JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C by the appellant/accused who was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment, for three months by the Fast Track (Sessions) Court in S.C. No. 452/2004. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard Sri I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State, We have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. 4. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Munirathnamma was given in marriage to accused. Out of their wed lock, they got two children by name Shashi and Sunil. The accused and deceased were making their livelihood by doing coolie work. The accused was in the habit of taking alcohol. Therefore, he was not attending coolie work and not earning anything and he was forcing the deceased to part; with money for drinking and they used to quarrel often. Therefore, the brother and mother of deceased and elders of deceased advised the accused number of times not to harass the deceased and to attend coolie work but the accused did not change his attitude. While so, on 15.1.2004 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused quarreled with deceased Munirathnamma in the presence of their children Shashi and Sunil. After that accused assaulted deceased with a club and caused severe injuries on her due to which, deceased succumbed to injuries and this was witnessed by P.W. 5, daughter of deceased. 5. That prior to the incident, P.W. 1-Ravi (younger brother of deceased) had visited the house of accused and found the accused was forcing the deceased to part with money for taking liquor. P.W. 1 pacified the galata. On the next day morning, at about 7.30 p.m., he went to the house of deceased and found the dead body of deceased with injuries over the scalp and other parts of the body. When he enquired the children of deceased viz., Kum. Shashikala and Sunil, he was informed that the accused had quarreled with their mother Munirathnamma and assaulted her with a club and he was responsible for death of the deceased. When he enquired the children of deceased viz., Kum. Shashikala and Sunil, he was informed that the accused had quarreled with their mother Munirathnamma and assaulted her with a club and he was responsible for death of the deceased. P.W. 1-Ravi immediately lodged the complaint before the Hennur P.S., and the same was registered in Crime No. 18/2004 for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over dead body of the deceased. The investigating officer recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others and sent the dead body of deceased to P.W. 6-Dr. B.M. Nagaraj, medical officer for post-mortem examination. 7. P.W. 6-Dr. B.M. Nagaraj, medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of decreased issued Ex. P4-post-mortem report and found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound over right side parietal region measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm x skull deep (ii) Pressure abrasion caused by teeth bite mark right side of the chest. (iii) Contused abrasion measuring 4 cm x 3 cm present over right side lower pat of the abdomen. (iv) Contused abrasion present, over right; dorsum of the right hand measuring 3 cm x 8 cm - 4 in Nos. (v) Teeth bite mark present over the dorsum aspect of the left hand. (vi) Ligature mark present over the middle of the neck measuring 8 cm x 1.5 cm. (vii) Abrasion on right side of chin measuring 2 cm x 1 cm (viii) Abrasion present (4 in Nos.) over the right side of fore head measuring 1 cm x 1 cm at a distance of 2 cm. P.W. 6 was of the opinion that injuries found on the dead body of deceased were ante-mortem in nature and the death was due to shock as a result of homicidal head injury. Thereafter, P.W. 16-Ramalingappa, investigating officer seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased and club (MO. I) used for commission of offence and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After obtaining the post-mortem examination report as per Ex. P4 and FSL report, as per Ex. P14, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 8. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore, framed charges for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused. After obtaining the post-mortem examination report as per Ex. P4 and FSL report, as per Ex. P14, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 8. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore, framed charges for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. 9. The prosecution in order to establish the charges under Section 302 I.P.C., has examined P.Ws. 1 to 17 and marked documents as per Ex. P1 to P15 and material object as per MO. 1. 10. Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 basing on the circumstantial evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and passed the above order of conviction and sentence. 11. The learned counsel for appellant-accused submitted that the close relatives of the deceased viz., P.Ws. 1 to 5 did not support the case of prosecution. The deceased was in the habit of taking liquor and she had fell in the drain and sustained injuries. 12. The learned-Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W. 5 who is none other than the daughter of deceased and accused had seen the accused and deceased quarrelling with each other and she was present when the accused assaulted the deceased and caused her death. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence. 13. It is the case of prosecution that the husband of deceased Munirathnamma was in the habit of taking liquor and was not doing any work and always insisted the deceased to part with money and used to quarrel with her. On the date of incident, i.e., on 15.1.2004 at about 8.30 p.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and caused injuries on her with a club due to which she died on the spot and this was witnessed by their children namely Kum. Shashikala and Sunil. 14. The prosecution has examined P.W. 5-Kum. Shashikala, daughter of the deceased. Shashikala and Sunil. 14. The prosecution has examined P.W. 5-Kum. Shashikala, daughter of the deceased. P.W. 5 has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, she had been to her grand mother’s house which was away from their house herself and her brother used to go to their grandmother’s house during night hours and during day time, they used to come to their house. On the date of death of her mother, she had been to school. She did not inform the police that her father came in a drunken state and assaulted her mother. 15. P.W. 5 in her evidence has admitted that on the date of incident, there was a quarrel between her father and mother (deceased) during night. After that she went to her grandmother’s house. At that time, her father and her mother (deceased) were only present in the house. On the next day morning, she came to the house and found, the dead body of her mother and Mood spread over the floor of the house. In the evidence, P.W. 5 has denied a suggestion that she was an eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 4, brother and sisters of the deceased to prove that the accused was in the habit of picking up quarrel with the deceased and demanding money for his vices but, P.Ws. 1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution. P.W. 1-Ravi who lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1, immediately after the incident also did not support the prosecution case. 16. P.W. 1-Ravi in his evidence has stated that the accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other for some time and afterwards, they were in cordial terms and they used to persuade the accused to give up the bad habits whenever there was a quarrel. About 1½ years back, at about 8.00 a.m., he went to the house of his sister and found her in a pool of blood while she was sleeping. After that he lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. He has also stated that on the previous date of incident, he went to the house of accused and advised the accused to give up his bad habits. He also admitted in the complaint that on the date of incident, P.W. 5 and her brother Sunil were present. In Ex. After that he lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. He has also stated that on the previous date of incident, he went to the house of accused and advised the accused to give up his bad habits. He also admitted in the complaint that on the date of incident, P.W. 5 and her brother Sunil were present. In Ex. P1-complaint, it has been clearly mentioned that on 1.6.11.2004 when he visited the house of accused, he found the dead body of deceased. When he enquired P.W. 5 and her brother Sunil who were present in the house, he was informed by P.W. 5 and Sunil that the accused assaulted the deceased with a club all over the body. He further stated that the accused was not present in the house. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused one day prior to the date of incident and he had advised the accused to give up his bad habits and went away. On the next day morning, he found the body of deceased ina pool of blood. Ex. P1-complaint clearly indicates that when he enquired the children of deceased, he was informed about the quarrel between the accused and deceased on the previous date of incident and that the accused assaulted the deceased with a club all over the body and he was responsible for causing the death of his wife Smt. Munirathnamma. Though P.W. 5 did not support the prosecution case, her evidence clearly indicates that there was a quarrel between the accused and her mother. After that she went away to her grandmother’s house and by the time she came on the next day morning, she found the dead body of her mother in a pool of blood. 17. The learned trial Judge believing the evidence of P.W. 5 that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused in her house has opined that the deceased was responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that he came to his house in the evening and found the dead body of deceased in a drain. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that he came to his house in the evening and found the dead body of deceased in a drain. The evidence of P.W. 5, daughter of the deceased and accused clearly shows that there was a quarrel between accused and the deceased on the previous day night and by the time she left the house, deceased and accused were only present in the house. Later, they found the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood. Therefore, the plea of the accused that he was not present at the time of death of the deceased is false and cannot be believed. 18. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Supreme Court has held: “Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” 19. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W. 5 who is none other than the daughter of the deceased and. accused clearly shows that the accused and deceased were only present and there was a quarrel between them shortly prior to the incident and after that the deceased was done to death. The explanation offered by the accused that he was not present at the house and he came to the house in the evening is found to be false since P.W. 5, the daughter of deceased has clearly stated that the accused and deceased were only present when she left the house and there was a quarrel between them. Though P.W. 1, brother of the deceased had lodged the first information, he did not support the prosecution ease and the contents of Ex. P1. However, he admitted in the evidence that when the accused used to quarrel with the deceased, P.W. 1 and his family members used to advise the accused to give up his bad habits. Though P.W. 1, brother of the deceased had lodged the first information, he did not support the prosecution ease and the contents of Ex. P1. However, he admitted in the evidence that when the accused used to quarrel with the deceased, P.W. 1 and his family members used to advise the accused to give up his bad habits. This clearly indicates that the accused was in the habit of demanding money from the deceased for his vices and used to quarrel with her. 20. The learned trial Judge considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, observed that the accused had motive to commit the offence as the deceased was refusing to part with money for his vices. The other circumstances relied on by the prosecution that soon after the commission of offence, the accused fled away, leaving the dead body of his wife and by the time P.W. 1 came to the house of the deceased, the accused was not present. When P.W. 1 enquired P.W. 5 and her brother Sunil as to what had happened, he was informed by them that the accused quarreled with the deceased and assaulted her with a club. The same is clearly mentioned in Ex. P1-complaint lodged by P.W. 1 immediately after the incident, on the basis of which a case in crime No. 16/2004 was registered against the accused. Thus, the circumstantial evidence available on record clearly indicates that except the accused, no other person had any access to commit the offence on 15.1.2004 at 8.30 p.m., when both of them were only present at the residence of accused. 21. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence rightly held that the accused was responsible for causing death of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any cogent reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 22. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.