JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. APPELLANT Pardeep Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has appealed against the judgment dated 4.11.2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, passed in Sessions Trial No.31-ST/7 of 2011-10, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Pardeep Sharma, whereby he stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, in relation to offence punishable under Section 302 of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for two years and. fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, in relation to offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, in relation to offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. IT is the case of prosecution that on 31.5.2010, Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, was telephonically informed about the death of Smt. Kanta Devi. Rapt No.14(A) (Ex. PW-7/B) was entered in the Daily Diary. LHC Iqbal Singh, HC Kalyan Singh (PW-12), Constable Ramesh Chand and ASI Rajesh Pal (PW-16) proceeded to the spot of crime in village Bohrad, where Deepa Ram (PW-15)), brother of the deceased got his statement (Ex. PW-15/A) recorded, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was sent through Constable Ramesh Chand for registration of case, on the basis of which FIR No.38, dated 31.5.2010 (Ex. PW-7/A), under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, against accused Pardeep Sharma, husband of the deceased. As per the complainant, accused was married to the deceased 6-7 years prior to occurrence of crime. From the wedlock, three children were born. On account of atrocities and acts of cruelties committed by the accused, on one occasion, deceased had to return to her parental house. As per the complainant, accused was married to the deceased 6-7 years prior to occurrence of crime. From the wedlock, three children were born. On account of atrocities and acts of cruelties committed by the accused, on one occasion, deceased had to return to her parental house. With the intervention of relatives, and more particularly, assurances made out by the accused to improve his conduct, who also admitted his guilt, deceased returned to her matrimonial house. On 31.5.2010, Deepa Ram called deceased Kanta Devi on her phone, who informed him that accused had again subjected her to physical assault/cruelties. Deepa Ram advised the deceased to immediately leave for her parental house and that he would join her after finishing his work at Shimla. Deepa Ram was employed as a labourer in Shimla. 3. ON the spot, inquest report was prepared; dead body was sent for postmortem to CHC Shillai, which was conducted by Dr. A.V. Raghav (PW-14), who issued report (Ex. PW-14/C). Initially, police was informed by the accused that deceased had died after consuming poison. However, as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (Ex. PW-14/A) there was no evidence of any poisonous substance in the body of the deceased. Eventually, the Doctor opined that deceased died on account of throttling. 4. INVESTIGATION revealed that accused had taken the deceased to the fields, where she was murdered by him. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Accused was charged for having committed. offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he stated that he is innocent and stands falsely implicated in the case as deceased had herself consumed poison. 6. APPRECIATING testimonies of the witnesses, trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. It is not in dispute that appellant was married to the deceased on 29.12.2005, which fact also stands established on record by the prosecution, by proving marriage certificate (Ex. PW-10/A), through the testimony of Shri Sukhdarshan Thakur (PW-10), Panchayat Secretary. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. It is not in dispute that appellant was married to the deceased on 29.12.2005, which fact also stands established on record by the prosecution, by proving marriage certificate (Ex. PW-10/A), through the testimony of Shri Sukhdarshan Thakur (PW-10), Panchayat Secretary. Death took place on 31.5.2010, which was after a period of about five years from the date of solemnization of marriage. 7. ACCORDING to the prosecution, accused after murdering his wife gave false information about her death. He misled the police by creating false evidence. Accused projected that deceased died after consuming poison. He created evidence in that regard. On the other hand, it is the admitted case of the accused that deceased consumed poison and died as a result thereof. 8. THE fact that Kanta Devi died is not in dispute. Dr. A.V. Raghav (PW-14) conducted postmortem and after receiving chemical analysis report (PW-14/D) gave his opinion (Ex. PW-14/C). Postmortem was conducted on 1.6.2010. As per report of the Chemical Analyst, no poison was found in the liver, spleen, kidney, stomach, intestine, lungs, blood of the deceased. The doctor opined that deceased, who was seven months pregnant, had died on account of asphyxia. Her hyoid bone was broken. It was displaced inwards. Thus, cause of death is not poisoning, as is so disclosed by the accused. First, we shall deal with the question as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused, and whether accused is guilty of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or not. In this regard, we straightway come to the testimony of Dharam Singh (PW-1), Devi Ram (PW-4) and Deepa Ram (PW-15), brother of the deceased, all natives of Kusanu, parental village of the deceased. 9. WE find that in one voice all these witnesses have unequivocally deposed that soon after solemnization of marriage, accused subjected the deceased to cruelty. Accused would persistently physically assault her. On one occasion, after she was physically assaulted, she had to take refuge in her parental house. With the intervention of elderly persons, matter was sorted out, when accused not only admitted his guilt and apologized, but also assured not to repeat the offence again. With these assurances, deceased joined the company of the accused, but atrocities kept on increasing with each passing day. With the intervention of elderly persons, matter was sorted out, when accused not only admitted his guilt and apologized, but also assured not to repeat the offence again. With these assurances, deceased joined the company of the accused, but atrocities kept on increasing with each passing day. Significantly, there is not much cross-examination of these witnesses on this count. The incident of deceased returning to her parental house in fact is not even disputed by the accused, as is evident from perusal of testimonies of all these witnesses (PW-1, PW-4 & PW-15). Only suggestion put to the witnesses is that no beatings were in fact given in their presence. The deceased regularly complained to them about the conduct of the accused. But then it is not the case of prosecution or that of the witnesses that the beatings were given in their presence. It is suggested to PW-15 that no complaint with regard to atrocities was lodged with the police or any panchayat. This fact itself cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused, particularly when testimony of witnesses, whom we find reliable, and their version inspiring in confence, with regard to alleged atrocities and cruelties stands substantially elaborated and proved on record. Thus, it stands established on record that accused willfully harassed/assaulted/caused cruelty to the deceased, so as to cause grave injury to her life. 10. THE question, which needs to be considered, is as to whether deceased consumed poison and died as a result thereof. Coming back to the testimony of PW-14, the Doctor who conducted postmortem, we find that unequivocally he has stated the probable cause of death to be asphyxia (which was due to fracture of hyoid bone, which was ante-mortem in nature). According to this witness, the hyoid bone fracture was caused by pressing neck of the deceased with force, which fractured the bone, being displaced inwards. Doctor opines that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased, but then he clarifies that in case a person uses force on the neck by using soft cloth like Chunni around the neck, then bruises are not supposed to be found on that part of the body. Doctor further clarifies that in case of throttling, hyoid bone is usually fractured, as the constructing force on a small area where such bone is located. Doctor further clarifies that in case of throttling, hyoid bone is usually fractured, as the constructing force on a small area where such bone is located. It is not urged before us that there was any discrepancy/illegality in the process of collection of samples, consisting link evidence. That the Forensic Science Laboratory report pertains to the samples of parts of dead body of the deceased is not disputed before us. That the samples were not tampered with from the time of collection and sealing, till the time of their examination, is also not disputed before us. 11. AT the time of death, deceased was 30 years of age. She was seven months pregnant. A dead male child was taken out of the uterus at the time of postmortem examination. She had no reason to commit suicide. 12. IT is in this backdrop that we now proceed to examine the culpability of the accused with regard to the charge of murder. The fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty stands established on record. Ms Priyanka (PW-6) is the niece of the deceased, who has not supported the prosecution. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Before we deal with her testimony, we shall first come to the statement of Deepa Ram (PW-15), who has deposed that on 31.5.2010 at about 7 a.m. he called his sister (deceased). Deceased informed him that accused had been beating her since morning. She was also weeping. He asked his sister to return to the parental house. At about 8 a.m., accused called him on the mobile and informed that deceased had consumed poison and he has taken her to a hospital at Paonta Sahib. He was also asked to reach there. He handed over the phone to his uncle Kalyan Singh (PW-12), to whom accused told that deceased had died. He came to village Bohrad, by which time police had already arrived. We find his testimony to be inspiring in confidence. Balak Ram (PW-8) states that the accused telephonically informed him that on 31.5.2010, at about 7.30 a.m., accused called him on his telephone and informed him that his wife had consumed poison. He was asked to give the phone to Sahi Ram (PW-5). We find his testimony to be inspiring in confidence. Balak Ram (PW-8) states that the accused telephonically informed him that on 31.5.2010, at about 7.30 a.m., accused called him on his telephone and informed him that his wife had consumed poison. He was asked to give the phone to Sahi Ram (PW-5). It is not disclosed that Balak Ram had come to him, but however, he states that accused had informed him on telephone that deceased had consumed poison and she was to be taken to the hospital. This witness states that he brought his vehicle. Accused brought the deceased on foot, as his house is not approachable by road. The deceased was taken to the shop of Tilak Raj, who after checking observed that deceased had expired. Thereafter, dead body was brought back to village Bohrad. Though in cross-examination, he states that at the time when deceased was taken for hospitalization, she was alive, but in our considered view this version of his is nothing but a mere improvement and this part of his testimony needs to be discarded, for the reason that he has not disclosed about the presence of Balak Ram at all. That apart, this witness does not disclose the fact that the deceased was first taken to Tilak Raj (PW-3) (an RMP at Paonta Sahib), who has clearly deposed that on 31.5.2010 at about 9-9.15 a.m., Sahi Ram came to his shop and asked him to examine the lady, lying on the rear seat of the car. Since he was told that she had consumed something, he advised them to take her to another place for treatment, as he could not handle the case. This witness does not state that at that time, was alive. Why is it that accused did not take the deceased to the hospital straightway. He also did. not inform the police. After all he had a phone. Also, Police Station was close by and approachable by road. 13. WE find that there is yet another person by the name of Kannai Lal (PW-9) to whom accused took the deceased for medical examination. He was told that the lady had consumed poison. Thereafter, he advised that she be taken to another doctor, as he was not in a position to examine her. 14. ALL this shows that accused was creating evidence of his innocence and good conduct. He was told that the lady had consumed poison. Thereafter, he advised that she be taken to another doctor, as he was not in a position to examine her. 14. ALL this shows that accused was creating evidence of his innocence and good conduct. Coming back to the testimony of Ms Priyanka (PW-6), we find that she is niece of the accused. In Court, she has resiled from her previous statement recorded by the police, with which she was confronted. But then this witness admits that at about 7 a.m. she saw the accused and the deceased leaving for the fields. After some time she heard some voices, as if someone was vomiting. She left for the fields, covered distance of about 50 metres and observed that the deceased had caught her throat. Froth was in her mouth. Though in Court she denies that her aunt was not able to talk to any one, but she was confronted with her previous statement in that regard. Her testimony of having seen the deceased vomiting is absolutely uninspiring in confidence. The witness could not deny that her statement was recorded by the police as per the version. given by her. In Court, she has tried to help her uncle. 15. THE question, which still needs to be considered, is as to whether it was the accused who murdered the deceased or not. Prosecution has proved the calls made from the telephone belonging to the accused. Some conversation did take place between the deceased, Deepa Ram (PW-15) as also the accused. It is not in dispute that PW-15 had made a call to the deceased at 7 a.m. At that time, she made a grievance that the accused had physically assaulted her. She was desperately crying. She was asked to return to her parental house. Now from the unrebutted testimony of PW-6, it cannot be disputed that at about same time, i.e. 7 a.m. both the deceased and the accused left for the fields. 16. IT is a settled principle of law that last seen theory comes into play when gap between the point of time of the accused and the deceased seen last together and knowledge of death is so small that possibility of any other person, other than the accused being author of the crime becomes impossible. 16. IT is a settled principle of law that last seen theory comes into play when gap between the point of time of the accused and the deceased seen last together and knowledge of death is so small that possibility of any other person, other than the accused being author of the crime becomes impossible. In a case of long gap of time, unless there is other corroborative material and the possibility of other persons coming in between is not ruled out, it would be difficult to convict the accused solely on this point. In such circumstances, there must be some more tangible evidence, establishing connectivity between the accused and crime. [See: Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 14 SCC 117 ; Arabindra Mukherjee Versus State of West Bengal, (2011) 14 SCC 352 ; Ramesh Versus State by Madhugiri Police, (2010) 15 SCC 49; Madho Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588, Shivaji alias Dadya Shankar Alhat Versus State of Maharashtra, (2008) 15 SCC 269 ; Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Versus State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 ; State of U.P. Versus Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114 ; Mohibur Rahman and another Versus State of Assam, (2002) 6 SCC 715 and Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo Versus State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 . One may also notice that at about 7.30 a.m. accused himself informed Sahi Ram on telephone that deceased had consumed poison. Thus, it cannot be disputed that accused was last seen in the company of the deceased in the fields. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to why he immediately did not call the brother or relatives of the deceased. Also, he could have called the neighbours, on telephone. The theory of deceased having consumed poison stands disproved on record. 17. THE doctor has clearly opined that in a case of throttling, hyoid bone is usually fractured, as the constructing force on a small area at the place where the bone is situate. He has explained that if a soft cloth is wrapped round the neck, while using such force bruises are not supposed to be found on the neck of the injured. 18. He has explained that if a soft cloth is wrapped round the neck, while using such force bruises are not supposed to be found on the neck of the injured. 18. IT is in this backdrop that we are in agreement with the findings returned by the Court below that the accused, after murdering the deceased, deliberately and intentionally created evidence and gave information that she died after consuming poison, knowing it be false. No other point urged. 19. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment passed by the Court below. It cannot be said that the Court below erred in correctly and completely appreciating the evidence led by the parties, resulting into travesty of justice. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.