Vinod Prasad J. The sole appellant Janeshwar Prasad has called upon us, in this appeal, to examine the fallibility and correctness of his conviction u/s 302/201 I.P.C. and imposed sentence of life imprisonment on the first count and three years R.I. for the second count recorded by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in S.T. No.312 of 1981, State versus Janeshwar Prasad and Others, relating to police station Kotwali, district Muzaffarnagar. Noticeable here is the fact that by the impugned judgement and order learned trial court has acquitted rest of the four accused Musaddi Lal, Rameshwar, Munshi Lal and Baru from the charge u/s 201 I.P.C. which acquittal has now attained finality. Prosecution case against the appellant was divulged during the trial through the narrations of various fact witnesses, Dr. Vijai Kumar,PW1, Sewa Ram PW2,Ram Pal PW3,Mool Chand PW4 and Satya Pal Saini PW5. From the perusal of testimonies of aforesaid witnesses it emerges that the informant Dr. Vijai Kumar, P.W.1, a medical practitioner by profession, along with Shambhu Ram, his elder uncle and Ram Pal,P.W.3, younger uncle were the residents of village Karanjali post Deoband, district Saharanpur. Shakuntla @ Kunta, ( deceased) was his sister, who was married to the appellant Janeshwar Prasad, a tailor by profession, who was originally resident of village Khampur, but also had a house in Mohalla Ahata Aulia district Muzzafarnagar. Appellant and the deceased had two sons and along with them, they resided in mohalla Ahata Aulia, district Muzzafarnagar since February 1980. Their elder son was 18/19 years of age whereas the younger one was just 14/15. Appellant had developed infatuated love relationship with one Saroj, d/o Chandrabhan, who resided near Excise outpost in district Muzzafarnagar. Spouses feuded amongst them was a common affair because of extra marital relationship wherein appellant used to assault his wife/deceased. Appellant's extra marital relationship affair was also informed to the informant by his sister deceased Shakuntala. Informant, in tune with natural anxiety, had divulged it to both of his uncles. Many a times all the three of them remonstrated the appellant futilely to dissuade him to desist from his such activities, but it all yielded no results. Informant,PW1,in routine course of his profession, used to visit Muzzafarnagar once of fortnight to purchase medicines for his patients and after purchases used to visit his sister to inquire about her wellbeing and often stayed with her over night. Informant,PW1,in routine course of his profession, used to visit Muzzafarnagar once of fortnight to purchase medicines for his patients and after purchases used to visit his sister to inquire about her wellbeing and often stayed with her over night. On 22.2.1980 also informant came to Muzaffarnagar to purchase medicines and thereafter, as usual, came to the appellants house to meet his sister in Mohalla Ahata Aulia, but found the house locked. On inquiry from the neighbours and locality residents he was made aware that in the past intervening night between 21/22-2.80 the sound of assault and beating had emanated from the house of the appellant and thereafter, at about mid night, sound of a car parking at the appellant's house was also heard. Five minutes later the car went away and thereafter the house was found locked. Coming to know of such facts informant P.W.1 Dr. Vijai Kumar returned to his village Karanjali and informed about it to his uncles, Ram Pal P.W.3 and Shambhu Ram. All the three of them thereafter came to appellant's village Khampur, where they met Satpal Saini P.W.5, who was Assistent Project Officer with Rohana Kala Board and under whose operational zone village Khanpur fell. Accompanying P.W.5, all the three witnesses came to appellant's house where they met him. On inquiry being made from the appellant regarding whereabouts of Shakuntala@ Kunta, appellant confessed his guilt before them and other collected people and disclosed that in the night he had a brawl with the deceased in which incident, from his hand, wife/deceased lost her life and in the night itself he had cremated her corpse. After making above confessional disclosure, appellant expressed remorse and pleaded with folded hands that although he had committed a sin but he be spared and excused. He fell down on the feet of the informant and the witnesses and requested them with folded hands to supress the incident. Thereafter, informant and his uncles returned to the appellant's house at Mohalla Ahata Aulia, where informant P.W.1 scribed the FIR, Exhibit Ka-1, and carried it to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, who made an endorsement, Exhibit Ka-1/1, for police station Kotwali on the said written report. A Constable was sent along with the informant and then all the persons firstly came to the police station Mandi and from there they came to the police station Kotwali, where informant/PW1 lodged his FIR. A Constable was sent along with the informant and then all the persons firstly came to the police station Mandi and from there they came to the police station Kotwali, where informant/PW1 lodged his FIR. Head Moharirr Bhanwar Singh, P.W.6, registered the FIR on the basis of Exhibit Ka-1 by preparing Chik F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-3 of crime No.311 of 1980, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. on 22.2.1980 at 9.15 p.m and then penned down crime registration GD thereof, Exhibit Ka-4, against the sole appellant. S.I. Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, PW7, commenced investigation into the crime, came to the spot in Mohalla Ahata Aulia where he searched for the accused but nobody was present there. At the incident scene itself, interrogatory statements of the informant Dr. Vijai Kumar P.W.1, Ram Pal P.W.3, witnesses Sewa Ram P.W.2, Mool Chand P.W.4 and others were penned down by the I.O., who thereafter came to village Khampur in search of the accused but could not apprehend the appellant. On 24.2.1980, I.O. came to Rohana police outpost near village Khampur and there slated the investigatory statements of witnesses Shambhu Ram and Satpal Saini,PW5. He thereafter recorded the statements of witness Mool Chand and other persons. Following day, appellant Janeshwar Prasad was arrested from Saharanpur Bus Station and was interrogated. I.O. thereafter returned to the incident scene in Mohalla Ahata Aulia, inspected the spot and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-5. Thereafter I.O. Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, P.W.7, came to village Khampur where he arrested other, acquitted, accused persons Munshi Lal, Musaddi Lal, Bari and interrogated them. Further investigation into the crime was conducted by Inspector V.P. Singh of P.S. Kotwali as the first I.O. S.I. Sarvesh Kumar Sharma was transferred. Regarding arrest of appellant Rameshwar, on 13.11.80, a GD entry was sketched at 1.45 p.m. vide GD no.35, which was prepared by S.S.I. Babu Ram Yadav. First I.O. has proved the aforesaid G.D. as Exhibit Ka-6. On 27.12.1980 charge-sheet was laid in the court against all the accused by S.S.I. Babu Ram Yadav, which has been proved by the first I.O. as Exhibit Ka-7. First I.O. has proved the aforesaid G.D. as Exhibit Ka-6. On 27.12.1980 charge-sheet was laid in the court against all the accused by S.S.I. Babu Ram Yadav, which has been proved by the first I.O. as Exhibit Ka-7. On the basis of the charge sheet, Exhibit Ka-7, Criminal Case No. A 1942/9 of 1981, State versus Janeshwar Prasada and others was registered in the court of CJM, Muzzafarnagar, against all the accused persons and they were summoned by the committal court of C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar, who finding the disclosed offences triable by Court of Sessions, committed the case of all the five accused to the Sessions Court for trial on 31.7.81, and before the Sessions court the case was registered as S.T. No.312 of 1981, State Versus Janeshwar Prasad and others. The aforesaid trial was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional Session's Judge, Muzaffarnagar, who, on 19.1.1982 charged the appellant under section 302/201 I.P.C. and rest of the accused under section 201 I.P.C. only. The aforesaid charges were read out and explained to the accused persons, who all, after understanding the charges, denied the same and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in it's efforts, to establish the charges and bring home accused guilt tendered in all seven witnesses out of whom informant Dr. Vijai Kumar P.W.1, Sewa Ram P.W.2, Ram Pal P.W.3, Mool Chand P.W.4, Satpal Saini P.W.5 were the fact witnesses. Head Constable Bhanwar Singh P.W.6 and Investigating Officer Servesh Kumar Sharma P.W.7 were the formal witnesses. Accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and took a common defence of false implication. They pleaded that the deceased was suffering from disease because of which she had expired. Appellant Janeshwar Prasad, further pleaded the defence that Sewa Ram have got his attires tailored from him but had not paid him tailoring charges and when he asked for it, he was falsely implicated. He had further pleaded that because of dispute over a grove, Mool Chand was inimical to him. Deceased Shakuntla used to have fits but prior to his marriage with her, said ailment was concealed from him and because of that reason, he was not having cordial relationships with his in-laws. He had further pleaded that because of dispute over a grove, Mool Chand was inimical to him. Deceased Shakuntla used to have fits but prior to his marriage with her, said ailment was concealed from him and because of that reason, he was not having cordial relationships with his in-laws. He further pleaded that his younger brother Ram Lal was arrested by the police on 10.11.1980 at 3 p.m. from village Khampur regarding which, appellant had sent a telegram through a relative. Rest of the accused pleaded that the deceased resided in village Khampur and she used to have fits, because of which she had expired and in the morning she was cremated. In their defence, accused had examined Mohammad Asghar as D.W.1. Learned trial Judge, after marshalling and examination of all the evidences tendered before it, attending facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the prosecution had failed to bring home it's charge against accused Musaddi Lal, Rameshwar, Munsi Lal and Bari, and therefore, acquitted all of them of the charge u/s 201 I.P.C. It however opined that guilt of the appellant has been proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt respecting both the offences u/s 302/201 I.P.C. and therefore convicted and sentenced him on both the counts mentioned herein above and consequently this appeal by the convicted and sentenced appellant challenging the impugned judgement and order. In the back drop of above underlying facts, we have heard Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sangam Lal Kesherwani, learned AGA for the respondent State. Assailing the impugned judgement and snipping learned trial court's reasoning and conclusions, Sri Rai submits that appellant had two abodes/houses, one in mohalla Ahata Aulia district Muzaffarnagar, where the appellant resided alongwith his younger son, who was a student at the time of the incident and the other is in village Khampur, where deceased resided with her elder son as she was a patient of epilepsy and used to have fits and she died a non-homicidal death because of that disease and therefore she was cremated without wastage of time following day morning. The story of brawl and infatuated relationship with Saroj are all feigned and there is lack of convincing and credible evidences in that regard. But for ipse dixit by the witnesses there is no other supplementary evidence to believe those allegations submitted learned counsel. The story of brawl and infatuated relationship with Saroj are all feigned and there is lack of convincing and credible evidences in that regard. But for ipse dixit by the witnesses there is no other supplementary evidence to believe those allegations submitted learned counsel. Prior to solemnisation of nuptial knot ceremonies and during it's performance factum of deceased being a patient of epilepsy was concealed from the appellant by the informant and his relatives and just to cover up their misdeed and said concealment that they implicated the appellant by fabricating a false story harangued appellant's counsel. Entire allegations were motivated and were levelled to seek revenge is evident from the fact that the entire family was roped in by the informant by creating a false story. Furthermore, learned counsel strenuously urged, that the learned trial Judge himself disbelieved prosecution story and it's witnesses vis-a- vis rest of the accused and therefore it committed an ex-facie error in relying upon those very witnesses qua appellant. Such an exercise is unsanctified and unsustainable urged learned counsel, according to whom appellant also deserved the same treatment. It was next argued that appellant's marriage was performed more than two decades ago and after lapse of so many years, it is impossible to conceive that appellant will execute such a scurrilous and ghastly crime to annihilate his own wife without immediate cause. Lastly, it was argued that in any eventuality, the proven crime against the appellant will not fall outside the purview of section 304 I.P.C. as there is no eye witness account for the actual incident and according to appellant's confession deceased lost her life in a brawl without having any intention to commit her murder. It is not known as to what actually transpired between deceased and the appellant on that ill-fated night and therefore, adopting a cautious and lenient approach, appellant should be punished only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 304 I.P.C. and not u/s 302 I.P.C. and be sentenced accordingly.Conviction u/s 302 I.P.C. is fallible and should not be affirmed submitted appellant's counsel. Primarily on above submissions, it was urged that the appellant deserves clean acquittal and, in case, he is not acquitted, his crime be mollified to 304 I.P.C. with suitable sentence accordingly, looking to the various mitigating circumstances in his favour, to which we shall deal with in the later part of this judgment, if need be. Learned AGA conversely refuting appellant arguments submitted that the relationships between the deceased and appellant of being spouses is not denied and hence it was but natural that both resided under one roof. Hence presence of the deceased during the incident in Mohalla Ahata Aulia is most probable. Appellant had failed to bring on record convincing material to show, even on preponderance of probabilities, that they resided separately with each other. More over defence case of deceased being patient of epilepsy having fits was a false defence. Appellant miserably failed to establish said plea, which was in his knowledge since more than two decades. Not only this appellant also failed to prove that the deceased had died a natural death. The hurried and clandestine manner in which he had disposed off her body is a strong incriminating circumstance against him indicating his guilt argued learned AGA. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden lied on the appellant to establish that the deceased died due to disease which burden he pathetically failed to discharge strenuously submitted learned State Counsel. During the incident only the appellant and deceased were present in each-others company and therefore appellant would have been the best person to disclose what really happened during that ill-fated night. The false explanation offered by the appellant is yet another strong circumstance against him argued learned AGA. Only appellant could have shed some light and explained as to how and in what manner the deceased had died. Since, the appellant had failed to explain that satisfactorily and even had confessed deceased having being done to death in a brawl with him he cannot be absolved of the crime committed by him and the only irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant, who had caused her death and had obliterated crime evidence by disposing off her cadaver hurriedly to cover-up his crime. Entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidences, and both oral and documentary evidences tendered during trial formed a complete sequence of events, which examined in a proper prospective, and woven together, indicate story of an unimpeachable nature pointing towards guilt of the accused without any other hypothesis and also does not admit any exception. There is dearth of reasons to assoilzie the appeal favouring appellant and his appeal deserves to be dismissed submitted learned AGA. Arguing to the contrary regarding scaling down the offence to 304 I.P.C. from 302 I.P.C., learned AGA submitted that how and in what manner murder was committed was known only to the appellant and since he had put forward a false and mendacious story he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. His defence during the trial is at variance with his confessional statement given before independent persons and the facts which emerges is that the appellant, to shield his skin, had stated a fib to which no credit can be attached and hence his crime cannot be mollified. Feigning of a false defence case and obliterating crime evidences by cremating the dead body are two very strong incriminating circumstances against the appellant negating existence of viable reasons to palliate his conviction and sentence, which should be affirmed concludingly argued learned AGA. We have pondered over rival submissions and have vetted and critically appreciate, both, oral and documentary evidences existing on the trial court's record. Before adverting to the merits of the present appeal, it will be appropriate to take a brief stock of various judicial pronouncements respecting law relating to cases based on circumstantial evidences. Apex Court as well as this Court on numerous earlier occasions had the opportunity to consider and expounded the law concerning approach to be adopted in cases resting upon circumstantial evidences. After a catena of decisions it has now been the trite law, fairly well settled, that in cases of circumstantial evidences, the prosecution is require to prove entire chain of circumstances well knitted and woven into a conglomerated whole pointing out only the guilt of the accused and excluding all other reasonable hypothesises compatible with his innocence. The evidences should be of an unimpeachable character, not only compatible with the guilt of the accused but also incompatible with all other reasonable prognosis. The evidences should be of an unimpeachable character, not only compatible with the guilt of the accused but also incompatible with all other reasonable prognosis. It should be capable of suggesting only one inference and that is guilt of the charged accused without ambiguity and with clarity. Without being verbose and ostentatious we aptly refer herein below some of apex court decisions countenancing above opinions. In Bakshi Singh versus State of Punjab:AIR1971 SC 2016 it has been held by the apex court as under:- "9. The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in numerous decisions. It is needless to refer to them as the law on the point is well settled. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." In Naseem Ahmad versus Delhi Administration: AIR 1974 SC 691 it has been held by the apex court as under:- "10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is therefore necessary to find whether the circumstances on which prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent with the innocence of the accused. For determining whether the circumstances established on the evidence raise but one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused, regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and divorced from the context of the overall picture emerging from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and divorced from the context of the overall picture emerging from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. It is only when the various circumstances are considered conjointly that it becomes possible to understand and appreciate their true effect." In Dharm Das Wadhwani versus State of U.P.: AIR 1975 SC 241 it has been observed by the apex court as under:- "The critical rule of proof by circumstantial evidence counsel reminded us, is that such testimony can be the probative basis for conviction only if one rigorous test is satisfied. The circumstances must make so strong a mesh that the innocence of the accused is wholly excluded and on every reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the accused must be the only inference. Shri Nuruddin Ahmed suggested some maybes in the case excluding his client's culpability, and contended that the test of incompatibility with the innocence of the accused had not been fulfilled at all here. As a proposition of law and common sense, we agree that unlike direct evidence, the indirect light circumstances may throw may vary from suspicion to certitude and care must be taken to avoid subjective pitfalls of exaggerating a conjecture into a conviction. 12. Every evidentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken separately may just suggest but when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the accused inescapably. Only then can a concatenation of incriminating facts suffice to convict a man. Short of that is insufficient. 13. The question then is whether the cumulative effect of the guilt-pointing circumstances in the present case is such that the court can conclude not that the accused may be guilty but that he must be guilty. We must here utter a word of caution about this mental sense of 'must' lest it should be confused with exclusion of every contrary possibility. We have in S. S. Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, ( 1973) 2 SCC 793 = ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal when any delicate or remote doubt flits past a feeble mind. We have in S. S. Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, ( 1973) 2 SCC 793 = ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal when any delicate or remote doubt flits past a feeble mind. These observations are warranted by frequent acquittals on flimsy possibilities which are not infrequently set aside by the High Courts weakening the credibility of the judicature. The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct. At the same time, it may be affirmed as pointed out by this Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of that cannot be withheld from him." In Hargun Sunder Das Godeja and others versus The State of Maharashtra:AIR1970 SC1514 it has been observed by the apex court as under:- "The criminal courts holding trail under the Code of Criminal Procedure have accordingly to bear in mind the provisions of S. 342-A of the Code and to take anxious care that in appreciating the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case, their mind is not influenced by such failure on the part of the accused. But that does not mean that such negative onus is not capable of being discharged by appropriate circumstantial evidence. If the circumstantial evidence which is trustworthy and which with unerring certainty establishes facts and circumstances the combination of which, on reasonable hypothesis, does not admit of any safe inference other than that of the guilt of the accused then there can hardly be any escape for him and the Court can confidently record a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court would, of course, be well-advised in case of circumstantial evidence to be watchful and to ensure that conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The court would, of course, be well-advised in case of circumstantial evidence to be watchful and to ensure that conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The chain of evidence to sustain a conviction must be complete and admit of no reasonable conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused." ( emphasis supplied) From the above exposition of law, there remains little doubt that for the prosecution to succeed, in cases of circumstantial evidences, it has to establish complete chain of circumstances by leading unimpeachable creditworthy evidences, which woven together unerringly points out towards guilt of the accused without admitting any other exception. It's evidence must obliterate suspicion with certitude of accused being the only perpetrator of the crime. When facts of the present appeal are tested on the anvil of above expounded law, we find that there are certain important issues which are not disputed. Either they are admitted by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. or they remained unchallenged during cross examination of the fact witnesses. It will be useful to register them and we hereby proceed to that. Firstly the relationships between charge sheeted accused inter se is admitted. Marriage of the deceased with appellant accused since more than two decades, their having two sons and their living together in Mohalla Ahata Aulia, P.S.Kotwali, district Muzzafarnagar since February 1980 are all undisputed facts. It is also admitted that house of Moolchand,PW4, is just two houses away from the house of the appellant in village Khampur. Furthermore, it also remains uncontested that the appellant had two residential abodes one in district Muzaffarnagar and the other in village Khampur. It is also not denied that the appellant was a tailor by vocation. It also remains uncontroverted that the deceased had lost her life otherwise than under normal circumstances on the date and time of the incident, as according to the prosecution allegations she was murdered by the appellant, whereas defence of the appellant is that she died because of the epilepsy disease and fits. Attour, it is worthwhile to recapitulate that albeit appellant suggested such a defence to the witnesses during their cross examination but very queerly he eschewed to reiterate the same in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus there is vital change in the stance of the appellant during progress of the trial. Attour, it is worthwhile to recapitulate that albeit appellant suggested such a defence to the witnesses during their cross examination but very queerly he eschewed to reiterate the same in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus there is vital change in the stance of the appellant during progress of the trial. He had maintained an unconvincing silence on that score. With such uncontroverted and uncontested facts, the area of our scrutiny through which we have to tread to analyse rival versions, is squeezed in a very narrow compass as to which of the two versions, prosecution or defence, are credible while we certainly are oblivious of the fact that while prosecution has to establish it's charge to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubts, the appellant accused has only to show reasonable possibility of his defence to be probable to anoint him with benefit of doubt imbibed in jurisprudential scheme of preponderance of probability. Examining the trial court record for the above, we firstly note that it is a case which based on circumstantial evidences. There is no eye witness account of the actual incident so much so that regarding feud between husband and wife also there is no first hand evidence and whatever we know is through the disclosure made by the deceased to the informant. Since these disclosures relates to cause of her death they are admissible u/s 32 of the Evidence Act. The love relationship being the motive for the crime could not have any direct account. It was alleged by the prosecution side who had no viable reason to fabricate such a story. Appellant on his part had made no inroad in such an allegation as he failed to dislodge the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding those aspects. Most of his cross examination is directed towards insignificant and peripheral issues rather than challenging the existence of infatuated relationships and absence of feud between the spouses. Marriage between the spouses was solemnised more than two decades ago and it is difficult to swallow that after such a long period a wife will state a false allegation against her husband, more so when she had attained mother hood by two sons. It has been evidenced by the informant PW1 that since last four/five years that he was informed about appellant's extra marital relationship with Saroj who was also a married women. It has been evidenced by the informant PW1 that since last four/five years that he was informed about appellant's extra marital relationship with Saroj who was also a married women. PW1 also stated that he had met Saroj at the house of the appellant two/three times and had remonstrated her as to why she was ruining the marital life of his sister, to which she had replied that she will not make further visits. PW1 had met Saroj during twilight and he had accosted her in front of the appellant. In that connection PW1 and his uncle had met Saroj's father also at his residence. All these depositions which had occurred in the cross examinations of informant PW1 is corroborated by other witnesses Sewa Ram, PW2 vide ( Para3) and Ram Pal PW3 vide Para1&4 of their testimonies. Since accused appellant had miserably failed to discredit prosecution witnesses on this score it remains certain that appellant had enough reasons to do away with the deceased as she must have been an eye sore in his cupid relationships. Because of aforesaid reason fight between the appellant and the deceased was a usual feature is also a proven fact beyond any shadow of doubt as all the three fact witnesses have deposed it promiscuously in no uncertain terms. Prosecution thus has succeeded in establishing presence of a strong and sufficient motive for the appellant to commit the charged offence. This is the first strong piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant. Coming to another circumstance Sewa Ram, PW2 had testified that during incident night there was commotion and weeping and rescue cries emanated from the house of the appellant, as appellant was assaulting his wife Kunta ( deceased), who was shrieking for help. Para 2 of the depositions of this witness presents a very gloomy picture as to how the appellant treated the deceased. It was further divulged by PW2 that incident of assault and shrieks continued for about ten/fifteen minutes and thereafter it died down and he had not slept by that time and was awake lying on his cot. This evidence by PW2 virtually remained unchallenged by the appellant so much so that he was not even suggested that his such a claim is false or fabricated. This is the second incriminating established evidence against the appellant. This evidence by PW2 virtually remained unchallenged by the appellant so much so that he was not even suggested that his such a claim is false or fabricated. This is the second incriminating established evidence against the appellant. Turning to the third one we note that PW2 specifically stated that sound of parking of a car was heard after commotion of struggle died down and after five minutes it went away in the night preceded disclosure of crime. This version by PW2 was lend credence by PW4 who also deposed that the appellant had brought cadaver of his wife to village Khampur by a car and had reached there at half past one in the night. House of PW4 is just two houses away from the house of the appellant in village Khampur. Munshi, father of appellant Janeshawar had called PW4 and had informed him that appellant was taking his wife to Kahtauli but en-route she expired because of decease and then he had brought her back. Both father and son arranged to cremate her corpse same night, to which PW4 had objected tersely, but in vain, and all the charge sheeted accused had cremated the deceased cadaver that very night in cremation ground. PW4 further stated that to his knowledge deceased was not ailing. Thus there are two witnesses who have deposed that the appellant had carried the dead body of the deceased to his native village and there had disposed it off by cremating it. This evidence is further authenticated by the appellant through his confessional statement which was made in the presence of some independent persons also. Defence had also suggested to PW1 & PW4 that deceased had died in Khampur and thus her cremation at Khampur is also a well proven fact. This is the third circumstance against the appellant pointing towards appellant's guilt. Another incriminating circumstance of grave significance is the surreptitious and clandestine disposal of the dead body of the deceased to obliterate evidence of murder same night without informing her family relatives including the informant by the appellant. Even if defence of the appellant, for the sake of argument, is considered to be true without admitting it to be as such, even then there was no earthly reason for him to cremate the body without informing deceased parental relatives in dead hour of night. Even if defence of the appellant, for the sake of argument, is considered to be true without admitting it to be as such, even then there was no earthly reason for him to cremate the body without informing deceased parental relatives in dead hour of night. After all deceased was none else than his wife who had lived with him for more than two decades. Even if appellant had any grouse with his in-laws relations, it should have vanished with the demise of his wife. Otherwise also our heuristic experience informs us that seldom last rights are performed during night. Singularly, this is the most incriminating proven circumstance against the appellant which is admitted even to the appellant. No explanation worth in name, what to say an acceptable one, has been offered by the appellant for such nocturnal secret disposal of the dead body. From the proven facts the only inevitable possible conclusion seems to be that the appellant wanted to cover up his crime in quick succession to obliterate it's evidences. This shows appellant's mens rea and a strong incriminating circumstance against him. Thus the above bracketed two categories of evidences, first is of relatives who had deposed happening of the incident at Muzzafarnagar, and second of witnesses of village Khampur, when put together forms a complete chain of events which clamour only guilt of the appellant. Other attending proven evidences against the appellant are that when informant had visited the house of the deceased on 22.2.1980, it was found locked. This also establishes that the deceased resided in Muzzafarnagar and not in the village as claimed by the appellant. Presence of Sewa Ram P.W.2 at his house during night is most natural and probable as he was a neighbour of the appellant and his house is just across the road. The door and the windows of his drawing room opens just in front of the house of the appellant, as is perceptibly clear from paragraphs 2 and 4 of his depositions. This witness had heard the shrieks of the deceased on the incident night as he had clearly stated that at 10-11 p.m., on the incident night, he had heard the shrieks of the deceased, who was shrieking for help but, because this was a common feature since many a months, he had not paid any heed to it. This witness had heard the shrieks of the deceased on the incident night as he had clearly stated that at 10-11 p.m., on the incident night, he had heard the shrieks of the deceased, who was shrieking for help but, because this was a common feature since many a months, he had not paid any heed to it. He had further stated that at 1-1.30, a car stopped in front house of the appellant and after 2-3 minutes had returned. This witness had further stated that next day morning, he had come to know that the deceased has been murdered. The last but the most significantly vital circumstance against the appellant is his false defence, which he had pleaded during the trial. There remains no doubt, and it is now well settled by catena of decisions, that the defence of an accused can be legitimately taken into consideration to judge the veracity of the prosecution version and the defence theory. Deliberately speaking a prevaricated story by an accused is a very strong piece of evidence against him specially in matters covered by circumstantial evidences especially in those cases where the happening of the incident was in the special knowledge of the accused alone. In the present case, appellant had pleaded that the deceased was patient of epilepsy and used to have fits because of which she died. Marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnized more than two decades ago. His brother-in-law/informant was a doctor. Not even a chit of paper or any credible evidence could be brought on record by the appellant to support his such a day dream defence. The defence had not cross examined the informant at all on the aforesaid aspect and very cleverly left it when the informant was in the witness box. This ostensibly was done as the defenceppellant was in fully knowledge of the fact that the said defence theory is feigned and fabricated. It will be ludicrous to think that for more than two decades the wife suffered with such a serious disease like epilepsy but was not treated at all by the appellant. The defence of the appellant seems to be after thought and cooked up also for the reason that in between this period the spouses were blessed with two sons, the elder one was 18 or 19 years of age whereas, the younger one was 14 or 15. The defence of the appellant seems to be after thought and cooked up also for the reason that in between this period the spouses were blessed with two sons, the elder one was 18 or 19 years of age whereas, the younger one was 14 or 15. None of those two sons appeared in the witness box to support the claim of their father and to save him from going to gallows. This again is a very strong circumstance against the defence plea, falsity of which speaks for itself on the facts and circumstances of the appeal. D.W.-1 does not stand a chance before the unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses. We have no hesitation in discarding the evidence of DW 1 in its entirety. Further, it is worthwhile to note that even those facts, which were challenged by the appellant during cross examination of the witnesses were admitted by the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the most vital fact on this score is that the appellant and the deceased resided in Muzaffarnagar in the appellant's house. During entire prosecution all through, appellant had maintained that the deceased resided in his native village at Khampur where she breath her last because of deceased but in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he had admitted that the deceased resided with him in Mohalla Ahata Aulia in district Muzaffarnagar. The oxymoron defence so pleaded by the appellant is the last nail struck into his defence plea which, to us seems to be afterthought, cooked up, fabricated and mendacious. We discard such a defence plea out rightly. The above noted circumstances, unerringly establishes that it was the appellant who had murdered his wife and to obliterate the evidences of his crime, he had surreptitiously disposed of her body. This now takes us to the last submission regarding the crime committed by the appellant. According to Sri Rai, learned appellant's counsel, the proven offence against the appellant can be only under section 304 part ( I) I.P.C. and not under section 302 I.P.C. whereas according to learned AGA, the crime will be covered only under section 302 I.P.C., which cannot be diluted or mollified. After going through the record and hearing both the sides, we concur with the submissions of learned AGA. At every step, appellant had come out with a false story to cover up his crime. After going through the record and hearing both the sides, we concur with the submissions of learned AGA. At every step, appellant had come out with a false story to cover up his crime. We are not sure as to whether his confession that he had a brawl with his wife during the night is a correct narration of fact or not. If the appellant would have narrated a convincing version, we could have taken a lenient view for his crime but the conduct of the appellant and the attending circumstance obstruct our scrutiny from taking such an approach. How and in what manner, deceased was done to death is totally unknown to us. Whether it was a gruesome or a diabolical murder or it happened during the brawl remains in a realm of uncertainty but since we are unable to repose even the slightest confidence in the confessional theory stated by the appellant regarding the struggle between him and his wife that we are not inclined to confer any benefit to the appellant. To us his confessional statement was deliberately diluted by him to save the gravest penalty prescribed in law of minimum life imprisonment. We therefore do not find any reason to dilute appellant's crime from 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part I IPC and therefore, repel appellant's contention regarding that. Wrapping up the discussion, the residue is that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Conviction of the appellant as recorded in the impugned judgment by the learned trial Judge is hereby affirmed. Appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender to his personal and bail bonds forthwith preferably within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, learned trial Judge is directed to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against him, get him arrested and lodge him in jail to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Appellant's personal and surety bonds are hereby discharged. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the learned trial Judge for further action at his end.