JUDGMENT : S. L. KOCHAR, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence to R.I for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer additional R.I. for six months', also under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer additional R.I. for one month, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh in S.T. No. 51/2004 vide judgment dated 11-10-2004. 2. The necessary facts for decision of this appeal are as follows :- Appellant was married with deceased Rajkumari, daughter of Daulatram Soni (P.W.3), resident of Ujjain. Appellant was a goldsmith. Deceased Rajkumari and appellant were residing in a room of one house situated in village Bhaisana and were often having dispute. They were not having cordial relation and the appellant was having doubt on chastity of his wife and was also harassing her for bringing money from his father. In the intervening night of 13th and 14th of March 2004, appellant went to a temple for taking part in 'Ramayan Patth' and in the same night, he came to his house. There arose some sort of quarrel between him and his wife, at that time their eight months old child was near the wife. The appellant committed murder of his wife by strangulation and to hide this, he tied a rope around her neck and same was tied with the hook fixed in the ceiling. Because of strangulation, blood fell on the bed. On scuffle between them, one button of the shirt of appellant was broken and fell in the room. Appellant closed the door and bolted L-Drop (Chatakni) of the door with the help of pincers (Sandasi, the instrument used for preparing ornaments) by inserting his hands through ventilator situated and at upper part of the door to show that deceased committed suicide by hanging and returned back to temple. Appellant closed the door and bolted L-Drop (Chatakni) of the door with the help of pincers (Sandasi, the instrument used for preparing ornaments) by inserting his hands through ventilator situated and at upper part of the door to show that deceased committed suicide by hanging and returned back to temple. On the next day, in the morning he returned back to his house and in presence of his brother Jagdish (P.W.5), he knocked the door, but door was not opened by the deceased, therefore, he peeped through ventilator and saw that deceased was lying dead on the floor on her belly and nylon rope was tied around her neck, which was tied with the hook fixed in to the ceiling. Appellant reached to Police Station and lodged the report which was recorded in Daily Diary No. 512 dated 14-3-2004 and Merg Intimation Report No. 02/04 as per provision under section 174 (Ex-P/16) of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded. In this report, he mentioned that at 8.30 p.m. in the night of 13-3-2004, he had gone to the temple of Shivji, leaving his wife Rajkumari in the room and when he returned back in the morning at his house at 7.00 a.m., the main door was not opened by his wife but opened by his brother Jagdish and when door of the room of his wife was not opened, they peeped through ventilator and saw in the torch light that Rajkumari was lying on her belly on the floor and a nylon rope was tied around her neck and the same was also tied with the hook fixed in the ceiling. He disclosed this fact to his brother Jagdish, uncle Ghisalal and Sarpanch Chandersingh and also lodged the report. After recording report of appellant, information was given to S.H.O. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) of Police Station Karanwas. A.S.I. R.C. Maravi (P.W.10) after recording of report of the appellant and sending information to S.H.O., reached on the spot. He also saw through the ventilator situated above the door, inside the room that deceased was lying on her belly and her neck was tied by a rope which was also tied with a hook fixed in the ceiling and rope was hanging down and eight months old child of appellant was weeping inside the room. In presence of the witnesses, the proceedings were drawn about opening the door. In presence of the witnesses, the proceedings were drawn about opening the door. The door was got opened by sending a child named Abhishek Gupta through ventilator in the room. After bringing the child outside the room, the door was again closed. S.H.O. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) also reached on the spot and inspected the internal situation of the room. He prepared inquest report (Ex-P/10) in presence of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Tarun Gupta (P.W.4), who issued post-mortem report (Ex-P/13). In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the mode of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. Appellant was arrested and his shirt was seized from the spot. One button similar to the button tagged on the shirt of the appellant along with blood stained pieces of mattress and other articles were seized. The shirt was having stains of distemper which was used on the wall of the room. On disclosure statement of the appellant, pincers (Sandasi) was seized. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and its report is Ex-P/19. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for, causing disappearance of evidence of, offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant refuted the charges and pleaded false implication because of ill-will. Therefore, put to trial. He did not examine any witness in defence. In accused statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he has answered all questions "XXX ''. He had even denied that deceased Rajkumaribai was the daughter of Daulatram Soni (P.W.3) and married with him and he has also denied about living of Dhapubai, witness Jagdish and Rani in the same house in different room and stated that he was falsely implicated. 4 .The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and adduced 19 documents to prove its case. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, found the prosecution case proved against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove, hence this appeal filed by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that homicidal death of deceased has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and in fact deceased committed suicide. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that homicidal death of deceased has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and in fact deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel has taken us through the statement of all the prosecution witnesses and documents and submitted that door was bolted from inside and the circumstances are sufficient to prove that she committed suicide. He has also submitted that even if complete prosecution case is accepted, offence at the most would fall under section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgment passed in case of Pusuloori Manohar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 409 (A.P.) and State of U.P. vs. Lakhmi, 1998 (4) SCC 336 . 7. To combat with, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court and also submitted that the appellant was last seen in the company of his wife, whofound dead for the first time by him and according to medical evidence, she met homicidal death for which appellant failed to give any explanation and given evasive reply in accused statement. The learned Dy. A.G. placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgment passed in case of Ramkumar Madhusudan Pathak vs. State of Gujarat, 1998 (7) SCC 702 . 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, it is clear that appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence as pointed out by the learned trial Court in Para 11. Now we deal with the evidence to see whether it is sufficient to establish the incriminating circumstances against the appellant? 9. Daulatram Soni (P.W.3), father-in-law of the appellant has deposed that deceased Rajkumari was married with appellant in the year 1991 and residing with her husband in the house situated in village Bhaisana. After one year of the marriage, appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing land and same was given to him. Again before 2 years of the incident, appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- for business, on which he asked his daughter as to what he was doing and for what purpose he was demanding money again and again, on which, she replied that appellant was always asking her to bring dowry and money from her parents and was also ill-treating her. Again before 2 years of the incident, appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- for business, on which he asked his daughter as to what he was doing and for what purpose he was demanding money again and again, on which, she replied that appellant was always asking her to bring dowry and money from her parents and was also ill-treating her. Because of ill-treatment, harassment and demand, the father of deceased brought the deceased Rajkumari to his house and after the month of January 2004, appellant came to his house and requested for sending Rajkumari with him on which, he told him that he was ill-treating her and also demanding dowry and as to why he did not come with his uncle. The appellant requested him and also promised for proper behaviour as well as not demanding money for which he voluntarily executed Ikrarnama on hundred rupees stamp (Ex-P/7) duly signed by appellant at A-A portion as well as by the witnesses. After execution of the documents, he sent Rajkumari with him. Thereafter, he received information about her death in the month of March 2004. Daulatram Soni ( P.W.3) father of deceased has given detailed statement about demand of money and ill-treatment. Ikrarnama (Ex-P/7) executed by appellant on hundred rupees non-judicial stamp, in which appellant admitted everything and promised to keep the deceased properly. This stamp was purchased in the name of appellant Sureshchandra and his wife Rajkumari on 23-1-2004. On the same day, Ikrarnama was typed and signed by the appellant in presence of the witnesses. The learned trial Court has nowhere discussed about this document, and its contents, which is a genuine document, and gave finding in Para 15 that Daulatram (P.W.3) has exaggerated the events and since he is the father of the deceased, therefore, his statement was not natural. The learned trial Court in Para 18 has placed reliance on the testimony of Daulatram (P.W.3) only upto the extent that there were no cordial relation between the deceased and the appellant and they were always having quarrel. 10. The learned trial Court sought corroboration to the testimony of Daulatram (P.W.3) by statement of independent witnesses Brajmohan (P.W.6), who has deposed that in the intervening night of the incident, appellant was in the temple and was telling him that he was having tension because of dispute with his wife. 10. The learned trial Court sought corroboration to the testimony of Daulatram (P.W.3) by statement of independent witnesses Brajmohan (P.W.6), who has deposed that in the intervening night of the incident, appellant was in the temple and was telling him that he was having tension because of dispute with his wife. The learned trial Court has held in Para 19 that appellant was not having good relation with deceased and always having dispute. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the testimony of Daulatram (P.W.3) specially when same is duly corroborated by documentary evidence (Ex-P/7) bearing signature of the appellant and appellant has simply denied the document. The appellant could have challenged by sending the same to hand-writing expert for opinion about his signature. We have perused the signature of the appellant on order-sheets of the Court proceedings as well as on accused statement and in our view, the signature on document (Ex-P/7) of the appellant is duly tallying with the signature available on accused statement and in the record of the trial Court. 11. In view of the provision under section 386(b)(ii), we alter the finding of the trial Court on this issue and hold that evidence of Daulatram (P.W.3) is sufficient to establish motive of the appellant for committing murder of his wife. 12. The appellant in accused statement nowhere stated that deceased met suicidal death. Dr. Tarun Gupta (P.W.4) has proved post-mortem report (Ex-P/13) and found on examination of deceased, horizontal ligature mark around the entire neck, antemortem in nature and on the back of the neck in the rope, knot was tied. The ligature marks were three in number and lower one was very deep. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, deceased died because of asphyxia due to strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to him that deceased met suicidal death. 13. On perusal of post-mortem report and statement of medical expert Dr. The ligature marks were three in number and lower one was very deep. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, deceased died because of asphyxia due to strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to him that deceased met suicidal death. 13. On perusal of post-mortem report and statement of medical expert Dr. Gupta, we are in full agreement with him that death was, homicidal in nature because of strangulation and if deceased would have committed suicide by hanging, the ligature mark would not have been available on back side of the neck and entire pressure of the rope would have been on front side, left side and right side and damage could have been caused to trachea, larynx and esophagus because of weight of the body by hanging, but in the instant case, the ligature was found by Dr. Gupta horizontally surrounding the entire neck and internally congestion was found in internal vital organs i.e. trachea, larynx, esophagus and throat. This shows that much pressure was not used while strangulation and deceased died because of suffocation and non-supply of oxygen. The external symptoms of the face and tongue, which was protruded, could be available in the case of strangulation. 14. Jagdish (P.W.5), brother of the appellant has deposed that in the house situated in Bhaisana, appellant was residing in a room with his family. In the room itself there was attached latrine and bathroom. In the ground floor appellant was having his shop and on upper portion of the house, he was residing with his mother in separate rooms. In Para 19 he has deposed specifically that appellant told him that his wife Rajkumari was having illicit relation with his brother Vijay Kumar and Vijay is the real son of Daulatram Soni (P.W.3) whereas Rajkumari was an adopted daughter and she was frequently visiting Vijay. Brajmohan (P.W.6) has deposed that appellant was always disclosing about tense relationwith his wife and quarrel with each other. Whenever appellant was coming to temple he was locking the door from outside. In the night of incident, at 11.00 p.m. appellant went to his house for giving tablet to the deceased saying that she was suffering from abdominal pain and returned back to temple at 12.00 p.m. He has also stated that appellant and one Hariom had gone with him and he had also seen them returning back. In the night of incident, at 11.00 p.m. appellant went to his house for giving tablet to the deceased saying that she was suffering from abdominal pain and returned back to temple at 12.00 p.m. He has also stated that appellant and one Hariom had gone with him and he had also seen them returning back. In cross-examination Para 10, the learned defence counsel confronted him with his case-diary statement (Ex-D/2), at A-A portion regarding illicit relation of his wife with somebody residing in Ujjain and he did not disclose the name of that person. Brajmohan (P.W.6) has admitted giving of this statement mentioned at A-A portion of Ex- D/2. The statement of brother of appellant named Jagdish (P.W.5) and independent witness Brajmohan (P.W.6) clearly establishes that appellant was not having cordial relation with the deceased and also having complete belief that she was having illicit relation with somebody or Vijay. 15. On the basis of statement of Jagdish (P.W.5), brother of the appellant and independent witness Brajmohan (P.W.6), it is clearly established that in the night of incident, appellant was in the company of his wife in their room. Appellant came to temple and again went to his house on the pretext of giving tablet to his wife, who was suffering from abdominal pain. There is no cross-examination, on this issue, of witnesses Jagdish (P.W.5) and Brajmnohan (P.W.6) by the defence and Jagdish in Para 18 has specifically stated that appellant was residing separately and independently with his wife and children in lower portion of the house. 16. A.S.I. R. C. Maravi (P.W.10) has deposed that on 14-3-2004 in the morning at 7.00 a.m., appellant along with Sarpanch Chandersingh reached at Police Outpost and gave information that his wife committed suicide by hanging, on the basis of which, he recorded Merg Intimation No. 02/04 vide Ex-P/20 and S.I. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) has also deposed about registration of Original Merg No. 4/04 in the Police Station. It is proved beyond doubt that appellant gave information that his wife committed suicide in the Police Outpost situated in the same village Bhaisana, which was recorded by A.S.I. R. C. Maravi (P.W.10). It is proved beyond doubt that appellant gave information that his wife committed suicide in the Police Outpost situated in the same village Bhaisana, which was recorded by A.S.I. R. C. Maravi (P.W.10). It is also mentioned in the reports (Ex-P/16 and Ex-P/20), proved by Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) and A.S.I. Maravi (P.W.10) that as per information given by appellant, he saw the deceased lying on her belly on the floor of the room (Am¢Yr n r h¡). If deceased would have committed suicide by hanging, then her body would not have found lying on the floor and looking to the medical evidence of Dr. Gupta (P.W.4), it is clear that she did not die because of hanging, but met homicidal death by strangulation. 17. Now the moot question for determination is whether appellant was having opportunity for commission of murder of his wife. For this purpose, the statements of Jagdish (P.W.5) and Brajmohan (P.W.6) are very important 18. Jagdish (P.W.5) has deposed in Para 4 that in the night of the incident, appellant Suresh went to temple and returned back on the next day in the morning and, on his arrival, he opened the gate, thereafter, appellant knocked the door of his room, which was not opened, therefore, he peeped through ventilator and saw that his wife Rajkumari was hanging with nylon rope and appellant started weeping and saying that Rajkumari hanged herself. Further say of this witness is that he immediately went to Police Outpost and disclosed about hanging of Rajkumari. The statement of Jagdish is at variance with reports (Ex-P/16 and Ex-P/20) wherein, it is clearly mentioned that deceased was seen lying on her belly on the floor. It is nowhere mentioned in both the documents that deceased was seen hanging by rope. Jagdish (P.W.5) was declared hostile. In Para 19 he has stated specifically that he and appellant were residing separately and having separate source of earning and also having separate kitchen. 19. It is nowhere mentioned in both the documents that deceased was seen hanging by rope. Jagdish (P.W.5) was declared hostile. In Para 19 he has stated specifically that he and appellant were residing separately and having separate source of earning and also having separate kitchen. 19. Brajmohan (P.W.6) has stated that appellant came to temple at the time of Aarti and he went back for night meal to his house, thereafter, returned back at 10.00 p.m. and again in the night at 11.00 p.m. appellant went along with one Hariom to his house, thereafter, returned back in the night at 12.00 p.m. In the report lodged by the appellant, he has mentioned specifically that in the night at 8.30 p.m., he left the house for going to Shivji Temple, at that time, his wife Rajkumari was in the room and was awaken. On the basis of documents (Ex-P/16 and P/20), it is clear that appellant left the company of his wife in the night at 8.30 p.m. and on the basis of statement of Brajmohan (P.W.6), it is established that appellant again went back to his house in the night at 11.00 p.m. and returned back after one hour. 20. In view of this evidence, it is established that appellant was having opportunity and lastly was in the company of deceased. P.W.6 Brajmohan has also stated in Para 6 that appellant remained in temple upto 4.00 a.m. in the morning and, thereafter, went to his house and he sat for recital of Ramayan from 4.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. and when he (Brajmohan) was going to his house, he had seen at 5.00 a.m. appellant Suresh going to take bath. The further say of this witness is that at 6.00 a.m. he overheard the cry of appellant Suresh that his wife has died. In cross-examination of this witness Brajmohan, there is absolutely nothing which may fragile his statement. It is clear from his statement that in the night appellant had gone from temple to his house. 21. The further say of this witness is that at 6.00 a.m. he overheard the cry of appellant Suresh that his wife has died. In cross-examination of this witness Brajmohan, there is absolutely nothing which may fragile his statement. It is clear from his statement that in the night appellant had gone from temple to his house. 21. In view of the statement of Brajmohan (P.W.6), it is clear that appellant left the temple at 4.00 a.m., but appellant knocked the door of his house at 6.00 a.m. as deposed by witness Jagdish (P.W.5), brother of the appellant and it is not believable that appellant took two hours time to reach his house from temple and after seeing his wife through ventilator, he lodged the report in Police Outpost between 7.00-7.30 a.m. and the appellant after seeing his wife in such a condition and weeping of his child, did not even try to open the door and see whether his wife was alive or not and to take out the child, is an highly abnormal conduct, which shows that appellant was knowing everything and had a plan because of which, he did not disturb anything and went to Police Station, thereafter, police reached on the spot and got the door opened. 22. A.S.I. Maravi (P.W.10) has deposed that when he reached along with the staff on the spot at the house of appellant, the door was closed from inside and he peeped through ventilator and saw deceased lying on the floor on her belly, having rope around her neck and same was also hanging with the hook fixed in the ceiling and eight months child was crying near her, immediately he sent a boy named Abhishek (P.W.2) aged 12 years inside the room through ventilator and got opened the door from inside. He recorded this proceeding (Ex-P/5) signed by Abhishek at B-B portion. Devcharan (P.W.1), village watchman has also proved memorandum (Ex-P/5) having his signature at A-A portion. 23. S.I. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) has deposed that on 14-3-2004, he received Merg Intimation Report at Police Station Karanwas, which was recorded as Ex-P/16 vide Merg No. 4/04, thereafter, he reached at the house of appellant and he prepared spot map (Ex-P/8). He inspected the room in the presence of the witnesses and prepared inquest report (Ex-P/10) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He inspected the room in the presence of the witnesses and prepared inquest report (Ex-P/10) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) has also effected seizure of blood stained piece of mattress, part of distemper of the wall having blood stains, one broken button of the shirt through seizure memo (Ex-P/l 1) and also seized pant and shirt of the appellant having mark of distemper and blood stains and also found second button missing from the shirt and fifth button was also half broken. He seized all these articles through seizure memo (Ex-P/12). These seizure memos have also been proved by Daulatram Soni (P.W.3) and we do not find any material to discard seizure of these articles. 24 S.I. Sanjay Dwivedi (P.W.9) has further stated that after receiving post-mortem report, he registered F.I.R. (Ex-P/17) vide Crime No. 34/2004 and arrested appellant Suresh on 18-3-2004. On disclosure statement (Ex-P/12) of Suresh, he seized pincers (Sandasi), the appellant disclosed that he kept the pincers in Almirah and also got recovered from the Almirah, which was seized by seizure memo (Ex-P/3). On Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex-P/19), on the pieces of mattress, human blood was found. The presence of button of the shirt of the appellant, distemper on his clothes, one half broken button and human blood on the bed are also incriminating circumstances, which has not been explained by the appellant. Therefore, it goes against him. 25. P.W.1 Devcharan, Chowkidar has deposed that appellant gave statement about pincers and same was seized. According to A.S.I. Maravi (P.W.10), appellant demonstrated before him bolting of door by inserting his hand with pincers and also opened the same. It is clear that when from the ventilator twelve year boy could enter inside the room, then appellant could also manage to bolt the door from inside and also opened the same with the help of any instrument like pincers. 26. In view of the aforesaid evidence, a reasonable presumption can be drawn and learned trial Court has rightly held that appellant was having motive for commission of murder of his wife and after commission of murder by strangulation, planned the same just to show that she had committed suicide by hanging. 27. 26. In view of the aforesaid evidence, a reasonable presumption can be drawn and learned trial Court has rightly held that appellant was having motive for commission of murder of his wife and after commission of murder by strangulation, planned the same just to show that she had committed suicide by hanging. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Pusuloori (supra), a short note of Supreme Court Judgment wherein, accused was acquitted because there was no conclusive evidence adduced by the prosecution that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to smothering. In the instant case, in view of medical expert Dr. Gupta, it is positively established that deceased met homicidal and asphyxial death due to strangulation, as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, this decision, which is a short note, is not going to rescue the appellant from the charge of murder of his wife. 28. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Lakhmi (supra) and submitted that the offence at the most would fall against the appellant for commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception-1 of section 300 punishable under section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code. Exception-1 is defining "Grave and sudden provocation and if under this anybody commits culpable homicide, the same would not fall within the purview of section 300 defining murder". 29. In this case, the appellant Lakhmi (supra) had seen his wife with someone together on the bed and because of which he had grave and sudden provocation and committed murder, such are not the facts of the present case. There is no eye-witness of the incident in the instant case, no suggestion was given by the defence counsel to any of the prosecution witness to this effect and in accused statement also, he has nowhere stated that he committed murder of his wife having seen her in the company of his paramour in obscene condition and had grave and sudden provocation, therefore, this case law is also not helpful to the appellant. 30. 30. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the judgment of Ramkumar (supra) wherein Para 7 Supreme Court has observed as under :- "On the basis of the above objective findings, the doctor gave detailed reasons in support of his opinion that the death was homicidal, which, earlier noticed, was accepted by both the trial Court and the High Court. In our considered view, irrespective of the opinion of the doctor, the nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased by itself establishes that the deceased could not have committed suicide and that she was killed. If from the ligature mark found on her neck we were to infer that she committed suicide - as contended by the defence - we would have to necessarily assume that she hanged herself but, admittedly, her body, when first seen, was found lying on the cot. To put it differently, the very fact that the body with a ligature mark around the neck was found on the cot - and not hanging - completely demolishes the theory of suicide and proves that she was murdered. As regards the possibility of murder by some intruder, the most eloquent circumstance against its acceptance is that there was no sign of a scuffle or mark of sexual assault on the deceased and no proof of theft or any article from the room of any attempt in doing so. This apart, both the courts found that the evidence adduced in proof of the topography of the residential premises excluded the possibility of any outsider entering the top floor of the house." 31. This apart, both the courts found that the evidence adduced in proof of the topography of the residential premises excluded the possibility of any outsider entering the top floor of the house." 31. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court observations and the evidence available in the instant case, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was having motive to commit murder of his wife, he was residing with his wife along with eight months child and left the house at 8.30 p.m. on 13-3-2004 and again visited the house in the night at 11.00 p.m. The appellant left the temple in the morning at 4.00 a.m. and knocked the door between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. in the morning, thereafter, behaved abnormally and lodged a false report of commission of suicide of his wife whereas medical evidence and circumstantial evidence of the spot clearly shows that she was not hanging and she was found lying on the floor on her belly. She met homicidal death caused by asphyxia due to strangulation and there was no iota of evidence to establish that any other foreigner had assess in the faithful night of death of wife of the appellant in the room. The appellant has not given any explanation about all these circumstances in accused statement. He has also failed to explain the circumstances falling against him as discussed hereinabove. It is also established properly that appellant could easily manage to bolt the door from inside while standing outside the door, by putting his hands and some part of his body with some instrument through ventilator, through which a boy of 12 years entered easily inside the room. The door was bolted by L-drop as stated by the Investigating Officer. On the basis of these circumstantial evidence only irresistible conclusion would be that only and only appellant had committed murder of his wife and planned to show that she committed suicide. 32. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in this appeal, therefore, same is hereby dismissed.