Judgment :- B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.18 of 1990. By the said order the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for the first charge and RI for three months and a fine of Rs.300/- for the second charge. During the trial the appellant was on bail and on admission of this appeal on 17/12/1991 he was released on bail on the same terms as before the trial Court. 2. On 15/5/1989 the marriage of the appellant was performed with Suman @ Sumati, the daughter of Jingonda and Babytai Patil, residents of Sangavade in Karvir Taluka of Kolhapur district. Suman came to reside at her matrimonial house with the appellant. On 5/6/1989 i.e. after 20 days of her marriage, early in the morning at 6 a.m., PW 10 – Manohar Magdum who was a medical practitioner in the village of the appellant (Chinchwad, Taluka Karvir) was requested to visit the appellant’s house. Shri Magdum reached the appellant’s house and he was told that the appellant’s wife had fainted. On examination of the patient Shri Manohar Magdum declared that the patient was dead and the patient was Suman @ Sumati, the wife of the appellant. The Police Patil of village Chinchwad gave a telephonic message to Karvir Police Station at about 7 a.m. on 5/6/1989 about the death of Suman @ Sumati and accordingly entry was taken in the station diary at sr.no.12 on page 133. As the information was received about a cognizable offence the police team went to village Chinchwad and to the house of the appellant. The appellant informed the police officer PW 12 that in the earlier night after dinner he and his wife were sleeping in a room and at about 4 a.m. on 5/6/1989 he felt somebody hit him on his head and when he opened his eyes he realised that he was gagged, could not sit and both his hands were tied behind. Within few minutes his mother and father came to the room and released him and removed the cloth pieces from his mouth. Within few minutes his mother and father came to the room and released him and removed the cloth pieces from his mouth. He then looked at his wife and found that she was motionless and, therefore, he requested Shri Manohar Magdum to visit his house and it was found that the wife was dead. He then made out a case that past midnight somebody entered his house and more particularly the room where the husband and wife were sleeping and the said person or persons gagged him, tied his hands, assaulted him on his head and killed his wife before fleeing away. PW 12, therefore, registered C.R.No.120 of 1989 at about 10.20 a.m. based on the complaint of the appellant (Exhibit 37). The inquest panchanama (Exhibit 8) was drawn with PW 1 Jambu Koge as one of the panch witnesses. The dead body was sent for post mortem to the CPR Hospital at Kolhapur and on receipt of the PM notes (Exhibit 27) it was noticed that Suman @ Sumati died an unnatural death due to strangulation. PW 12 – Shri Kale, PSI who had registered CR No.120 of 1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 460 of IPC, on the same day i.e. on 5/6/1989 recorded the statements of 12 witnesses and on 6/6/1989 he recorded the statements of other six witnesses. During the course of investigation he suspected that the accused himself was involved in the crime and, therefore, he was arrested vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 15. On 9/6/1989 he submitted a report (Exhibit 38) pointing out that the appellant accused had given a false information deliberately and with an intention to screen himself and based on the said report C.R. No. 127 of 1989 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC against the appellant. In the mean while after the post mortem was conducted, the clothes on the person of the deceased were seized under the panchanama at Exhibit 10 and PW 2 – Dayanand Kamble was the panch witness for the same. These clothes along with some other articles were sent for CA. After the appellant was taken in custody, he made a disclosure statement which was recorded at Exhibits 15 and 16 and certain articles were recovered from his house under the panchanama at Exhibit 17. These clothes along with some other articles were sent for CA. After the appellant was taken in custody, he made a disclosure statement which was recorded at Exhibits 15 and 16 and certain articles were recovered from his house under the panchanama at Exhibit 17. The CA reports at Exhibits 33 to 36 were received and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be submitted on 24/7/1989. The charge being triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and on 27/8/1991 the charge was framed against the appellant. 3. The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. As per the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he merely denied his involvement and stated that he was falsely implicated, though in his complaint at Exhibit 37 on the basis of which C.R.No.120 of 1989 came to be registered, it was claimed by him that his wife was killed by some unknown third person who had entered his house past midnight on 4/6/1989. 4. The prosecution case is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence and the learned trial Judge has held that the circumstances proved by the prosecution unerringly proved the guilt of the appellant. 5. PW 11 – Dr.Shankar Kamble, Medical Officer attached to the CPR hospital at Kolhapur while in the witness box before the trial Court stated that he held the qualifications of MBBS and possessed the experience of conducting the post mortem. On 5/6/1989 he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Sumati @ Suman which was received by his hospital at about 3 p.m. on the same day and the PM was conducted from 3.10 p.m. to 4.20 p.m. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body of Sumati @ Suman: (i) Ligature mark 31 cms. In length 3 mms. in width totally encircling the neck just below anteriorly mid part of neck posteriorly. Reddish black in colour (ii) Abrasion right wrist dorsall 2 mm. diameter reddish black in colour. (iii) Abrasion of 3 mm diameter on left wrist dorsally reddish black in colour. (iv) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.25 cm on right ankle region anteriorly reddish black. He further opined that the injuries could have been caused within 24 hours with reference to the time of post mortem and all the injuries were ante mortem. (iii) Abrasion of 3 mm diameter on left wrist dorsally reddish black in colour. (iv) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.25 cm on right ankle region anteriorly reddish black. He further opined that the injuries could have been caused within 24 hours with reference to the time of post mortem and all the injuries were ante mortem. On internal examination he noticed that the larynxial cartilage was fractured at mid part, thyroid bone was fractured, upper three trachea rings were fractured. He noticed froth in upper trachea and both the lungs were congested. The stomach was full with rice material, semi digested. As per his opinion the death might have occurred two hours after the meals. The probable cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. He was assisted in conducting the post mortem by Dr. V.M. More and both of them had signed the PM report at Exhibit 27. On the same day at about 6.30 p.m. he had also examined the present appellant and noticed the following injuries on his body: (i) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.3 cm left index finger at proximal phalnyx dorsolaterally, transverse, blackish red. (ii) Abrasion 2 x 0.3 cms left index finger at proximal interphalangeal joint, dorsolateral, transverse reddish black. (iii) Abrasion ½ cms left little finger, dorsomedial at metacorpo phalangeal, transverse reddish black. (iv) Abrasion ½ x 0.3 cms medial aspect of proximal interphylangeal joint of right little finger, transverse, blackish red. He, therefore, issued medical certificate at Exhibit 28 and also stated that the age of the injuries could be within 24 hours and they could have been caused by nylon string if it was forcibly pulled with the hands. He also stated that the fracture over the trachea could be caused if nylon string is tied around the neck. In his cross-examination he admitted that there could be no difference between the ligature marks and abrasions and clarified that the ligature mark causes abrasion and the abrasions at 2, 3 and 4 in column no.17 of the PM report did not amount to ligature marks. He also clarified that the protrusion of tongue is not a must in case of asphyxia due to strangulation and the fracture of hyoid bone, larynx or trachea is with the result of pressure on spine and in some cases the eyes would be protruded. He also clarified that the protrusion of tongue is not a must in case of asphyxia due to strangulation and the fracture of hyoid bone, larynx or trachea is with the result of pressure on spine and in some cases the eyes would be protruded. He also clarified that the abrasion could be caused if the body comes into contact with hard and rough substance. 6. The evidence of this witness, therefore, clearly indicated that Sumati died due to asphyxia by strangulation and thus she was done to death. We are required to find out whether the chain of circumstances as placed before the trial Court by the prosecution unerringly proves that it was the appellant only who caused the death of Suman @ Sumati in the night of 4/6/1989. 7. PW 1 was the panch witness for the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 8). The said panchanama was drawn between 10.45 to 11.40 a.m. on 5/6/1989 and in the house of the appellant. There were some ornaments on the dead body and the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (i) One blackish round mark around the neck about 9 inch. (ii) Abrasion on the left wrist and slight wound. (iii) Right hand wrists slightly abraised. The deceased was in menses cycle and it was noted that the death might have been caused on account of the injury around the neck. The CA report (Exhibit 35) indicated that the clothes of the accused had blood stains of her blood group which was detected to be “A”. PW 3 – Shrikant Patil, panch witness for the panchanama at Exhibit 12 turned hostile but in his cross-examination by the learned APP he confirmed that he had signed the said panchanama after it was prepared. He also verified the panchanama at Exhibit 13. PW 4 – Shashikant Gawli was the panch for the arrest panchanama at Exhibit 15 drawn on 6/6/1989. He stated that on 7/6/1989 the accused while in the custody made a statement which was recorded by way of memorandum at Exhibit 16 and he stated that some golden ornaments kept by him in the house would be shown to the police party. Seizure panchanama at Exhibit 17 was drawn after reaching the house of the accused. Much was said about these panchanamas by Shri Ingawale, the learned counsel for the appellant. Seizure panchanama at Exhibit 17 was drawn after reaching the house of the accused. Much was said about these panchanamas by Shri Ingawale, the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact the seizure of these articles does not have a material bearing on the prosecution case, though we do not find any procedural defect in the said seizure. Panchanama at Exhibit 18 was drawn regarding the injuries that had been sustained by the complainant in C.R.No.120 of 1989 and the same has been proved by the evidence of PW 4. Even otherwise the medical certificate at Exhibit 28 has been also proved by PW 11. PW 6 – Kalgonda Lokare and PW 7 – Kuber Lokare have been examined by the prosecution to prove that on 4/6/1989 the appellant was present in his village. PW 6 came with an additional information that while the accused in the company of PW 6 and PW 7 was watching TV on 4/6/1989 in the house of PW 7, he had a nylon string with him and he had placed the same around the neck of PW 6. In his cross-examination nothing substantial was brought out to disbelieve this witness. PW 8 – Babytai and PW 9 – Jingonda are the parents of the deceased and their evidence is only on the issue that someone on 5/6/1989 came to their house from the village of the appellant and informed that a thief had entered into the house of the appellant and had killed Sumati by strangulation. PW 8 also stated that they reached the house of the accused at about 8 a.m. on 5/6/1989. In the cross-examination she admitted that her statement was recorded for the first time on 13/6/1989. This delay in recording her statement by itself will not weaken the prosecution case as the report at Exhibit 38 on the basis of which further investigation was taken up for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of IPC was recorded on 9/6/1989 and she was residing at a different village. 8. As per the evidence of PW 10 – Manohar Magdum he was the medical practitioner at Chinchwad and his professional qualifications were Diploma in Naturopathy. 8. As per the evidence of PW 10 – Manohar Magdum he was the medical practitioner at Chinchwad and his professional qualifications were Diploma in Naturopathy. He received a message at about 6 a.m. from one Hanmant who was the servant of the appellant’s father, that he was called to the house of the appellant and he was also told that the appellant’s wife had fainted. He, therefore, went to the house of the appellant, examined his wife who was lying in the middle room. On her examination he declared her dead. This witness was not subjected to cross-examination and, therefore, the prosecution proved that prior to 6 a.m. on 5/6/1989 Sunita was dead. At 7 a.m. on the same day the Police Patil of the village informed the police station at Karvir on phone that there was a dacoity in the house of the accused and, therefore, station diary entry at sr.no.12 on page 133 was taken. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 13) was drawn at 12.55 p.m. on 5/6/1989 when PW 12 was present in the house of the accused and he recorded the statement of the accused at about 10.30 a.m. which was registered as a complaint (Exhibit 37). 9. Shri Ingawale, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the chain of circumstances so as to unerringly point out the complicity of the accused in causing the homicidal death of his wife is not proved by the prosecution. He submitted that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was in his house in the night of 4/6/1989 and unless his presence in the house was established on the fateful night, it could not be said that the unnatural death of Suman was caused by him, even though she was found dead in his own house and her matrimonial home. In support of these arguments he has relied upon the following decision: (i) Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1979 SC 1949 ] (ii) Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1981 SC 765 ] (iii) Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2007 SC 2188 ] 10. In support of these arguments he has relied upon the following decision: (i) Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1979 SC 1949 ] (ii) Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1981 SC 765 ] (iii) Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2007 SC 2188 ] 10. It is pertinent to note that it was not the case of the accused at any point of time before the trial Court and even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was not in his house on the fateful night. The evidence of PW 10 clearly proved that the appellant’s servant Hanmant had gone to him requesting to visit the house of the appellant as his wife had fainted and the message to the doctor was from the appellant’s father. The father was not a co-accused and, therefore, nothing stopped him from entering the witness box as a witness in support of the case of the accused that he was not present in the house in the night of 4/6/1989. As per the medical opinion that came through PW 11, Sumati died after about 2 hours of her dinner and there were number of injuries on her body. The medical certificate at Exhibit 28 also indicated that the appellant also sustained injuries on his fingers and injuries on the deceased as well as the appellant were caused within 24 hours. The appellant did not furnish any explanation as to how these injuries were caused to him and this medical certificate was put to him while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his complaint at Exhibit 37 which has been proved through the evidence of PW 12 he had stated that he was in the village on 4/6/1989, had gone to a friend’s house for dinner and returned at about 9 p.m. His wife and he went to bed in the same room and at about 4 a.m. he felt that somebody had hit him on his head and that is how he was woken up. He realised that his mouth was gagged and his hands were tied behind and thereafter he was released by his parents who came out after hearing his mourning. He noticed that his wife was not responding and, therefore, the doctor was called who declared her dead. He realised that his mouth was gagged and his hands were tied behind and thereafter he was released by his parents who came out after hearing his mourning. He noticed that his wife was not responding and, therefore, the doctor was called who declared her dead. This complaint of the appellant at Exhibit 37 is also corroborated by the report made by PW 12 on 9/6/1989 and marked as Exhibit 38. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant was present in his house in the night of 4/6/1989 and till his wife was declared dead by PW 9. The defence of alibi was taken before us obviously to save the appellant from the clutches of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. When it was proved that he was with the deceased in the night of 4/6/1989, he was required to explain as to how his wife died a homicidal death. 11. Regarding the injuries noticed on his fingers, PW 11 stated that they could have been caused while pulling a nylon rope. In his depositions PW 11 pointed out that the injuries were on the fingers of both the hands, though it was not so specifically stated in the medical certificate at Exhibit 28. His evidence remained in-tact. A mark around the neck of the deceased of more than 9 inches and in fact as per the evidence of PW 11 it was about 31.5 cms., was a clear indication that she was strangulated by a rope. The evidence of PW 7 – Kuber Lokare also indicated that on 4/6/1989 the accused was moving with a nylon rope and it was of reddish colour. He identified the rope which was recovered and shown to him before the Court. On the reliability of Exhibit 37 it was submitted by Mr.Ingawale that its original was not available as was stated by PW 12. However, this contention is not supported from the record and we have noticed that the original of Exhibit 37 was seen by the Court and its photo copy was placed on record. The original was taken back with the leave of the Court. In the cross-examination of PW 12 there was no attempt, even faintly made, to change the veracity of these documents i.e. Exhibits 37 and 38. The original was taken back with the leave of the Court. In the cross-examination of PW 12 there was no attempt, even faintly made, to change the veracity of these documents i.e. Exhibits 37 and 38. It is obvious that only after PW 12 reached the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of Sunita, the appellant filed the complaint at Exhibit 37 alleging that a robber had killed his wife and that he was gagged and his hands were tied and was hit on his head by the robber. There was no injury on his head nor were there any marks around his wrists. This was definitely a ploy employed by the appellant to screen his culpability and with an intention to show that someone else and that too a robber committed the murder of his wife. He also claimed that the golden ornaments from the person of the deceased were taken away by the robber. However, the recovery of these golden ornaments from the house of the appellant has falsified this claim and proved that he engaged himself in a deliberate ploy to screen the offence and the offender. On re-appreciation of the evidence as led by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the following circumstances forming a complete chain of circumstantial evidence have been proved by the prosecution in the instant case. (a) The deceased Sunita was married to the appellant on 15/5/1989 and she came to reside with him at the matrimonial home. (b) On the night of 4/6/1989 the appellant and his wife, after dinner, went to bed in a separate room, and the parents of the appellant were sleeping in another room. (c) At 6 a.m. on 5/6/1989 a message was sent to call PW 10 – Manohar Magdum, who visited the house of the appellant and declared Sunita dead immediately on his visit. (d) The Police Patil of the village on telephone gave an intimation at about 7 a.m. to the Karvir police station regarding a cognizable offence and more particularly robbery. (e) PW 12 visited the house of the appellant and noticed the injuries on the dead body of Sunita. In the course of investigation he recorded statements of 12 witnesses on 5/6/1989 and 6/6/1989 and on suspicion of the involvement of the accused he registered C.R.No.127 of 1989 and arrested him vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 15. (e) PW 12 visited the house of the appellant and noticed the injuries on the dead body of Sunita. In the course of investigation he recorded statements of 12 witnesses on 5/6/1989 and 6/6/1989 and on suspicion of the involvement of the accused he registered C.R.No.127 of 1989 and arrested him vide arrest panchanama at Exhibit 15. (f) Sunita died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation and she was strangulated by a rope. The injuries noted on her body as well as on the person of the appellant were stated to have been caused within 24 hours with reference to the time of the post mortem as well as the medical examination of the appellant. (g) The appellant only denied the prosecution case and claimed that he was falsely implicated. However, before us a plea was raised that he was not available in his house in the night of 4/6/1989. His father or mother did not step in the witness box before the trial Court in support of his case that he was not available in the house in the night on 4/6/1989. 12. As far as the motive is concerned, when an unnatural death of a young married lady and that too a homicidal death occurs within the four-walls of her matrimonial home, it is very difficult to gauge the human mind to assess the motive behind such an offence. In the instant case the death was in the night. The trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects and held that the prosecution proved its case regarding the culpability of the appellant firstly in causing the homicidal death of his wife by strangulation around neck and secondly he lodged a false report with the police station stating that his wife was killed by a robber so as to screen the offence of murder. In our considered opinion the trial Court did not commit any error. 13. Hence this appeal must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 1990 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur on 28/10/1991 is hereby confirmed. The bail granted to the appellant is hereby cancelled and he shall be taken in custody forthwith to undergo the sentence. Set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., if any, shall be available to the accused.