JUDGMENT SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th of July, 1995 passed in Session Trial No. 332/94 by the Session Judge, Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/S. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Deceased - Gomti Bai alias Mamta was wife of the appellant. She was married to the appellant in the year 1992. After the marriage, she lived for a short span in her matrimonial house, then she went to her parent place. Later, she returned to the house of the appellant on 4-3-94. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the father of the deceased namely Samay Lal (PW-3) as he had to pay loan of some society. Samay Lal (PW-3) could not fulfill the above demand. On 26-3-94, the appellant sent the deceased to the house of her father, however, after sometime Samay Lal (PW-3) took the deceased to the house of the appellant and left there. On 1-4-94 some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased and the deceased reported the matter to P.S. Mandir Hasaud vide Ex. P/10, In the said case, she was medically examined by Dr. K. S. Rai (PW-8) and haematoma on the occipital region and a contusion on the left wrist both caused by hard and blunt object were found on the person of the deeased. Later on, two applications i.e. Exs. P/3 & P/4 were simultaneously filed before the police Mandir Hasaud and the matter was compromised and the deceased again went to the house of the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were living separately. The case of the prosecution is that on 2-6-94 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant returned from Raipur and demanded food from the deceased, but the food was not served, whereupon the appellant hit the deceased by pestle (Lohda) on the back portion of her skull and then laid down her on the cot and strangulated her till the deceased died. The appellant thereafter informed his mother and father saying that the deceased has become unconscious. However when the villagers gathered in the house of the appellant, they found the deceased in dead condition. Thereafter the appellant himself went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.- Ex. The appellant thereafter informed his mother and father saying that the deceased has become unconscious. However when the villagers gathered in the house of the appellant, they found the deceased in dead condition. Thereafter the appellant himself went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.- Ex. P/14) at about 24.00 hours on the same day. This was the confessional F.I.R. in which the appellant gave all above details relating to murder of the deceased. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of the occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/1) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/2) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to D.K. Hospital, Raipur vide requisition Ex.-P/13-A. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. D. C. Jain (PW-9) who found lacerated wound on back of the skull caused by hard and blunt object. There were multiple fractures of the underlying bone and brain was also damaged. According to the Autopsy Surgeon, the above injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; the cause of death was coma due to above injuries and it was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.P/13. The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/7) was recorded u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act and a pestle (Lohda) was seized at the instance of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Raipur, from where, a report was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased and also on the pestle (Lohda). Further these articles were sent for Serologist examination to Central Laboratory, Calcutta and a report dated 6th of October, 1994 (Ex. P/18) was received. According to the Serologist report, the blood stains found over the clothes of the deceased and pestle (Lohda) were human blood. 3. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Session Judge did not rely on the circumstances of confessional F.I.R. and discovery and seizure of pestle (Lohda) at the instance of the appellant. 3. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Session Judge did not rely on the circumstances of confessional F.I.R. and discovery and seizure of pestle (Lohda) at the instance of the appellant. However, following are the circumstances, on which, the Session Judge relied and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned : (i) The deceased was married to the appellant in the year 1992 and the couple had no child; (ii) The appellant was not on cordial terms with the deceased; (iii) The relations between the appellant and family members of the deceased were strained; (iv) The appellant had demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the father of the deceased which demand he could not fulfill; (v) At an early occasion, the appellant had assaulted the deceased for which a criminal case was registered against the appellant and the deceased was medically examined and above injuries were found on her person; (vi) The appellant and the deceased were residing together in the house of the appellant and the dead body of the deceased was found in the bed-room in the house of the appellant and her death was homicidal in nature; and (vii) The appellant could not offer satisfactory explanation regarding homicidal death of the deceased in his house. 4. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the above circumstances were not fully established against the appellant; even if the circumstances are held to be established, they would not lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased leading to her death; therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the session case. 7. Samay Lal (PW-3) is father of the deceased. He deposed that after the marriage, the deceased had lived in her husband place once for one day and later on one month. Thereafter she came to her house and Gona was performed on 4-3-94. He further deposed that the appellant had demanded Rs. 7. Samay Lal (PW-3) is father of the deceased. He deposed that after the marriage, the deceased had lived in her husband place once for one day and later on one month. Thereafter she came to her house and Gona was performed on 4-3-94. He further deposed that the appellant had demanded Rs. 1,000/- from him to pay to some society, however, he had refused and the appellant returned back saying he himself would pay the amount. Thereafter on 26-3-94, the appellant had sent the deceased for the above amount, but the amount was not paid. This shows that the appellant had some grievance on account of not fulfilling the demand of Rs. 1,000/- by the father of the deceased namely Samay Lal (PW-3). 8. The appellant was treating the deceased with cruelty. This is proved by the documents of the earlier criminal case which shows that the appellant had assaulted the deceased and the deceased had to lodge the F.I.R. and she was sent for medical examination and the above injuries, as stated by Dr. K. S. Rai (PW-8) were found on her person. These circumstances have been proved by cogent and reliable evidence led before the Court. 9. The most important circumstance is that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant and the appellant did not offer any reasonable explanation as to how the deceased (his wife) died homicidal death in his house. The appellant has tried to explain that when he reached to his house from Raipur, he found that the deceased was lying in injured condition on the cot in the house and he immediately went to his father and mother to make complaints. 10. Sushil Kumar (PW-1) and Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) have deposed that the appellant had gone to his father Ram Saran and has said that his wife is lying unconscious and on such call father of the appellant and other witnesses had gone to the house of the appellant. A Vaidhya was also called who examined the deceased and found her dead. The Sessions Court has held that immediately at that time there has been no explanation by the appellant as to how his wife Smt. Gomti Bai alias Mamta was injured and how she became unconscious. A Vaidhya was also called who examined the deceased and found her dead. The Sessions Court has held that immediately at that time there has been no explanation by the appellant as to how his wife Smt. Gomti Bai alias Mamta was injured and how she became unconscious. There is no evidence to show that the appellant gave any explanation as to how his wife received above injuries. The Session Judge has held that neither Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) nor Sushil Kumar (PW-1) have stated that the appellant had told his father that he had seen his wife in injured condition lying unconscious after he returned from his work. The Session Judge thus held that the defence which was being taken by the appellant was not established. 11. Mr. Bharat mainly argued that it was not established that the appellant was present in the village or in his house at the relevant time. We have carefully considered the above argument of Mr. Bharat. Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) is a neighbour of the appellant. He deposed that at about 10.00 p.m., he was sitting along with father of the appellant, Ram Saran, on a chabutra in the village. The appellant came there and told his father that his wife (deceased) is not feeling well. He requested his father to come to his house. Ram Saran and all the persons who were sitting there (2-4 persons) accompanied the appellant and went to his house. He also accompanied the appellant and went to the house of the appellant. He saw that deceased-Gomti Bai was lying on a cot. Thereafter, a Vaidhya was called who saw the pulse of the deceased and said that the deceased has died. In the cross-examination, para-5, Rajendra Kumar (PW-5) admitted that the appellant used to go to Raipur for his work. On the fateful day, he had returned from Raipur at about 7-8:00 p.m. This shows that on the fateful day, the appellant returned to his house at about 7-8 : 00 p.m. and since that time he was present in his house. On the fateful day, he had returned from Raipur at about 7-8:00 p.m. This shows that on the fateful day, the appellant returned to his house at about 7-8 : 00 p.m. and since that time he was present in his house. If the explanation of the appellant that when he returned from Raipur, he saw the deceased lying in dead condition on the cot is accepted, why the appellant kept quite from 7-8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and why he did not disclose the incident to the villagers/neighbours or even to his father prior to 10:00 p.m. Further we note that the deceased was lying on the cot in pool of blood. There were serious injuries on her occipital region. That must have been noticed by the appellant. Why the appellant did not react to it immediately? and why he disclosed to his father and other villagers, including Rajendra Kumar (PW-5), who were sitting on chabutra, that the deceased was not feeling well instead of telling that she had received serious injuries and she has died. All this goes to show that the appellant did not offer reasonable and plausible explanation as to how the deceased died homicidal death in his house in which he alone was residing with the deceased. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it was established that the appellant was present in his house at the relevant time and he did not offer any reasonable or plausible explanation regarding homicidal death of his wife. We are of the view that the learned Session Judge has rightly held this circumstance as incriminating against the appellant. 12. The above incriminating circumstances, in our view, form a complete chain and are consistent with no other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellant. If he was with his wife (deceased) at the relevant time, he should have explained how and when his wife (deceased) sustained above injuries. In fact, he should have offered plausible explanation exculpating him. The appellant has not given an explanation which may support his innocence. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.