JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused No. 1’) along with accused 2 to 4 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge acquitted accused 2 to 4 for aforestated offences and convicted accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC, Therefore, accused No. 1 has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard Sri N.P. Kallesh Gowda, learned counsel for accused No. 1 and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for State and we have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: Latha (since deceased) was the daughter of P.W. 1-Chandramma and P.W. 5-Marishetty. Latha was given in marriage to accused No. 1 and their marriage was performed on 20.3.2003. After the marriage Latha was living in, the house of accused 1, 3 and 4 in Lakya. Village. The parental house of Latha is in Eeruguppe Village. The distance between two villages is about 2 kilometres. Accused 3 and 4 are the parents of accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is stated to be concubine of accused No. 1. It, is the case of prosecution that married life of accused No. 1 and Latha was happy for a period of few months. Latha conceived and gave birth to a female child. Accused No. 1 had developed illicit relationship with accused No. 2. Latha had informed the matter to her parents, who had convened a panchayat, involving the elders of Lakya Village. Accused No. 1 was suitably advised to put an end to his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 agreed before panchayatdars to give up his illicit relationship with accused No. 2, however he continued his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. There used to be frequent quarrels between accused No. 1 and Latha. On. 6.11.2005. P.W. 1 had visited the house of accused No. 1 to see the child of accused No. 1 and Latha who had fallen ill. During morning of 7.11.2005, Latha wanted to take her child to hospital, she asked accused No. 1 to pay money. Accused No. 1, instead of giving money, told Latha to come near his land to collect money. At about 9 a.m., accused No. 1 left to his land. During morning of 7.11.2005, Latha wanted to take her child to hospital, she asked accused No. 1 to pay money. Accused No. 1, instead of giving money, told Latha to come near his land to collect money. At about 9 a.m., accused No. 1 left to his land. Thereafter, Latha along with her child and P.W. 1 left the house. P.W. 1 went towards bus stand of Lakya Village. Latha along with her child proceeded towards the land of accused No. 1. On that day at about 10.30 a.m., some persons noticed deadbody of Latha beneath a tamarind tree in the land of one Mudalagiriyappa (father of accused No. 1). There was heap of stones beneath tamarind tree and a nylon rope was hanging from one of the branches of tree and there was no noose at another end. The matter was informed to P.W. 1, who came to Lakya Village and saw dead body of her daughter. Some one informed the police over telephone. The police reached place of Incident, at about. 3 p.m., on the same day viz. on 8.11.2005, at about 11.30 p.m. P.W. 1 lodged first information and set criminal law into motion. On the following day, P.W. 16-Nagabhushana. Shastry, the then Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest and the Investigating Officer conducted spot mahazar and recorded the statements of witnesses. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. P.W. 15--Dr. Nagesh S. Adiga conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of Latha. The accused No. 1 was arrested on 8.11.2005 at about 6 p.m. The post-mortem examination report revealed that death was due to ashphyxia and shock as a result of an oblique constricting force around the neck. The Investigating Officer on completion of Investigation submitted charge sheet, against accused 1 to 4 for aforestated offences. 4. On behalf of prosecution P.W. 1 to P.W. 20 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to Ex. P14 were marked and material objects as per M.O. 1 to M.O. 4 were marked. On behalf of defence, Ex. D1 to Ex. D3 were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties held accused No. 1 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC and acquitted accused 2 to 4 for aforestated offences. 6. On behalf of defence, Ex. D1 to Ex. D3 were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties held accused No. 1 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC and acquitted accused 2 to 4 for aforestated offences. 6. At the out set, we deem it proper to state that though parents of deceased have made allegations of demand and acceptance of dowry and subsequent demand of dowry the evidence on record does not disclose demand and acceptance of dowry before and after the marriage. In fact, the learned trial Judge has not framed any charge against accused No. 1, alleging dowry related cruelty. 7. On careful consideration of evidence of parents of deceased, we find that financial position of parents of deceased was precarious. In fact, the parents of deceased were living in a Janatha house. The parents of deceased have admitted that after marriage of deceased, they shifted their residence to Gavanahalli and they were working in a saw-mill. There is no consistent evidence either regarding demand or acceptance of dowry before or after marriage. Therefore, we deem it proper to eschew evidence adduced by prosecution relating to demand and acceptance of dowry and also demand for dowry subsequent to marriage. The State has not appealed against acquittal of accused 2 to 4, Therefore, there is no need for us to refer to evidence adduced against accused 2 to 4. 8. Now, we will advert, to the evidence adduced by prosecution to prove that on 7.11.2005 at about 10 a.m., accused No. 1 had caused homicidal death of his wife Latha in land bearing survey No. 64/P of one Mudalagiriyappa (father of accused No. 1) at Lakya Village and accused No. 1 had tied a rope to a branch of a tamarind tree and piled up stones beneath tamarind tree to make it appear that deceased had committed suicide. 9. In order to prove the guilt of accused No. 1, the prosecution has relied on the following: I. Motive II. The deceased was last found alive with accused No. 1. III. The conduct of accused No. 1 before the incident and after the incident. 10. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1. 9. In order to prove the guilt of accused No. 1, the prosecution has relied on the following: I. Motive II. The deceased was last found alive with accused No. 1. III. The conduct of accused No. 1 before the incident and after the incident. 10. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1. P.W. 12 to P.W. 14 to prove that accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with accused No. 2, in that connection there used to be frequent quarrels and deceased Latha had come back to her parental house on several occasions. 11. P.W. 1-Chandramma is the mother of deceased Latha, P.W. 1-Chandramma has deposed; after they shifted their family to Gavanahalli, she was frequently visiting the house of accused No. 1 to see her daughter; deceased Latha had told P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 has illicit relationship with accused No. 2; whenever P.W. 1 visited the house of accused No. 1 to see her daughter, accused No. 1 was not talking to her and he used to stay in the house of accused No. 2; P.W. 1 had advised accused No. 1 to disassociate with accused No. 2 and lead a happy life with deceased, accused No. 1 did not heed to her advice and continued his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. P.W. 1 informed the matter to villagers of Lakya village and also threatened that she would lodge a complaint with police. Some of the villagers told that they would settle the matter by holding a panchayat; thereafter, a panchayat was convened; P.W. 1 had attended panchayat; P.W. 6, P.W. 12 to 14 the panchayatdars, asked accused No. 1. whether he would like to lead a happy married life with deceased or he would continue his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 told panchayatdars that he would lead a happy married life with deceased and he would disassociate from accused No. 2. Therefore, panchayatdars advised P.W. 1 not to lodge a complaint against accused No. 1. After 15 days, deceased came to her parental house and informed P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 has been continuing his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. P.W. 1 visited Lakya Village and questioned accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 retorted by telling P.W. 1 that he would give up his wife (deceased Latha), but he would not discontinue his illicit relationship with, accused No. 2. P.W. 1 visited Lakya Village and questioned accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 retorted by telling P.W. 1 that he would give up his wife (deceased Latha), but he would not discontinue his illicit relationship with, accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 was staying in the house of accused No. 2, however, accused No. 1 was pretending before villagers as if he was a loyal and dutiful husband. During cross-examination, it has been suggested to P.W. 1 that accused No. 1. had no illicit relationship with accused No. 2. P.W. 1 has denied the suggestion. P.W. 1 was cross-examined with reference to her evidence and the contents of first information (Ex. P1) to contend that entire evidence given by P.W. 1 is not found in first information. 12. At this juncture, if is relevant to state that first information need not contain minute details and it is not an advance copy of evidence of the first informant. 13. The deceased Latha had informed P.W. 1 about illicit relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. P.W. 1 had convened a panchayat . Accused No. 1 had agreed to give up his illicit relationship with accused No. 2 and lead happy married life with deceased Latha. However, accused No. 1 broke promise given to panchayatdars. When P.W. 1 again questioned accused No. 1, he told that he would give up his daughter (deceased Latha) and continue his relationship with accused No. 2. 14. P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 to P.W. 14 have given evidence about panchayat held in Lakya Village to advice accused No. 1 to take proper care of deceased Latha and to discontinue his illicit relationship with accused No. 2. P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 to P.W. 14 have deposed that accused No. 1 in the panchayat convened by them had promised that he would give up his illicit relationship with accused No. 2 and he would lead a happy married life with deceased Latha, but undertaking given before panchayat proved to be false within a short period of time. 15. On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 to P.W. 14, we find that they did not bear enmity or grudge against accused No. 1. They had made their sincere attempts to advice accused No. 1 to maintain cordial relationship with deceased Latha. 15. On careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 12 to P.W. 14, we find that they did not bear enmity or grudge against accused No. 1. They had made their sincere attempts to advice accused No. 1 to maintain cordial relationship with deceased Latha. Accused No. 1 was very much infatuated with accused No. 2 and he continued his illicit relationship with accused No. 2 though accused No. 2 was ten years older to him. The deceased was frequently quarrelling with accused No. 1 for his immoral activities. Therefore, evidence adduced by prosecution would prove motive alleged against accused No. 1. 16. P.W. 1 has deposed; on 6.11.2005, she had come to the house of accused No. 1 to see deceased Latha; on that day, deceased Latha had taken her child to hospital and returned home during evening. Accused No. 1 had stayed in the house of accused No. 2. On the next day. deceased Latha asked accused No. 1 to give money. When the accused No. 1. came to his house to take their child to hospital accused No. 1 told deceased Latha to come near land to collect money; so saying accused No. 1 left his house; thereafter P.W. 1, deceased along with her child left the house P.W. 1 went to bus stand to go to her village; deceased Latha along with her child proceeded to the land of accused No. 1 to collect money from accused No. 1; on that day, at about 11 a.m., one Avinash came and informed P.W. 3-S. Yellaiah that dead body of deceased was found in the land of accused No. 1; thereafter, P.W. 4 and other villagers proceeded towards the land of accused No. 1. and saw dead body of Latha beneath a tamarind tree in land hearing survey No. 64/P of one Mudalagiriyappa (father of accused No. 1); they also saw a nylon rope tied to one of the branches of tamarind tree; beneath the branch of tamarind tree there was a heap of stones; one end of rope was tied to branch and there was no noose at the other end. Some one informed the police over telephone, at 3 p.m., police came to place of incident and saw dead body and the surroundings of dead body. Some one informed the police over telephone, at 3 p.m., police came to place of incident and saw dead body and the surroundings of dead body. P.W. 1-mother of deceased and P.W. 5-father of deceased received information about death of deceased at 7 p.m., through CW28-Sadashiva and CW29-Chandranna (not examined before Court), who informed that their daughter is lying dead near a tamarind tree situate near the land bearing survey No. 64/P of Mudalagiriyappa of Lakya village. Immediately, P.W. 1. and P.W. 5 came to Lakya Village and saw dead body of deceased Latha lying beneath a tamarind tree. P.W. 1 saw rope was hanging from a tree and heap of stones was lying beneath tree. P.W. 1 found ligature mark around the neck of deceased and she found one of the toe-rings of deceased was lying at a distance of one foot from dead body. They did not find noose in the rope that was hanging from tree. P.W. 1 lodged first information as per Ex. P1. On the following day, P.W. 16-Nagabhushana Shastry came and held inquest on dead body, later dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 17. P.W. 1 has deposed; after seeing dead body, ligature mark found on the neck and rope hanging from a branch of tamarind tree came to the conclusion that her daughter had been strangled and later stones were heaped to make It appear that her daughter had committed suicide. During cross-examination, evidence of P.W. 1. regarding what she had observed near place of incident has not been controverted. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has deposed that tamarind tree under which dead body of deceased Latha was lying is situate on the western side of land of accused No. 1. P.W. 1 has admitted that before the incident, child of deceased was suffering from dysentery. It was suggested to P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 had no nexus with the death of deceased, Thus from the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that death of her daughter (Latha) was not suicidal. 18. P.W. 1 has admitted that before the incident, child of deceased was suffering from dysentery. It was suggested to P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 had no nexus with the death of deceased, Thus from the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that death of her daughter (Latha) was not suicidal. 18. P.W. 4-L.G.Shivaswamy has deposed; on 7.11.2005 at about 9 a.m., when P.W. 4 was in his shop; he saw the deceased along with her child was proceeding in front of his shop on the road towards their land; about 15 minutes later, accused No. 1 came to the shop of P.W. 14; at that time, P.W. 4 asked accused No. 1. to return the money which he had owed to P.W. 4; in response to the same, accused No. 1 told P.W. 4 that he would pay money, so saying accused No. 1 left the shop of P.W. 4 towards Chiko bank. Thereafter, P.W. 4 went, to Chiko bank at about 1.0.30 a.m., to draw money from his account; at that time, one Avinash of his village came and informed P.W. 4 that deceased was found dead in the land of accused No. 1 P.W. 4 has deposed; he was present when Taluka Executive Magistrate held inquest near the place of incident. P.W. 4 has deposed; he noticed rope hanging from branch of a tamarind tree the height of the branch of tamarind tree was about 11 feet from ground; below that branch about 7 to 8 stones had been piled up. 19. At the relevant period, P.W. 16-Nagabhushana Shastry was working as Taluka Executive Magistrate of Chikmagalur Taluk. P.W. 16 has deposed; on 8.11.2005 he had received a requisition from the P.S.I, of Chikmagalur Rural Police Station to hold Inquest over dead body of deceased. In response to the said requisition, P.W. 16 proceeded to Lakya Village and held inquest, over dead body of deceased, which was lying beneath, a tamarind tree situate in land bearing survey No. 64/P of Lakya village. The inquest was held in the presence of panchas including P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and he prepared inquest as per Ex. P3; at the time of inquest, P.W. 16 and panchas did not notice external injuries on dead body except; a ligature mark on the front side of neck. The inquest was held in the presence of panchas including P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and he prepared inquest as per Ex. P3; at the time of inquest, P.W. 16 and panchas did not notice external injuries on dead body except; a ligature mark on the front side of neck. P.W. 16 noticed ear studs, nose stud, a black beed mangalyasara with, gold beeds, silver leg chain on the person of deceased and a right toe ring was lying at some distance from the dead body; apart from this, P.W. 16 noticed M.O. 4-hair clip lying at some distance from dead body. P.W. 16 noticed rope hanging from a branch of tamarind tree; some stones (M.O. 2) had been piled up beneath the branch of tamarind tree. P.W. 16 noticed ligature mark on front side of neck of deceased. During cross-examination of P.W. 16, nothing has been brought on record to discredit his evidence. 20. P.W. 15-Dr. Nagesh S.Adiga, who was then working as Senior Specialist in M.G. Hospital at Chikmagalur conducted post-mortem examination on. dead body of Latha between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the mortuary of M.G. Hospital. P.W. 15 did not notice external injuries except a ligature mark on the neck. P.W. 15 has deposed; ligature mark was oblique and was extending across front of neck from the angle of left jaw. The ligature mark was 1.5 cms in width and 1.8 cms in length, it was found just 2.5 cms below right mastoid with knot mark measuring 2.5 cms over left mastoid. P.W. 15 has opined that death was due to asphyxia and shock as a result of an oblique constricting force around neck. P.W. 15 furnished his opinion in post-mortem examination report marked as Ex. P10. P.W. 15 has deposed on 18.11.2005, he had received a letter from C.P.I. Chikmagalur Rural Circle seeking certain clarifications;- whether rigor mortis could be present in the body even after lapse of 24 hours and ligature mark found on deceased was ante mortem or post mortem. In response to said letter, P.W. 15 sent his reply on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report marked as Ex. P10; on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report. In response to said letter, P.W. 15 sent his reply on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report marked as Ex. P10; on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report. P.W. 15 has stated that cause of death was due to external constricting force obliquely around neck leading to asphyxia and shock, which is most probably due to hanging cause of death was ante mortem in nature and death had occurred in less than 24 hours; ligature mark was ante mortem in nature. 21. On careful consideration of clarification written on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report, we are of the opinion that P.W. 15. after concluding the post-mortem examination report on 8.11.2005 had given positive opinion that death was due to oblique constricting force around the neck. P.W. 15 has made a feeble attempt to dilute his opinion by stating that death may be due to hanging. 22. We see from records that the Investigating Officer had not sought for any clarification from P.W. 15 on 18.11.2005. On the other hand, answers given by P.W. 15 to the queries of the Investigating Officer are written on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report, and the Investigating Officer had not sought clarification on 8.11.2005. If the Investigating Officer had sought; any clarification, it could have been only after the receipt of post-mortem examination report by the Investigating Officer. The answers given to the Investigating Officer by P.W. 15 would clearly establish that when answers to queries were written by P.W. 15 on the IV-page of post-mortem examination report, it was still with P.W. 15. 23. After going through, the contents of post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W, 15, we find that the ligature mark was extending across the front of neck and knot, mark was found below right mastoid. We also notice that hypoid bone was not fractured so also the cervical bone. There was no damage to laryngeal cartilage. 24. In the discussions made supra, we have referred to the place of incident and the material objects found therein. Therefore, the contention of the defence that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself to a tamarind tree near the land of the accused No. 1 cannot be accepted. The deceased was carrying her child. The place of incident, is situate by the side of the land of the accused No. 1. There is no explanation by the accused No. 1. The deceased was carrying her child. The place of incident, is situate by the side of the land of the accused No. 1. There is no explanation by the accused No. 1. as to what had happened to the child of the deceased after the incident. Therefore, we hold that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 25. We notice from the evidence of P.W. 1 that during the morning on the day of incident (7.11.2005) the child of first accused and deceased was suffering from dysentery and the child was exhausted. Therefore, there was immediate need for the deceased to take her child to the hospital. When she requested accused No. 1 to give money to take the child to hospital, accused No. 1 instead of giving money in the house had asked her to meet him in his land and so stating he left, the house. After noticing the condition of the child, accused No. 1, should have taken the child to the hospital or he should have given money to his wife (deceased) to take the child to the hospital. We also notice from the location of place of incident, that the deceased along with her child had reached the land of accused No. 1. The contents of inquest, report marked as Ex. P3 would reveal that accused No. 1 was the first person to see the dead body. This evidence would clearly establish that the deceased was in the company of the accused before the incident and after the incident, accused No. 1 had left the place. If the death of the deceased was due to intervention of some other persons, accused No. 1 should have informed the matter to the police. Above all, we do not find that the deceased had other potential enemies who were waiting to do away with her life. The accused No. 1 did not inform the parents of the deceased. The conduct of accused No. 1 after the incident is entirely inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent person. Accused No. 1. was arrested during the evening of 8.11.2005. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused No. 1 has stated that he was arrested on 7.11.2005. But he has not stated from where he was arrested. The conduct of accused No. 1 after the incident is entirely inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent person. Accused No. 1. was arrested during the evening of 8.11.2005. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused No. 1 has stated that he was arrested on 7.11.2005. But he has not stated from where he was arrested. The order sheet maintained by the Committal Court shows that accused No. 1 was produced before the Magistrate on 11.5 p.m. on 8.11.2005. Before the Magistrate accused No. 1 has not stated that he was arrested on the previous day and had been detained in the police station. 26. The learned counsel for accused No. 1 submits that P.W. 1 has admitted about the presence of accused No. 1 in the police station. From the cross-examination of P.W. 1, we find that she was not cross-examined with reference to the date on which she had seen accused No. 1 in the police station. Therefore, from this part of evidence of P.W. 1, it is not possible to hold that accused No. 1 had been arrested soon after the incident. 27. The learned counsel for accused No. 1 would submit, that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information. Therefore, first information had come into existence after deliberations. We are not inclined to accept this submission for the following reasons: Accused No. 1 and his family members knew about the death of the deceased by 11.00 a.m. on 7.11.2005, but, no effort was made by accused No. 1 to inform the parents of the deceased about the death of their daughter. The other members of the family of accused No. 1 did not inform the matter to the police. P.W, I has deposed that she learnt about the incident at about 7.00 P.M. on 7.11.2005. As already stated the distance of the place of P.W. 1 and the place of the incident is about 2 Kms. It is probable that P.W. 1 had taken time to reach the place of incident from her village. P.W. 1 on seeing the death of her daughter was in the state of shock and it had taken some time for her to come to normalcy. Therefore, the first information was lodged at 11.45 p.m. on 7.11.2005. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information. 28. P.W. 1 on seeing the death of her daughter was in the state of shock and it had taken some time for her to come to normalcy. Therefore, the first information was lodged at 11.45 p.m. on 7.11.2005. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information. 28. The learned counsel for accused No. 1 referring to the evidence of P.W. 1 would submit that the deceased had consumed tablets in a bid to commit suicide. We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has admitted that the deceased had consumed tablets and she had been admitted to hospital. However, her evidence does not establish that it was an attempted suicide. If that were to be the case, accused No. 1 should have caused production of the related documents from the concerned hospital. Thus from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we hold: (i) the first accused had developed illicit intimacy with accused No. 2. There was no cordiality between the first accused and deceased. He had motive to commit the offence; (ii) on the date of incident at about 7.00 a.m. when the deceased requested accused No. 1 to give money to take the child to the hospital, accused No. 1 instead of giving money in the house had asked the deceased to come to his land; (iii) when the deceased reached the land of accused No. 1, the persons present near the place of incident were, accused No. 1, the deceased and her child. The death, of deceased was homicidal. The death of the deceased was due to asphyxia; the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased would disclose that there was constriction of the neck of the deceased, which was doe to exertion, of force, (iv) After the incident, accused No. 1 had piled up stones and tied a rope to the branch of a tamarind tree to make it appear that the deceased had committed suicide. (v) After the incident, accused No. 1 did not exhibit the conduct of an innocent person. He did not inform the matter to the police. He did not inform the matter to the parents of the deceased and he was not seen near the place of incident. Above circumstances would clinchingly establish that accused No. 1 alone was the perpetrator of the crime. He did not inform the matter to the police. He did not inform the matter to the parents of the deceased and he was not seen near the place of incident. Above circumstances would clinchingly establish that accused No. 1 alone was the perpetrator of the crime. The above circumstances would exclude the innocence of accused No. 1. 29. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused No. 1 guilty of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 30. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.