Judgment : N. ANANDA, J. 1. The appellant/accused convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, learned Counsel for accused and Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned S.P.P. for the State. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Deceased Saraswathi was the younger sister of PW-1 Biddappa. During the year of 2005, PW-1 performed the marriage of deceased with accused. Thereafter, deceased was living in the house of accused in Chikkamandoor village. Accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. After a period of two months from the date of marriage, accused was demanding and harassing deceased to bring money from the house of PW-1. Accused was assaulting deceased. The deceased had stayed in the house of PW-1 for sometime. PW-1 gave some amount and sent back deceased. However, accused did not stop assaulting deceased and demanding her to bring money from her parental house. The accused had assaulted and caused injuries to her as deceased did not fulfill his demand for money. Therefore, PW-1 had taken her to Srimangala Police Station and gave a report and a case was registered against accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 506 of IPC in Crime No. 30/2005. The accused was summoned to the Police Station and was advised to take proper case of deceased. On the assurance given by accused, deceased was sent back to live with accused. On 14.3.2005, deceased came to the house of PW-1 and informed his mother that a caused had sent her to bring money. On the following day, i.e., on 15.3.2006 at about 12.30 in the afternoon, PW-9 Ponnanna came to the house of PW-1 and informed that the house of accused was locked and only the lower limbs of deceased were visible through the window of the house of accused. Therefore, PW-1, PW-20 and others reached the house of accused which was at a distance of 7 Kms, from the house of PW-1. PW-1 gathered other villagers and broke open the door and entered the house and found the dead body of his sister,. There were cut injuries on her neck. PW-1 came to Hudikeri Police Station and lodged first information. The Police Inspector visited the place of incident along with the Tahasildar, Virajpet, who held inquest. PW-1 gathered other villagers and broke open the door and entered the house and found the dead body of his sister,. There were cut injuries on her neck. PW-1 came to Hudikeri Police Station and lodged first information. The Police Inspector visited the place of incident along with the Tahasildar, Virajpet, who held inquest. The dead body was subjected to Post Mortem Examination and which showed that the death was homicidal in nature. The police arrested accused on 17-6-2003 and seized the blood stained clothes found on the person of accused. The incriminating articles were for to F.S.L. After investigation, charge sheet was filed by the aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 24 were examined, documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-15 and material objects as per M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. Certain contradictory statements in the previous statements of PWs.7, 10 and 11 were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-5. 5. The defence of accused was one of total denial. His explanation for his absence on the date of incident so also at the time of funeral ceremony of his wife was that he had been hospitalized to undergo operation of his limbs. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties has held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and pay of Rs.1,000/-with default sentence for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life with fine of Rs.2,000/-for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the accused is before this Court. 6. The case of prosecution is based upon evidence. The circumstances being: circumstantial i) Motive, ii) Homicidal death of Saraswathi in the house of accused. iii) The conduct of accused before and after the incident, false plea of alibi put forth by the accused. iv) F.S.L. Report. Motive: 7. PW-1, the elder brother of deceased has deposed, that the marriage of deceased with accused was performed by him during March 2005. The deceased was happy in the house of accused for a period of two months. There-after, he started assaulting and harassing deceased and was demanding deceased to bring money from her parental house. iv) F.S.L. Report. Motive: 7. PW-1, the elder brother of deceased has deposed, that the marriage of deceased with accused was performed by him during March 2005. The deceased was happy in the house of accused for a period of two months. There-after, he started assaulting and harassing deceased and was demanding deceased to bring money from her parental house. PW-1 sent money on one or two occasions but accused was not satisfied with it and he was always assaulting and harassing deceased. The accused had also assaulted deceased and caused injuries to her. Therefore, on the complain lodged by PW-1, Crime No. 30/2005 was registered in Srimangala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 506 of IPC against accused. The Police Officer had summoned the accused and warned him to take proper care of deceased and therefore, the deceased went back to the house of accused. That on 14-3-2006, deceased had come to the house of PW-1. At that time, PW-1 was not in the house. The deceased informed her mother that accused had sent her to bring money. On the following day, PW-1 learnt that the house of accused was locked. PW-9 Ponnanna, who had seen the limbs of deceased, by peeping through the window and suspected murder and informed PW-1. PW-1 and others visited the house of accused. The door was locked from outside. The door was broke open. On entering the house, they found that the dead body of deceased with injuries on her neck. PW-1 set the law into motion by lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional police. During cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that accused was not found near the house. He was not available on to date of incident and even he did not attend the funeral ceremony of deceased. The evidence of PW-1 finds support from the fact that he had already lodged a complaint against accused for harassing and assaulting deceased. After the aforesaid case as restored in Crime No.30/2005, the Investigating Officer has summoned the accused and warned him to take proper care of deceased. Therefore deceased went back to stay with accused. 8. PW-2 Smt. Dharani has given evidence that she has seen the dead body of Saraswathi in the house of accused. PW-2 has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore deceased went back to stay with accused. 8. PW-2 Smt. Dharani has given evidence that she has seen the dead body of Saraswathi in the house of accused. PW-2 has not supported the case of prosecution. However, her evidence that deceased had met with homicidal death in the house of accused on 14.3.2006 would support the case of prosecution. 9. PW-3, Somaiah has deposed about the homicidal death of Saraswathi in the house of accused on 14.3.2006 and the inquest hold by the Tahsildar. He has also deposed about the presence of Katti and bamboo sticks in the house of accused. PW-3 had given evidence regarding the seizure of incriminating evidence by the Investigating Officer from the place of incident. During cross-examination, PW-3 has deposed that he had advised accused when he had met in Veerajpet. He had denied the suggestion that accused was not ill-treating or harassing deceased. 10. PW-4, K.J. Subbaiah has given evidence about the homicidal death of Saraswathi in the house of accused and the inquest held by the Tahsildar and seizure of incriminating articles by the Investigating Officer. 11. The evidence of PW-5 , Ganapathi is more or less similar to the evidence of PW-4. 12. PW-6, C.K. Pemmaiah has deposed about the seizure of blood stained clothes found on the person of accused on 17.3.2006 in the office of Police Inspector at Kutta. He has identified the blood stained clothes of accused before the Court. 13. PW-7, Ramesh is the younger brother of accused. PW-7 has deposed that decease Saraswathi was the wife of accused and she died on 13.3.2006. The accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. Though accused and deceased were cordial, now and then they were quarreling. PW-7 has deposed that on 14.3.2006 at about 12.00 noon, in the afternoon, people had gathered near the house of accused. He peeped through the window and saw the lower limbs of deceased. He contacted the police over phone and informed the matter, PW-7 was declared as a hostile witness for partially resailing from his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. During cross examination, PW-7 had made a feeble attempt to se his brother by stating that his brother was earning and he was not harassing deceased to bring money. 14. The evidence of PW-9, Ponnanna is similar to the evidence of Pws.5 and6. 15. 14. The evidence of PW-9, Ponnanna is similar to the evidence of Pws.5 and6. 15. PW-10, C.C. Thimmaiah was the owner of Paultry Farm, where accused was working. The accused did not attend the work for a period of four days. When he enquired PW-7, Ramesh (younger brother of accused). He told that the house of accused was locked and he was not available. He visited the house and peeped through the window and found the limbs of a person. Therefore, the police came to the place and found the dead body of Saraswathi. PW-10 has deposed eight days before the homicidal death of Saraswathi, accused had asked PW-10 to land him a sum of Rs.3,000/--as he wanted the same to redeem the jewels which he had pledged with a bank. PW-10 agreed to lend money. However, deceased told PW-10 not to lend money to accused. There were quarrels between accused and deceased. When PW-10 visited the house of accused on the date of incident, accused was not present and he did not attend to the work. After the incident, he saw accused only before the Court. The accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. During cross-examination of PW-10 nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Even otherwise, we find that PW-10 had no vengeance or grudge against accused to falsely implicate the accused. 16. PW-11 Pemmaiah has deposed that the accused had approached him to pledge a gold chain and borrow a sum of Rs.2,000/-PW-11 to accused that he had no money. The accused asked PW-11 to pledge the chain with a bank, raise the loan. PW-11 agree and pledged the chain with KDCC bank and borrowed Rs.2,000/-and handed over the same to accused. 17. PW-12, N.P. Muttanna was the Managing Director of KDCC bank. He had deposed about the gold chain pledged by PW-11 and he has also deposed that the gold chain pledged by PW-11 was redeemed. 18. PW-13, Nurera Karyappa has deposed that he is the brother-in-law of accused he has not supported the case of prosecution. 19. PW-14, G.M. Pemmaiah was working as A.S.I. in Hudikeri Police Station. After learning about the incident, he visited the house of accused and found the dead body of Saraswathi. There were injuries on her person. 18. PW-13, Nurera Karyappa has deposed that he is the brother-in-law of accused he has not supported the case of prosecution. 19. PW-14, G.M. Pemmaiah was working as A.S.I. in Hudikeri Police Station. After learning about the incident, he visited the house of accused and found the dead body of Saraswathi. There were injuries on her person. PW-14 has deposed about the case registered in Crime No.30/2005 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 326 and 506 of IPC against accused, which was about one or two months prior to the date of incident. He has also deposed even before the Crime No.30/2005 was registered, deceased Saraswathi, her elder brother PW-1 and many others visited the police station and had given a complaint against accused. Thereafter, the police summoned accused and advised him to take proper care of deceased. During cross-examination, PW-14 has reiterated his evidence regarding homicidal death of Saraswathi in the house of accused. He has denied that Crime No.30/2005 registered in Srimangala police does not relate to accused. He has denied that he had not apprehended the accused. 20. PW-16, Dr. H.P. Ravindra has given evidence in proof of injuries found on the dead body of Saraswathi and also about the Post-Mortem Examination conducted by him. He deposed that deceased had suffered following injuries. 1. Cut wound over right eyebrow measuring about 1 ½” x ½ x ¼”. 2. Cut injury over the forehead on left side measuring about 2” x ½” x ¼”. 3. Cut injury over upper lip on right side measuring about ½” x ½” x ½”. 4. Cut injury over the back of head in the occipital region measuring about 1` ½” x ½” x ½”. 5. Cut injury over the upper part of neck anteriorly and horizontally measuring about 6” x 2” x 2”. 6. About 5 confusion wounds present over the forehead with bluish discolouration of skin, measuring about 1” x ¼”. 7. One contusion wound present over left arm measuring 1” x ½”, with abrasion wound measuring about ¼” x ½”. 8. One contusion over the right forearm measuring about 2” x 1”. 9. About 12 contusion wounds were present over the chest both anteriorly and posteriorly each measuring about 1” x ½”.10. There is a deep cut wound at large=tracheal junction, bleeding present. PW-16 ha deposed that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. 8. One contusion over the right forearm measuring about 2” x 1”. 9. About 12 contusion wounds were present over the chest both anteriorly and posteriorly each measuring about 1” x ½”.10. There is a deep cut wound at large=tracheal junction, bleeding present. PW-16 ha deposed that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. There were cut injuries on the jugular vocus of both sides. PW-16 has deposed that the Investigating Officer had several katti and bamboo sticks for his examination and opinion. On examination of same, PW-16 opined that injuries found on the deceased could be caused by katti and bamboo sticks, marked as M.Os. 1 to 7. During cross-examination of PW-16 the defence has found fault with PW-16 for conducting Post-Mortem examination near the house of deceased. It was also suggested to PW-16 that injuries found on the deceased could not have been caused by the sickle and sticks. PW-10 denied these suggestion. 21. The evidence of PW-19, Ramesh relates to the apprehension of the accused on 17.3.2006. 22. PW-20, B. Chandrashekaraiah was working as P.S.I. On learning the incident, he visited the place of occurrence and the door was closed. He broke open the door and found that deceased Saraswathi had met with homicidal death. He lodged Crime No.13/2006 and submitted first information to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He deputed the staff to apprehend the accused. On 17.3.2006, accused was apprehended and produced before him. He was brought to police station and his blood stained clothes were seized under mahazar. 23. PW-21, Shakuntala was the Tahsildar, PW-21 has given evidence about the inquest held by her. 24. PW-22, S.K. Krishnaraju, the Scientific Officer, F.S.L. has given evidence in proof of articles examined by him also about the blood stains found on the articles and blood stained clothes. The accused has not disputed that he was not present after the incident. The accused has also not disputed the fact that he did not attend the funeral ceremony of deceased. However, when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. accused has stated that he was not in the house and he had been hospitalized to undergo operation of his limb. That plea of the accused that he was in the hospital is not supported by any documentary evidence. Accused has not even stated the name and place of the hospital. 25. However, when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. accused has stated that he was not in the house and he had been hospitalized to undergo operation of his limb. That plea of the accused that he was in the hospital is not supported by any documentary evidence. Accused has not even stated the name and place of the hospital. 25. On overall appreciation of evidence, we find that two months after the marriage, the accused started harassing, ill-treating and assaulting the deceased. PW-1 had met demands of accused on one or two occasions. But the accused was not satisfied with the amount and assaulted the deceased and a case was registered Crime No.30/5 in Srimangala police station. The police had advised accused to take care of deceased. But the accused did not mend his behavior. The accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. On 14.3.2006, after the incident the accused had disappeared. In the circumstances, the inference that could be drawn are that on 14.3.2005, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife and assaulted her with bamboo stick, cut her neck with a sword with an intention to cause her death. Thereafter, he locked the door of the house and disappeared from that place. The accused even did not attend the funeral ceremony of deceased. The accused was apprehended on 17.3.2005. Accused had come out with false plea of alibi that he had been hospitalized. The clothes worn by accused were stained with blood. Therefore, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution would prove that accused had motive to commit the offence. The accused, after committing the offence, closed the door of his house and disappeared from that place. The accused had assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons with an intention to cause her death. The accused was hiding in plantation, when he was arrested on 17.3.2006. The clothes found on the person of accused when he was arrested were stained with human blood. The homicidal death of Saraswathi occurred within a period of one year from the date of their marriage. In the interregnum, accused was frequently assaulting deceased and he was demanding her to bring money from her parental house to spend for his vices. The accused had also pledged the gold chain of deceased. The accused suddenly disappeared from the place of incident. In the interregnum, accused was frequently assaulting deceased and he was demanding her to bring money from her parental house to spend for his vices. The accused had also pledged the gold chain of deceased. The accused suddenly disappeared from the place of incident. The accused instead of explaining his absence, has come out with false plea of alibi by stating that he had been hospitalized to undergo operation of his limbs. These circumstances would conclusively establish that accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The conduct of accused before and after the incident is not consistent with his innocence and it is entirely consistent with his guilt. 26. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence has found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we pass the following order: The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.