied and his in-laws and his wife. 7. Anti-mortem injuries detected by the Doctor on the body of the deceased. 8. The accused having created false evidence of hanging by rushing to the police. 9. The subsequent conduct of the accused of not immediately informing his in-laws and relatives. 10. It came on evidence that the accused Doctor was dissatisfied and his in-laws and his wife. Ultimately it was found by the Apex Court that the aforesaid circumstances led to an unbelievable conclusion that the accused and no one else was responsible for the death of his wife and confirmed the conviction recorded by the High Court. 11. In the case of Lekhraj vs. State of Gujarat reported at 1991 (1) GLR 361 , in a case where there was no direct evidence for the death of the wife, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused, wherein before the High Court, it was found that the circumstances were sufficient to prove that the accused had killed the deceased and was therefore found guilty for committing the murder. In the matter before the Apex Court in Appeal, it was observed by the Apex Court inter alia at Para 9 that— “the High Court was right in accepting her evidence and holding that the accused and the deceased had come together to her house, had stayed together in one room, that after 24th evening the deceased was not seen and that the accused had left in the morning on 26th after closing the door of that room. The accused had denied all these facts as false. As the accused had falsely denied these facts, the High Court was right in holding that it supplied the missing link in the chain and that the chain of circumstances being complete it was reasonable and safe to conclude that it was the accused who had committed murder of the deceased.” In the very decision, it was observed by the Apex Court at Para 5 on the aspects of insufficiency of the evidence in the case of motive between husband and the wife, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and it was observed inter alia at Para 5 that— “the absence of motive, however, puts the Court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof” 12. The Apex Court further observed that in the decision of Surendra Pal Jain vs. Delhi Administration, reported at 1993 Supplement (3) SCC 681, it is not held that in absence of any motive, an accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. 13. Reference to one of the decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of Shri Latumiya vs. State of Tripura reported at 1995 CLJ 2959, which has also been referred to by the learned Sessions Judge may be useful. In the said case, the circumstances that as per the medical evidence, the deceased wife met with homicidal death due to throttling, the relations between the deceased and the husband accused as were strained and the accused and the deceased both were staying together on the night of the occurrence and that the deceased was not suffering from any disease or died on account of some disease, would lead to a conclusion that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and ultimately, the conviction by the learned Sessions Judge was confirmed. 14. Therefore, two aspects may be relevant for the facts of the present case. One would be, whether the chain of evidence is complete to show the guilt of the accused and the second would be, whether such circumstances lead to any inescapable conclusion that the accused-appellant has committed offence or not. 15. The examination of the record and the evidence led before the learned Sessions Judge shows that the medical evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution for the death of the deceased as not only homicidal, but with the clear evidence that the death of the deceased was by throttling the neck and in the PM report, it is also found that the hyoid bone below thyroid cartilage of the dead body was fractured and the tongue protruded means that the tongue was outside the mouth of the dead body. Not only that, but grooves were found on the neck of the decease. The Histopathological test has fully supported the case of the prosecution that the death was caused due to throttling and strangulation. The aforesaid is apparent from the deposition of the Doctor Nishaben P.W. 9 Exhibit 20 read with the deposition of Doctor Bharti, P.W. 15 Exhibit 30. Not only that, but grooves were found on the neck of the decease. The Histopathological test has fully supported the case of the prosecution that the death was caused due to throttling and strangulation. The aforesaid is apparent from the deposition of the Doctor Nishaben P.W. 9 Exhibit 20 read with the deposition of Doctor Bharti, P.W. 15 Exhibit 30. Therefore, the only inescapable conclusion comes out from the medical evidence produced by the prosecution is that the deceased had died due to strangulation and throttling of the neck and therefore, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 16. The story put forward by the defence for committing suicide is not at all supported by the medical evidence and the further evidence led by the prosecution including the medical evidence go to show that the burn on the body of the deceased was of 76% only, which in normal course would have resulted into survival of the person at least for some time after having received the burn injury, which is absent in the present case. Further, the inquest panchnama and the medical evidence shows that the knees of the dead body were in bended condition and the burn was not in the rear side of the body. The aforesaid evidence goes to show that the fire is set on the body of the deceased after she has expired. Had it been a case of suicide, in normal circumstances, after the fire is set and after receiving some burn injury, the normal conduct of a human being would be to move here and there and to shout for help which is totally absent in the present case. It would be unbelievable to accept that a human being after having received 76% burn injury would not move around her body and would remain in a sleeping position at the same place by bending knees. Therefore, it appears to us that the defence story put forward for suicidal death as well as the declaration made by the accused at the later stage after reporting of the accidental death as that of suicidal death due to burn injuries received with kerosene is impossible to be believed. Such is also the unbelievable story declared by the by the appellant-accused at the first instance for the accidental death of having received burn injuries due to fire of the gas stove. Such is also the unbelievable story declared by the by the appellant-accused at the first instance for the accidental death of having received burn injuries due to fire of the gas stove. In any injury of fire, may be on account of the gas stove, the position of the dead body, as has come on record in the medical evidence led by the prosecution, would not be there had the deceased received fire injury, may be on account of the accident due to gas stove. Therefore, we find that the accused-appellant at the first instance has made a false declaration before the police for the accidental death of his wife due to fire injury of gas stove and subsequent declaration made of committing suicide by sprinkling kerosene over the body of the deceased, are not only false, but clearly throws the indication for the guilt to suppress the genuine incident by misguiding to the police and also shows the indication of the guilt of the accused-appellant in the incident. 17. The other important circumstance is that it is not a case of the defence that the accused and the deceased had not stayed together on the date when the accident had happened. Rather, it was the case of the defence that the accused and the deceased were staying together as husband and wife and they had also stayed in the same house on the day when the incident had occurred. Further, it is not even the case of the defence that somebody else has cause death of the deceased, but on the contrary, the attempt on the part of the accused-appellant was to show that it was an accidental death of the deceased and thereafter, to show that it was suicidal death of the deceased. The attempt made by the defence to contend that the accused was not available at residence when the incident had happened cannot be accepted on the face of the medical evidence wherein, the Doctor has opined that the deceased must have died 8 hours prior to the dead body of the deceased was brought to her for Postmortem at about 1.30 noon. Therefore, if the medical evidence is considered with the opinion of the ex pert, the incident must have happened prior to 6.00 in the morning and in any case, prior to 7.30 during which the accused is said to have gone outside the house for leaving her daughter to catch the school rickshaw. Further, the rickshaw driver, P.W. 10 has not stated any other thing to support the defence. On the contrary, he has just stated that he is not aware, where the accused had gone after leaving her daughter. The aforesaid leads to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused at about 6.00 in the morning, i.e., the period during which, in the house, the accused-appellant and the deceased both were there and none else except children. 18. No evidence has come on record to show that the deceased was suffering from any mental disorder or that she was of unsound mind. The said defence put forward by the accused-appellant is not supported by any evidence of any witness on the aspects of unsoundness of the mind of the deceased. 19. Thus, the following circumstances, as has been rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, appears to us— 1. The injury upon the body of the deceased was prior to the death and the same is supported by medical evidence. 2. The death of the deceased is caused due to strangulation of neck and is corroborated by the external as well as internal injuries in the PM Report and during the course of Postmortem, the groove is also found on the neck and the skin which was taken for testing after examination by Histopathological which shows that the cause of death is due to Asphyxia strangulation and such injury cannot be cause by the person herself. The cloth is also found over the neck of the dead body during postmortem. 3. The injury caused upon the deceased was sufficient to cause the death on a human being in natural course. 4. The story put forward by the accused as that of accidental or suicidal death is ex facie unacceptable and leading to the circumstances that such story or the case put forward is absolutely false and is created with a view to mislead the police. 5. The death is caused of the deceased in the house of the accused. 5. 4. The story put forward by the accused as that of accidental or suicidal death is ex facie unacceptable and leading to the circumstances that such story or the case put forward is absolutely false and is created with a view to mislead the police. 5. The death is caused of the deceased in the house of the accused. 5. The accused and the deceased both on the date of the incident had stayed together. 7. The accused was there in the house at the time when the incident had happened. 8. The accused had given false declaration before the police which resulted into misdirecting the investigation. 9. No evidence has come on record to show that the accused was of unsound mind. 10. The burn injury received on the dead body is after the death of the deceased leading to the circumstance that the fire is set on the body after she was killed. 11. The accused is found after long time from the date of commission of offence. 20. The aforesaid circumstances go to show that the chain of circumstances is complete to involve the accused in commission of offence fully and leads an inescapable conclusion that the accused is the only person who is responsible for causing death of his wife. Therefore, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the case successfully against the accused for proving the guilt for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 21. Even on the aspects of commission of offence under Section 201 of IPC, all circumstances leads to believe that it is the accused who had with an intention to misguide and to destroy the evidence against him, after causing death of his wife by strangulation, has sprinkled kerosene over the body and has put the fire and has burnt the dead body of the deceased. The accused at the first instance declared the death of his wife as accidental death and made a false declaration before the police. Therefore, when the smell of kerosene was found, he changed the whole declaration as that of suicide committed by his wife by sprinkling kerosene over her body. The accused at the first instance declared the death of his wife as accidental death and made a false declaration before the police. Therefore, when the smell of kerosene was found, he changed the whole declaration as that of suicide committed by his wife by sprinkling kerosene over her body. The aforesaid circumstances goes to show that the attempt of the part of the accused was to mislead the police in the investigation, but in reality, he wanted to destroy the evidence against him for causing death of his wife and it is only after the Postmortem and the medical evidence, it was detected that the death was first caused by strangulation and thereafter, the fire was put over the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 22. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appeal is meritless and hence, dismissed. The judgement of the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed.