JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2006 decided on 28.5.2009, whereby he has been sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing the murder of his wife Monika to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further fifty percent of the fine amount, if realized is ordered to be paid to the parents of the deceased as compensation. 2. In short, prosecution story, as emerges from the evidence on record, can be stated thus. PW1 Banwari Lal, brother of deceased Monika had engaged the accused as a driver of his vehicle and served him for about a year. He was suspected to have some illicit intimacy with the deceased, thus he was removed from service. (ii) In the month of January, 2005, the deceased got employment as Nurse in a private Nursing Home at Kakihara in District Chamba. Her friend Lucky also joined the course in the same Institute. Later both of them left the job in the same month. (iii) Thereafter she alongwith her friend Lucky visited Jawalaji, where the deceased stayed in the house of Lucky aforesaid. Next morning, he (PW1) received a telephonic call from Lucky that Monika had boarded a bus to his place Fatehpur, District Kangra and he should receive her at Bus-stand. PW1 Banwari Lal alongwith his parents went to Bus-Stand, but he did not find any trace, then he visited Lucky’s house at Jawalaji and enquired about Monika. She affirmed the above position, but after few days, Banwari Lal aforesaid received a telephonic message from the deceased that she had married accused. (iv) The accused was employed as a driver in Fertichem Spinning Mills at Dera Bassi in Patiala District of Punjab. In the year 2006, PW2 Dilwar Singh was running a Canteen in the said Mill. Later he left the service and Dilwar Singh came to know that he was staying in an Apartment at Mani Majra. Since, the accused owed some money thus he visited aforesaid place and demanded his dues to which he paid. According to him, at that time, he had seen a lady living with the accused as his wife and identified her photographs Ext.PA-1 to PA-14 which pertained to the deceased. Since, the accused owed some money thus he visited aforesaid place and demanded his dues to which he paid. According to him, at that time, he had seen a lady living with the accused as his wife and identified her photographs Ext.PA-1 to PA-14 which pertained to the deceased. (v) In the year 2005, PW14 Smt. Navneet Kaur was residing in House No.435 in Mohalla Dehra Saheb, Mani Majra alongwith her husband Rajiv Kaushal, who used to deal in medicine and had a clinic nearby. The accused also started residing in the said building as a tenant alongwith deceased and stayed there for about two months. She also identified the photographs Exts.PA-1 to PA-13 of the deceased. According to her at that time, she appeared to be pregnant. She further stated that on 10th July, 2005, accused alongwith the deceased had left the rented premises, on the pretext that they were going to pay obeisance in the temple Mansa Devi and he would leave his wife in the house of his sister. Thereafter the accused returned next day i.e. on 11.7.2005 and told her that he had left the deceased in his sister’s house in Kangra District, thereafter vacated the rented premises within about 12 days. (vi) PW15 Smt. Mamta also stated about the stay of the accused alongwith his deceased wife in Dehra Saheb area of Mani Majra. The deceased and the accused were both known to her brother Raju who was also a driver by profession. She stated that in June, 2005, the accused and his wife Monika visited the doctor in Street No.9, Mani Majra. The deceased was got medically examined, they had also visited her place, took tea and during conversation, the deceased told her that it was her love-marriage with the accused and they had not visited home for the last about seven months. Thereafter she had met her at one or two occasions, in Bazaar. But in the month of July, 2005, the accused had left the rented premises and came to reside with her brother Raju alone. On being asked about his wife, he revealed that he had left her at the house of her sister in Ludhiana town as she being pregnant. But in the month of July, 2005, the accused had left the rented premises and came to reside with her brother Raju alone. On being asked about his wife, he revealed that he had left her at the house of her sister in Ludhiana town as she being pregnant. (vii) On 11.7.2005, PW27 Inspector Ajay Rana received a telephonic message from S.I. Ruldu Ram, the then Incharge of Police Post City, Una that a dead-body of a lady was lying in ‘Hotel Ganga Lodge’ near Bus Stand, Una. On receiving this information, he rushed to the spot and found a dead-body of a lady lying in room No.105 of the said hotel and recorded statement Ext.PW9/A of PW13 Krishan Kumar, Manager of the Hotel under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW27 aforesaid made an endorsement on the statement and sent it for the registration of the case to the Police Station which culminated into FIR. He also sent for the Photographer PW23 C. Shashi Kumar. He took the photographs of the dead-body Exts.PA-1 to PA-14. Investigating Officer took into possession two tumblers Exts.P8 and P9, lying on a stool and three plastic water bottles Exts.P10 to P12 from another stool and sealed with seal impression “P”. Seal after its use was handed over to witness Vinod Kumar and all these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW5/A. A carry bag Ext.P-13 containing clothes of the deceased i.e. Shirt Ext.P14, Salwar Ext.P15, Dupatta Ext.P16, Underwear Ext.P17, Bra Ext.P18 and a pair of Sandle Ext.P19 found in the room, vide memo Ext.PW5/B. The Investigating Officer noticed some injuries on the face and around neck of the deceased which gave the impression of strangulation with Dupatta, as such he prepared inquest papers Exts.PW27/A and B. The dead-body was taken into possession and sent for autopsy. (viii) Inspector Ajay Rana (PW27) prepared the site plan Ext.PW27/C and also took into possession guest/tourist visitors register which was produced by PW13 Krishan Kumar Hotel Manager, vide memo Ext.PW5/C. The register aforesaid contained the entries with respect to the stay of the deceased with one person in the said hotel. According to PW13 Krishan Kumar, the entries were made by the person accompanying the deceased. Said Investigating Officer visited the place of address given in the register Ext.P20, but the address was found fake. (ix) PW7 Dr. According to PW13 Krishan Kumar, the entries were made by the person accompanying the deceased. Said Investigating Officer visited the place of address given in the register Ext.P20, but the address was found fake. (ix) PW7 Dr. S.K. Gupta with the assistance of Dr. Rajan Angra and Dr. S. Rana conducted the postmortem of the dead-body on July 11, 2005, on the request of the police. Her abdomen was found distended. The team of the doctors also noticed that there was Dupatta around her neck and the doctors noticed ligature mark around her neck having abrasions of 3cm x 0.5cm with clotted blood at the root. The face of the dead-body was congested and swollen with patechial haemorrhage. Her eyes were bulged out. There was also an abrasion of 1x0.5 cm in size on the forehead with the clotted blood, which was brownish in colour. A blackish ligature mark on the upper neck having thickness of 0.5 cm all around the neck except lateral side was also observed. The depth of the ligature mark was found to be upto subcutaneous tissue which was ecchymosed. A contusion was also found on the scalp with clotted blood. The brain was congested and the body was having partial post mortem rigidity with postmortem lividity on dependant parts. Cricoid bone was found broken and the larynx and trachea were found filled with pinkish froth. The tongue was protruded and swollen. Pink froth was drooling from mouth and nostrils and was also in pharynx. Undigested food article was noticed in the abdomen. Small intestines were found distended containing gases and faecal matter. Liver was congested, whereas the uterus was found enlarged and on dissection it was found containing a dead male foetus of 900 grams. There was no evidence of any fresh injury on the organs of generation internal or external. (x) In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to strangulation. The probable time which elapsed between the neck injuries and death was immediate and death and postmortem was 12 to 24 hours. (xi) The viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The vaginal swabs were also taken for chemical analysis. The blood samples of the deceased as well as the foetus were also taken. The probable time which elapsed between the neck injuries and death was immediate and death and postmortem was 12 to 24 hours. (xi) The viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The vaginal swabs were also taken for chemical analysis. The blood samples of the deceased as well as the foetus were also taken. For the purpose of finger printing/ typing all the finger tips of both the hands of the deceased were cut and put into a separate bag for DNA analysis. Sample of foetus tissue were also taken and sealed in a separate bag. The postmortem report ( four leaves) Ext.PW7/A was also prepared, which was signed by the team of the doctors aforesaid. The doctors ruled out the possibility of the suicide but they confirmed homicidal death by strangulation with Dupatta Ext.P21. (xii) PW13 Krishan Kumar, hotel Manager and Sudama Ram the then waiter in the hotel gave discreption and features of the accused on the basis of which the Investigating Officer got prepared the posters and circulated in the various Police Stations in neighbourhood. The posters were also got published in the newspapers. (xiii) The Superintendent of Police, Una constituted a special investigation team (SIT) the members of which were sent to locate the culprit. (xiv) During the course of investigation it came to notice that the deceased belonged from Fatehpur village of district Kangra (H.P.) and was daughter of Ram Nath with whom the accused was working as driver and had developed intimacy with the deceased, later he is alleged to have kept her as his wife. Thus, the police team consisting of PW25 ASI Harbans Lal and PW24 ASI Shakti Singh on tip visited Chandigarh where the accused was working as a taxi driver and was residing in Chandigarh. PW25 Harbans Lal, the then ASI alongwith some police officials drew `blank till 8.8.2005, however on 9.8.2005, he visited Dera Bassi where the accused was stated to have served as a driver in “Fertichem Spinning and Floor Mill”. Police came across PW2 Dilwar Singh, who pointed out the location of the residential quarter of the accused, but accused was not found present there. Thereafter, police visited Mani Majra alongwith Dilwar Singh aforesaid and enquired about the whereabouts of the accused from some of the taxi-drivers. Police came across PW2 Dilwar Singh, who pointed out the location of the residential quarter of the accused, but accused was not found present there. Thereafter, police visited Mani Majra alongwith Dilwar Singh aforesaid and enquired about the whereabouts of the accused from some of the taxi-drivers. Suddenly the accused came across the police, who was identified by Dilwar Singh for whom the police was looking for. The accused was arrested and his face was muffled. A memo Ext.PW25/A to this effect was prepared and his arrest information was passed-on to PW27 Inspector/ SHO Ajay Rana on his mobile phone. Accused was brought to the Police Post Haroli (Una). (xv) The accused was interrogated. He gave his disclosure statement Ext.PW6/A with respect to throwing the keys of the room No.105 of the aforesaid Hotel in the water source a few kilometers short of Bangana. (xvi) On 10th August, 2005, he was produced with muffled face in the Court with a prayer to conduct his identification parade by the Judicial Magistrate. Request was allowed and the identification parade was conducted in the Sub-jail on 11.8.2005 at 9 a.m. While in custody, on 12.8.2005, the accused made another disclosure statement that he had also thrown the Payal (anklet) of the deceased by the side of the Khokha at village Bhota near a place where people used to urinate. All these items could not be located, but however, the accused is stated to have pointed out the room No.105 in hotel Ganga Lodge, Una and also Quarter No.130 in Mani Majra where he had stayed with Raju brother of PW15 Mamta aforesaid. He also stated about wearing apparels of the deceased having kept in his residential quarter. (xvii) On 12.8.2005, police visited Room No.130 in Street No.10, Shakti Nagar Mohalla of Mani Majra and found the room closed as keys were with Ranbir Singh, brother-in-law of Raju, who was residing there. He was called and the room was opened. During search, a green coloured bag Ext.P23 and a VIP suitcase Ext.P1 were recovered. The bag contained clothes Ext.P24 to P37 which were supplied by the brother of the deceased to her. These were sealed in the same bag with seal impression “M”. Suitcase Ext.P1 was containing pullover Ext.P2 and other wearing apparels Exts. During search, a green coloured bag Ext.P23 and a VIP suitcase Ext.P1 were recovered. The bag contained clothes Ext.P24 to P37 which were supplied by the brother of the deceased to her. These were sealed in the same bag with seal impression “M”. Suitcase Ext.P1 was containing pullover Ext.P2 and other wearing apparels Exts. P4 to P7 of the deceased alongwith middle standard certificate Ext.P8, character certificate Ext.PC, mark-sheet Ext.PD, employment card Ext.PE and another certificate Ext.PF pertaining to the deceased. Three photographs Exts.PA-15 to PA-17 of the deceased were also found in the suitcase. All these articles were taken out and sealed with seal impression “M” and taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW3/A. (xviii) The accused was produced before PW10 Dr. M.K. Pathak to take blood sample with his consent which was sealed. On 17.8.2005, it was sent for DNA profiling to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh through PW21 ASI Darshan Singh. (xix) The clothes of the deceased were got identified before the Executive Magistrate. Specimen writings of the accused were taken before the Magistrate on the request of the police, which was allowed. Said writings Ext.PW26/K-1 to Ext.PW26/K-10. (xx) On 20.8.2005, the finger prints of the accused were also obtained before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. FORENSIC REPORTS. (xxi) The report Ext.PW27/D is of the Forensic Science Laboratory with respect to the vaginal swabs, which contained the blood and semen stains. Ext.PW27/E is another report of viscera, but it do not contain any poisonous substance. Ext.PW27/F is the report of Finger Print Bureau with respect to the finger prints developed from the finger tips of the deceased. Ext.PW27/H is the DNA report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The accused has been opined to be the biological father of dead foetus found in the womb of the deceased. The forensic report Ext.PW27/J confirms the writing of the accused on the hotel register. 3. During the investigation, the police found the involvement of the accused in committing the crime as he had suspected her of infidelity and carrying the pregnancy of some other person. 4. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. Finding a prima-facie case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the said offence, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. 4. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. Finding a prima-facie case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the said offence, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Pertinently, the accused admitted that in the year 2004, he was working as a Driver with PW1 Banwari Lal, brother of the deceased, who was an Insurance Agent, but denied having been removed from the service on account of having some illicit intimacy with his deceased sister. He stated that it was love marriage with the deceased and the deceased had informed telephonically her brother Banwari Lal aforesaid about the said marriage. The accused also admitted having resided with deceased in the house of PW14 Navneet Kaur for about two months and later also on July 14/15, 2005 with Raju, brother of PW15 Mamta. He took up the stand that he was falsely implicated in this case. He did not commit the murder of his wife Monika, but according to him, he alongwith Monika had married against the wishes of her parents and brothers. They were dead set against him, thus he started residing with the deceased in an Apartment at Mani Majra in Panchkula District of Haryana where he was working. His relations with the deceased were cordial. A few days before her demise, she revealed that she had received message from her parents and brothers to meet them and they had forgotten the past and were ready to allow her to come to their house. The deceased expressed her desire to visit her parents alone and told to call him later after pacifying them. She also told him that her parents had deputed a relative to take her to their house and requested him to leave her in ‘Ganga Lodge’ in Una town, where her relative was to come. Accepting her request, he took her to the said hotel on 10.7.2005 where they reached at 8 p.m. He alongwith his wife met the person to whom she identified as her relative, then he got the room booked in the said hotel and arranged for the meals and brought the water bottles. Accepting her request, he took her to the said hotel on 10.7.2005 where they reached at 8 p.m. He alongwith his wife met the person to whom she identified as her relative, then he got the room booked in the said hotel and arranged for the meals and brought the water bottles. A few hours later, he left the hotel leaving Monika and her relative in the room, which was booked for their stay. The relative of the deceased advised him that on being asked about the whereabouts of his wife by anyone, he should tell them that she had been left in the sister’s house at Ludhiana till the matter is settled. The deceased told him that she would send a message to him as and when the matter would be solved by her parents. He kept on waiting for message, which was never received, but few days later, he came to know from newspaper that his wife Monika was dead. With a view to know how she had died, he visited Police Station, Una, where he was arrested and framed in the present case at the instance of the parents and brothers of the deceased. According to him, it was the relative of the deceased who had stayed with the deceased during the intervening night of 10/11.7.2005 and murdered her. 7. When called upon to enter into his defence, he examined DW1 Fateh Chand, who stated that the parents of the deceased were against the marriage of the deceased with the accused and one of the relative was suspected having committed the said crime. 8. After complete trial and upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the defence taken by the accused. After examining each of the circumstances, it came to the conclusion that it was a homicidal death, only the accused who was staying with the deceased during the intervening night of 10th/11th July, 2005 and escaped after committing the murder, in the wee hours of the morning on a false pretext leaving the deceased behind in a locked room and thereafter he never returned. The compete chain of circumstantial evidence coupled with his act and conduct giving false explanations and his absconding for about a month connect the accused with the alleged offence, as such he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 9. The compete chain of circumstantial evidence coupled with his act and conduct giving false explanations and his absconding for about a month connect the accused with the alleged offence, as such he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 9. It was a jail appeal and Shri Anand Sharma was appointed as a counsel to represent the accused as per zimini order dated 14.12.2009. 10. Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the accused strenuously argued that there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is a very weak type of evidence, thus explicit reliance cannot be placed upon it. He also pointed out the statement of PW13 Krishan Kumar, hotel Manager who resiled from his statement and if his statement is ignored to the extent he supports the accused, there remains nothing against the accused. Further according to him whatever has been stated in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused cannot be considered to judge the guilt of the accused and further that the accused is not bound to explain anything relating to the crime and the burden always lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He also pointed out the statement of PW13 aforesaid whereby he stated that the statement Ext.PW9/A was not read over and explained to him. Further that no recovery etc, were effected pursuant to the disclosure statement, therefore case against the accused is not made out and the prosecution story cannot be presumed to be correct, without cogent proof in accordance with law. 11. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that PW13 Krishan Kumar has given his earliest version in the form of statement Ext.PW9/A under Section154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not a laymen, rather he was a wordly wise man looking after the establishment of the hotel and its affairs being its Manager. His statement was not taken by threat or coercion nor he made any complaint to that effect, rather he had tried to support the accused later in evidence, whereas, the man may lie but not the circumstances. It is urged that the circumstantial evidence on record is of conclusive nature and tendency pointing out towards the accused, to which the accused failed to dislodge. 12. It is urged that the circumstantial evidence on record is of conclusive nature and tendency pointing out towards the accused, to which the accused failed to dislodge. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties and have carefully and meticulously reappraised the evidence on record. 13. As a matter of fact, a criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. 14. In Paramjeet Singh Alias Pamma vs. State of Uttrakhand [ (2010) 10 SCC 439 ] the Apex Court cautioned that the court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. 15. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. Therefore, the instant case requires close scrutiny of the facts proved. The pious duty of the Court is to reach the truth. 16. Therefore, the instant case requires close scrutiny of the facts proved. The pious duty of the Court is to reach the truth. 16. In State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing [(1997) SCC (Cri) 946] the apex Court observed that every criminal trial is a voyage in quest of truth for public justice to punish the guilty and restore peace, stability and order in the society. Every citizen who has knowledge of the commission of cognizable offence has a duty to lay information before the police and cooperate with the investigating officer who is enjoined to collect the evidence and if necessary summon the witnesses to give evidence. He is further enjoined to adopt scientific and all fair means to unearth the real offender, lay the charge-sheet before the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. The charge-sheet needs to contain the facts constituting the offence/s charged. The accused is entitled to a fair trial. Every citizen who assists the investigation is further duty-bound to appear before the Court of Session or competent criminal court, tender his ocular evidence as a dutiful and truthful citizen to unfold the prosecution case as given in his statement. Any betrayal in that behalf is a step to destabilize social peace, order and progress. 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no eye witness to the incident. The whole case revolves upon the circumstantial evidence. A man my lie, but not the circumstances. Though a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, this is something which is to be born in mind while deciding a case involving the commission of a serious crime done in a planned gruesome manner. 18. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled that the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete. The Supreme Court also discussed the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone and laid the following principles of law: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 19. The apex Court repeatedly reiterated the above principle in various pronouncements observing that the evidence produced by the prosecution should be of such a nature that it makes the conviction of the accused sustainable and till date there is no judgment inconsistent with the aforesaid principles of law. 20. Insofar as the hostility of a witness is concerned, it is well established that the evidence of the prosecution cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot even be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. If the Court has come to the conclusion that the said witness had tried to conceal the material truth from the Court with the sole purpose of shielding and protecting the appellant for reasons best known to the witness and therefore, no benefit could be given to him for unfavourable conduct of such a witness to the prosecution. 21. Further if a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence can also not be held to be totally unreliable. 21. Further if a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence can also not be held to be totally unreliable. The Apex Court in its various judgments held that the deposition of a hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent he supported the case of the prosecution. [ Please also see Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2006) 2 SCC 450 ]; Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 543]; Rajindera v. State of U.P. [ (2009) 13 SCC 480 ] and Govindappa v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 184]. In Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma’s case supra, the above judgments have been surveyed, discussed and it was concluded that the evidence of a person does not become effaced from the record merely because of his hostility, but his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution. 22. Since the testimony of PW13 Krishan Kumar, Hotel Manager though declared hostile, but is important, therefore, it is required to be tested on the well established parameters. The accused is admitted to have made the entries in the Register Ext.P20. Krishan Kumar aforesaid also admitted this fact. As per entry, the deceased had stayed in the Hotel room No.105 with one person. According to PW13 aforesaid apart from the deceased, accused was accompanying with his male companion and after leaving behind the deceased in the room went out to bring the food from Bazaar as no eatables were provided in their hotel. The man accompanying the accused returned to the hotel with packed food while the accused did not turn up and he was the man who stayed therein during the intervening night of 10th/11th July, 2005 with the deceased and left the hotel at 4 a.m. on the pretext to bring the cigarettes with the assurance to return within 10 minutes. Though he offered a Biri, but that man refused to smoke as he wishes to smoke cigarette only. Thereafter, he even did not turn up. Though he offered a Biri, but that man refused to smoke as he wishes to smoke cigarette only. Thereafter, he even did not turn up. Further according to him, he entertained suspicion and sent Sudama Ram to serve water in the room, but little later, he informed that the room was locked, which was opened with the duplicate key and found the dead-body of a woman lying on the double-bed of the room, who appeared to have been strangulated with Dupatta around her neck. Thinking that she might be having some sign of life, he slightly loosened the Dupatta, but she was dead. He also noticed some bleeding injuries on her forehead. Thereafter, he rang up to hotel owner residing in Chandigarh. In turn, he directed him to inform police. He immediately went to City Police Post, contacted its Incharge and apprised about the occurrence. On the same day, PW27 Inspector/SHO Ajay Rana visited the spot and recorded his statement Ext.PW9/A. 23. Since the witness introduced another person than the accused it was not earlier stated by him and even there was no reference in his statement Ext.PW9/A recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, he was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Importantly, he admitted having given the statement to Inspector Ajay Rana and admitted the signatures on the said statement. He further admitted that as per entry Ext.PW13/A, two persons had come to stay in his hotel and only two persons including the woman above mentioned, whose photographs have been identified, have stayed in room No.105 of the hotel. He further admitted that when he gave his statement, the police officials aforesaid went on recording the same and on completion of his statement, he appended his signatures thereto. The whole statement Ext.PW9/A was read over to the witness, which according to him was given by him to the police. He also admitted the recovery of two tumblers Exts.P8 and P9 from the room of the deceased alongwith three plastic bottles Ext.P10 to P12 vide memo Ext.PW5/A, but subsequently denied the suggestion that he had appended the signatures after it was read over and explained to him. Thus, his demeanor is apparent to save the accused, but denied having sided with the accused. He also denied that the accused and the deceased only were the occupants of the said room. Thus, his demeanor is apparent to save the accused, but denied having sided with the accused. He also denied that the accused and the deceased only were the occupants of the said room. In cross-examination conducted by the accused, he stated that he had seen the accused for the first time when he had booked the room, thereafter during the trial and further stated that after he had made the entries he told that he was not going to stay in the hotel, but only his two companions who had stayed there, but he did not ask their relationship, is very surprising. He admitted that the tumblers and water bottles were taken by the accused, which were left in the room, whereas in Ext.PW9/A, he stated to have supplied himself to them in the room. 24. Significantly, his earlier statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ext.PW9/A, which culminated into the FIR, makes no reference to another unidentified person staying with the accused to which he deposed during the trial. Further, he got mentioned in above statement that even the room rent was also paid by the accused after the entry was made thereafter went to the room where his wife was staying. Thereafter, he sent for the water to which he took and when he entered the room, the deceased and accused were watching the television. In the evening around 9 p.m., thereafter the accused alone came out and returned after half an hour with food and eatables. He provided them water. They took meals and he had kept water bottles around 10 p.m. in the room. Around midnight, the main gate was locked by him, but about 4 a.m., the same person who had booked the room and stayed with the deceased woke him up on the pretext that he intended to purchase cigarettes from the market and he told that the market remains closed during that time and he offered a Biri to him, then he stated that he would not take Biri, but he should have kept cigarette quota. Thereafter he (PW13) opened the gate with the assurance to return within 10 minutes, but he never returned. Thereafter, he felt asleep and got up around 5.15 a.m. in the morning and asked Sudama Ram, waiter that person who had left the room had not returned. Thereafter he (PW13) opened the gate with the assurance to return within 10 minutes, but he never returned. Thereafter, he felt asleep and got up around 5.15 a.m. in the morning and asked Sudama Ram, waiter that person who had left the room had not returned. He should check the room and it was revealed that the room was locked and on opening it with duplicate key, he noticed the dead-body of the deceased in the above condition. The whole details have been mentioned by him in his first information signed statement aforesaid made to the police, which culminated into FIR. There is no motive imputed to police to record a different story than revealed by Krishan Kumar, Manger about the introduction of the second person other than the accused, whereas, in his statement Ext.PW9/A, he has clearly stated that it was the person who had made the entry in the register, who had stayed with the deceased. Therefore, it was none else than the accused. The hostility of PW13 Krishan Kumar against the prosecution is only with a view to save him for obvious reasons. Therefore, the deviation of PW13 aforesaid from his statement Ext.PW9/A which culminated into FIR cannot be held to be totally unreliable also for the reasons that he is an educated person and had signed his statement aforesaid after knowing fully well to what he was stating. At the end of his statement, there is an endorsement that it was read over to him to which he admitted it to be correct and appended his signatures in Hindi and this statement has been attested by Inspector Ajay Rana aforesaid to which he testifies and corroborates in his statement before the Court. 25. Further in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure to question No.86 he admitted that he took the room, arranged for meal and water bottles, whereas PW13 stated that he had provided tumblers and water bottles in the room. Further the explanation of the accused that the deceased had told him that she was called by her parents and brothers to their house, through a relative and told her to come to the hotel aforesaid, but it is very astounding and unreliable that the accused had left the deceased in the company of a relative whose complete whereabouts and identity were not asked by him. Despite that he was to stay with the deceased for the night, without verifying even thereafter whether she had reached her parents or brothers’ place, more specifically when she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy. The explanation given by the accused is against the normal human conduct thus not acceptable. 26. Further, the accused remained absconded after the incident for about a month. During this period, he had stayed with Raju and in the house of Ranbir Singh husband of PW15 Mamta alone and immediately on the next day of the alleged crime gave them false explanation that he had left her in the house of her sister at Ludhiana. Not only this, his explanation is proved to be false from the entry made in the register wherein the address to which they were proceedings is mentioned “Shimla” and the purpose of visit is recorded as “tourist”, whereas, the parents and the brothers have been residing in Fatehpur in district Kangra. The false explanations and the false address spell out the culpable mind of the accused right from the very inception. The accused has also given a false explanation to PW14 Navneet Kaur on 10.7.2005 when they had left the rented premises that they were going to pay obeisance to ‘Mata Mansa Devi’ and ultimately stayed in the hotel at Una, which is quite a different place and did not fall enroute to that temple and further stated to Navneet Kaur that he would leave his wife in her sister’s house, whereas in his statement the accused stated that it was that relative who had told him to say so, stands falsified as this statement to her was before leaving that place in the company of his deceased wife, but when he returned on 11.7.2005, he stated to her that she was left at Kangra in her sister’s house and vacated the premises after about 12 days and started residing with Raju brother of PW15 Mamta and there he told that he had left his wife in sister’s house at Ludhiana. Both the witnesses were neither inimically disposed of against him nor had any motive to make a false story, his explanation that he so stated in relation of the deceased is absolutely unbelievable and is proved to be an afterthought. 27. Both the witnesses were neither inimically disposed of against him nor had any motive to make a false story, his explanation that he so stated in relation of the deceased is absolutely unbelievable and is proved to be an afterthought. 27. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, following circumstances are of exclusive nature and tendency which stand proved beyond reasonable doubt:- (i) It was the accused and accused alone who had stayed during the intervening night of 10th/11th July, 2005 with the deceased in the hotel in room No.105 at Una; (ii) In the wee hours of the morning, the accused had left the room at 4 a.m. on a false pretext and did not return; (iii) The deceased Monika was found dead in the locked room and according to the doctors, she was strangulated with Dupatta and died instantaneously; and (iv) The finger prints on tumblers and water bottles, entry in the register giving false address and mentioning wrong destination and false explanation given to the witnesses aforesaid are additional link, which are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and are not explainable in other hypothesis to that of the guilt of the accused. 28. The chain of above circumstances is so complete which connect the accused with the crime and are not explainable on any hypothesis except the accused is guilty of the offence charged. 29. Tested on the above proved facts against the well established legal parameters, in our considered opinion, we do not find any fault in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, hence the appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 30. Send down the records.