Judgment : P.S. Rana, Judge. Present appeal filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Shimla in Sessions trial No. 1-S/7 of 2008 titled State vs. Dhajju Ram decided on dated 1st September 2008. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution:- 2. It is alleged by prosecution that during the intervening night of 31st day of August and 1st day of September 2007 at village Khuhan (Bagaahar) accused intentionally killed his wife Khyalo Devi. It is alleged by the prosecution that previous wife of accused died and three children born from the previous marriage of accused. It is further alleged by prosecution that no issue born from liaison of accused and Khyalo. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused used to beat his deceased wife after consuming liquor and deceased used to make complaints to her parents and also used to make complaints to Pardhan. It is further alleged by prosecution that 3- 4 days prior to Rakshabandhan Meghu Devi mother of deceased Khyalo visited her matrimonial house and insisted Khyalo to visit her parental house on Rakshabandhan day but accused did not allow. It is further alleged that PW Suresh Kumar arrived in the house of accused on dated 31.8.2007 at about 6 to 7 AM and inquired about deceased but accused stated that deceased was sleeping in the adjoining room. It is further alleged by prosecution that when door was opened the dead body of deceased Khyalo was found tied with a rope with Kadi (wooden plank). It is also alleged by prosecution that accused and Suresh removed the rope and laid the dead body of deceased on the floor. It is alleged by prosecution that at about 11-30 AM on dated 1.9.2007 accused telephonically informed the brother of deceased that deceased had hanged herself. It is also alleged by prosecution that photographs of dead body Ext.PW15/A-1 to Ext.PW15/A-4 were also obtained and negatives are Ext.PW15/A- 5 to Ext.PW15/A-8. It is alleged that Investigating Agency measured the height of room and height of room was found to be 5’ 10” from the floor up to the ceiling. It is alleged that height of deceased was measured 5’-4” and self hanging appeared impossible. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter post mortem of deceased was got conducted. It is alleged that Investigating Agency measured the height of room and height of room was found to be 5’ 10” from the floor up to the ceiling. It is alleged that height of deceased was measured 5’-4” and self hanging appeared impossible. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter post mortem of deceased was got conducted. It is also alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused made extra judicial confession to Roshani Devi that accused killed the deceased and thereafter enacted a drama of suicide. It is further alleged that rope and nail were took into possession vide seizure memo and ligature marks were found on neck of deceased and as per opinion of Medical Officer death took place due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of Medical Officer the strangulation was possible with rope. 3. Learned trial Court framed the charge against accused on dated 23.1.2008 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case:- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Laiq Ram PW2 Kirpa Ram PW3 Lachhi Ram PW4 Narayan Singh PW5 Suresh Kumar PW6 Chet Ram PW7 Geeta Thakur PW8 Roshani Devi PW9 Meghu Devi PW10 Sunita PW11 Spinder Singh PW12 Avtar Singh PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila PW15 Govind Ram 4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description. Ext.PW1/A Statement of Laiq Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW2/A Search and Seizure Form Ext.PW2/A Seizure memo regarding search and recovery. Ext.PA Jamabandi Ext.PB Tatima Ext.PC Site plan Ext.PD DDR No.8. Ext.PE Copy of road certificate Ext.PW9/A10 and 11 Photographs Ext.PW10/A to F11 Photographs Ext.PW11/A Copy of FIR Ext.PW11 /B Endorsement regarding loding of FIR Ext.PW12/A Statement of Suresh Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW13/A Post mortem of Khyalo Devi deceased Ext.PW14/A -1 to A-7 Photographs Ext.PW14/A -8 to A-14 Negatives Ext.PW15/A -1 to A-4 Photographs Ext.PW15/A -5 to A-8 Negatives. Ext.PW15 /B to Ext.PW15/D Inquest Reports. Ext.PW15/E Site plan Ext.PW15/F Sample of seal Ext.PW15/H Statement of Geeta Thakur under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW15/J Statement of Chet Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW15/K FSL report. Ext.PW15 /B to Ext.PW15/D Inquest Reports. Ext.PW15/E Site plan Ext.PW15/F Sample of seal Ext.PW15/H Statement of Geeta Thakur under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW15/J Statement of Chet Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW15/K FSL report. Ext.PW14/K Report of FSL Junga Ext.P1 Rope Ext.P2 Nail Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict would undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court appellant filed present appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 6. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by prosecution and whether learned trial Court has committed miscarriage of justice and error of law by way of convicting appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 7.1. PW1 Liaq Ram has stated that his sister Khyalo Devi was married to accused Dhajju Ram six years back. He has stated that Khyalo Devi was earlier married to Balak Ram. He has stated that divorce took place between Khyalo and Balak Ram. He has stated that Dhajju Ram accused was also married. He has stated that first wife of Dhajju Ram accused died and three children were born from liaison of his first wife and Dhajju Ram. He has stated that no child was born from liaison of Dhajju and deceased. He has stated that whenever his deceased sister used to come to her parental house she used to complain against the accused about beating. He has stated that in the year 2007 his mother Smt. Meghu Devi visited the matrimonial house of deceased 3/4 days prior to the festival of Rakshabandhan and he has stated that deceased was not allowed to visit her parental house by accused Dhajju Ram. He has stated that on dated 1.9.2007 at about 11.30 AM Dhajju Ram accused telephonically informed him that deceased had killed herself by way of hanging. He has stated that on dated 1.9.2007 at about 11.30 AM Dhajju Ram accused telephonically informed him that deceased had killed herself by way of hanging. He has stated that height of room was so low that it was not possible to hang oneself. He has stated that accused disclosed to Investigating Agency that he consumed liquor with one Suresh Thakur and when he did not find children at home he inquired from deceased and deceased told that children had gone to attend the Jagrata (religious function). He has stated that accused disclosed that he strangulated Khyalo Devi with rope and killed her and thereafter hanged the deceased. He has denied suggestion that deceased used to remain disturbed. He has denied suggestion that deceased did not inform that accused used to beat her. He has denied suggestion that deceased had committed suicide under mental tension. 7.2 PW2 Kirpa Ram has stated that on dated 1.9.2007 at about 11 AM Bhim Singh met him and told him that deceased had killed herself by hanging. He has stated that he visited the house of deceased and saw that deceased was laid on the floor of room. He has stated that accused told that deceased had killed herself by way of hanging. He has stated that he noticed the ligature marks on neck of deceased. He has stated that accused was employed in Public Works Department. He has stated that accused told the Investigating Agency that deceased had committed suicide with the help of rope. 7.3. PW3 Lachhi Ram has stated that deceased was his sister who was married to accused about 4/5 years prior to her death. He has stated that whenever deceased used to visit her parental house she used to inform that accused used to beat her under the influence of liquor. He has stated that few days before Rakshabandhan his mother visited the matrimonial house of deceased and he has stated that deceased did not come to attend Rakshabandhan function. He has stated that accused killed the deceased before Rakshabandhan. He has stated that accused had confessed before Investigating Agency that he killed the deceased. He has stated that deceased was earlier married to Balak Ram. He has denied suggestion that accused did not beat the deceased at any point of time. Self stated that accused had beaten the deceased in his presence also. He has stated that accused had confessed before Investigating Agency that he killed the deceased. He has stated that deceased was earlier married to Balak Ram. He has denied suggestion that accused did not beat the deceased at any point of time. Self stated that accused had beaten the deceased in his presence also. He has denied suggestion that deceased had committed suicide. 7.4 PW4 Narayan Singh has stated that Kirpa Ram President of Panchayat called him and asked him to visit the house of accused. He has stated that many police officials were present in house of accused and he has stated that Investigating Agency measured the room of accused. He has stated that dead body of deceased was lying on the floor and ligature marks were found on neck of Khyalo Devi. He has stated that rope was lying nearby and police took into possession the rope. He has denied suggestion that Dhajju Ram in his presence confessed that he had killed his wife by way of strangulation with rope. 7.5 PW5 Suresh Kumar has stated that accused is known to him and he has stated that on dated 31.8.2007 at 6 or 7 AM he went to the house of accused. He has stated that he went to take deceased with him in order to work in the field. He has stated that he called accused and he has stated that he was sleeping in the kitchen. He has stated that accused came out and told that deceased was sleeping in the adjoining room. He has stated that thereafter accused opened the door of room and saw that body of deceased Khyalo Devi was tied with rope. He has denied suggestion that on dated 31.8.2007 in the evening time he and accused were together at Sarahan and both of them consumed liquor. He has denied suggestion that he and accused came in HRTC bus upto Sarahan road Kainchi. He has denied suggestion that thereafter he and accused walked on foot up to one kilometer from Kainchi and thereafter separated from that point. He has stated that Dhajju Ram is known to him since his childhood. 7.6 PW6 Chet Ram has stated that deceased was his sister and he has stated that deceased was earlier married to Balak Ram. He has stated that two children born from liaison of deceased and Balak Ram. He has stated that Dhajju Ram is known to him since his childhood. 7.6 PW6 Chet Ram has stated that deceased was his sister and he has stated that deceased was earlier married to Balak Ram. He has stated that two children born from liaison of deceased and Balak Ram. He has stated that thereafter divorce took place between deceased and Balak Ram. He has stated that about seven years back deceased was married to accused Dhajju Ram accused and Dhajju Ram accused was also earlier married and he has three children from his earlier marriage. He has stated that whenever deceased used to visit her parental house she used to complain that accused Dhajju Ram used to beat her after consuming liquor. He has denied suggestion that accused did not beat the deceased at any point of time. 7.7 PW7 Geeta Thakur has stated that police did not conduct any proceedings in her presence. She has denied suggestion that all proceedings were conducted in her presence. She has denied suggestion that accused Dhajju Ram is her supporter and she has resiled from her previous testimony in order to help the accused. She has denied suggestion that accused had confessed before her that he killed the deceased by hanging her. She has stated that she is ward member for the last two years. She has denied suggestion that there was a talk in the village that deceased had committed suicide. 7.8 PW8 Roshani Devi has stated that deceased was married to accused. She has stated that earlier wife of Dhajju Ram died. She has stated that deceased had complained her that accused used to beat her after consuming liquor. She has stated that deceased used to say that she would not go to her matrimonial house. She has stated that after two years of her marriage deceased had started complaining about conduct of accused. She has stated that she also informed the Panchayat Pardhan about this. She has stated that there were two ligature marks on neck of deceased. She has stated that accused told her that he killed his wife and thereafter enacted a drama of suicide. She has stated that it was not possible to commit suicide by way of hanging. She has stated that accused was employed in Public Works Department and she has stated that accused has three children from his previous wife. She has stated that accused told her that he killed his wife and thereafter enacted a drama of suicide. She has stated that it was not possible to commit suicide by way of hanging. She has stated that accused was employed in Public Works Department and she has stated that accused has three children from his previous wife. She has denied suggestion that deceased did not complain her against the accused. She has denied suggestion that accused did not confess before her that he had killed the deceased. She has stated that when accused confessed he was not in custody of police. She has stated that accused told that quarrel took place between accused and deceased and thereafter deceased tried to kill herself by strangulation with the help of Dhatu (head gear). She has stated that thereafter accused told the deceased that it was not possible to kill oneself in that manner. He has stated that thereafter Khyalo deceased asked the accused to kill her and thereafter under the influence of liquor accused killed the deceased by way of strangulation with the help of rope. He has stated that accused also confessed that in order to save himself he enacted a drama of hanging by a rope. She has denied suggestion that she proclaimed in presence of many persons that she would get Dhajju convicted. 7.9 PW9 Meghu Devi has stated that deceased killed her daughter who was married to accused six years before her death. She has stated that deceased was also earlier married but divorce took place. She has stated that accused was also previously married but his wife died. She has stated that whenever deceased used to visit her parental house she used to complain against the accused. She has stated that five days prior to Rakshabandhan she went to matrimonial house of deceased and invited her but accused did not permit the deceased to go to her parental house. She has stated that thereafter accused contacted her telephonically by way of mobile phone and informed that deceased had killed herself by way of hanging. She has stated that she saw dead body of her daughter at Chopal. She has stated that there were ligature marks on her neck. She has denied suggestion that accused did not beat the deceased. She has stated that thereafter accused contacted her telephonically by way of mobile phone and informed that deceased had killed herself by way of hanging. She has stated that she saw dead body of her daughter at Chopal. She has stated that there were ligature marks on her neck. She has denied suggestion that accused did not beat the deceased. 7.10 PW10 Lady C. Sunita has stated that she is working as lady constable in police station Chopal from 2002 to 2007. She has stated that she along with SHO P.S. Chopal and other police officials visited the village Khuhan and took photographs Ext.PW10/A to Ext.PW10/F and negatives of which are Ext.PW10/G to Ext.PW10/M. 7.11 PW11 ASI Spinder Singh has stated that he is working as ASI in Police Station Chopal since December 2006 and has stated that on dated 1.9.2007 HHC Liaq Ram arrived at P.S. Chopal with statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW1/A and he registered FIR Ext.PW11/A. 7.12 PW12 SI/SHO Avtar Singh has stated that on dated 25.10.2007 he obtained papers Ext.PA and Ext.PB regarding place of incident from Halqua Patwari and also prepared site plan from the Junior Engineer. He has stated that on completion of investigation he prepared challan and recorded statement of Suresh Kumar Ext.PW12/A as per his statement. He has denied suggestion that he did not record statement of Suresh Kumar. He has stated that he also visited the spot. 7.13 PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon has stated that he has been working as Professor Department of Forensic Medicine IGMC Shimla since July 2007. He has stated that on dated 3.9.2007 he along with Dr. Peeyush Kapila conducted the post mortem of deceased Khyalo Devi daughter of Padma Ram aged 39 years. He has stated that on external examination he found that it was a dead body of moderately built 5’2” in length and body was cooled down fully to room temperature. He has further stated that rigor mortis has passed off and greenish discoloration of skin. He has also stated that right iliac was fossae, marbling of skin over chin area and face was congested dark with multiple petechial hemorrhages, both eyes, surgical emphysema of neck and upper part of chest and upper limbs, blood stained fluid was coming out of right nostril, abdomen distended due to gases of decomposition. He has also stated that right iliac was fossae, marbling of skin over chin area and face was congested dark with multiple petechial hemorrhages, both eyes, surgical emphysema of neck and upper part of chest and upper limbs, blood stained fluid was coming out of right nostril, abdomen distended due to gases of decomposition. He has also stated that there was abraded contusion on the neck just below the chin, parchmentised 1 cm x 2.5 cm, tailing into a line 7 cm x 0.5 cm, 2.5 cm medial to anterior angle of jaw on right side obliquely going across the neck. He has further stated that there was ligature mark 1 cm broad at the level of thyroid cartilage going across the neck ending in the right mastoid area 25 cm in length with superficial abrasions at places and ligature mark was not present on front of right side of neck and ligature mark as ante-mortem in nature. He has further stated that on dissection of neck structures, there was severe engorgement of superficial vessels of neck and tissues, gross contusion of superficial muscles at the level of ligature and subcutaneous tissues ecchymosed under the mark and no fracture of hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage or cricoid cartilage was detected. He has stated that ligature marks were ante-mortem in nature and further stated that taking into consideration of transverse ligature mark with multiple abraded areas, bruising of neck muscles, severe congested face with petechiae (eyes) bleeding through nose, ecchymoses subcutaneous tissues, absence of drooling of slavia, la-facia shympatheque death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. He has stated that probable duration between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 48 to 72 hours. He issued post mortem report Ext.PW13/A which bears his signatures and signatures of Dr. Peeyush Kapila. Strangulation with cord is possible. He has denied suggestion that in case of strangulation the ligature marks would present all around the neck. He has stated that it would not appear due to intervention of hand, hair, cloth, colour of a shirt etc. He has denied suggestion that single man cannot strangulate a healthy and young person. He has denied suggestion that symptoms in case of self strangulation and homicidal strangulation are the same. He has stated that in both cases symptoms are different. He has denied suggestion that single man cannot strangulate a healthy and young person. He has denied suggestion that symptoms in case of self strangulation and homicidal strangulation are the same. He has stated that in both cases symptoms are different. He has denied suggestion that it is difficult to distinguish between homicidal strangulation and suicidal strangulation. He has stated that ligature marks found on person of deceased were all ante-mortem. He has stated that present case is a case of death by strangulation not by hanging. He has denied suggestion that autopsy report submitted by medial officers is also against the established principles of medical jurisprudence and not supported by the opinion of experts. 7.14 PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila has stated that he is working as Registrar in the department of Forensic Medicine IGMC since September 1998. He has stated that he along with Dr. G.S. Sekhon conducted the post mortem of deceased. He has stated that post mortem report is Ext.PW13/A which bears his signature and seal. He took seven photographs which were duly signed and sealed by him are Ext.PW14/A-1 to Ext.PW14/A-7. He has stated that as per post mortem report Ext.PW13/A cause of death was homicidal ligature strangulation and not suicidal hanging. He has stated that he has dealt about hundred cases of ligature strangulation. He has stated that ultimate result in case of hanging and strangulation is asphyxia. He has denied suggestion that report prepared by medical officers is devoid of reasons and influenced by emotions. 7.15 PW15 Govind Ram has stated that in the year 2007 he was working as SHO in P.S. Chopal. He has stated that telephone information was received in police station and after receiving information he proceeded towards the spot. He has stated that when they reached at the spot 10-12 persons were present outside the house of accused. He has stated that dead body of deceased was lying on the floor of room of residential house of accused. He has stated that he inquired from Dhajju Ram about matter and he told that in previous evening when he returned to his house his children were not present in house and he inquired about children from deceased and she told that children had gone to attend the Jagrata (religious function). He has stated that he inquired from Dhajju Ram about matter and he told that in previous evening when he returned to his house his children were not present in house and he inquired about children from deceased and she told that children had gone to attend the Jagrata (religious function). He has stated that thereafter he went to sleep and when he woke up in the morning one Suresh of village saw that his wife had hanged herself. He has stated that thereafter they removed the rope and laid the dead body on the floor. He has stated that he took photographs of deceased with the help of personal camera and photographs are Ext.PW15/A-1 to Ext.PW15/A-4 and negatives are Ext.PW15/A-5 to Ext.PW15/A-8. He has stated that thereafter he measured the height of room and height of room was found to be five feet and ten inches. He has stated that there was Kari (wooden nail) in the room and thickness of which was seven inches. He has stated that Kari (wooden nail) was embedded at a place four inches below the ceiling. He has stated that nail was two inches inside the Kari (wooden nail). He has stated that accused told that deceased had committed suicide with the rope from the nail. He has stated that dead body of deceased was measured which was found to be five foot two inches in length. He has stated that nail could not bear the load of a person and height of the nail from the floor was such that hanging was not possible. He has stated that he also saw the face of deceased and he noticed injuries on one side of neck and ligature marks all around the neck. He has stated that he filled forms Ext.PW15/A to Ext.PW15/D and thereafter he had written an application to medical officer for post mortem. He has stated that rope Ext.P1 and nail Ext.P2 are the same which were took into possession from the spot. He has stated that viscera also obtained from the hospital and sent to FSL Junga and report of FSL Junga is Ext.PW15/K. He has stated that deceased was the second wife of accused. He has stated that accused had married with deceased 5/6 years back. He has stated that viscera also obtained from the hospital and sent to FSL Junga and report of FSL Junga is Ext.PW15/K. He has stated that deceased was the second wife of accused. He has stated that accused had married with deceased 5/6 years back. He has stated that quarrel took place between accused and deceased as accused questioned the deceased as to why she had sent the children alone to Jagrata (religious function). He has denied suggestion that he did not record the statements of prosecution witnesses as per their versions. 8. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in present case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Motive to kill deceased proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. PW1 Laiq Ram brother of deceased, PW3 Lachhi Ram brother of deceased and PW8 Roshani Devi have stated in positive cogent and reliable manner that accused used to beat the deceased after consuming liquor. PW1 Laiq Ram, PW3 Lachhi Ram and PW8 Roshani Devi have stated that deceased personally told them that accused used to beat her in intoxicated condition and she used to left her matrimonial house and used to come to her parental house but her parents used to send back the deceased to her matrimonial house under the pretext that situation would improve. Testimonies of PW1 Laiq Ram, PW3 Lachhi Ram and PW8 Roshani Devi are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 Laiq Ram, PW3 Lachhi Ram and PW8 Roshani Devi. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW1 Laiq Ram, PW3 Lachhi Ram and PW8 Roshani Devi have hostile animus against the accused even prior to the incident or after the incident. Non-access of any third person except accused at the place of incident where dead body of deceased found proved beyond reasonable doubt 10. In present case it is proved on record that deceased Khyalo Devi died between the intervening night of 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007 at village Khuhan. It is proved on record that on the intervening night of 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007 only accused and deceased were in the house and no other person was in house. In present case it is proved on record that deceased Khyalo Devi died between the intervening night of 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007 at village Khuhan. It is proved on record that on the intervening night of 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007 only accused and deceased were in the house and no other person was in house. It is also proved on record that there was no access of any third person in the house between the intervening night of 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007. Hence in present case non-access of any third person in house to commit criminal offence is proved on record except the accused. Death by way of homicide strangulation proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon Professor has specifically stated in positive cogent and reliable manner that taking into consideration of transverse ligature mark with multiple abraded areas, bruising of neck muscles, severe congested face with petechiae (eyes), bleeding through nose, ecchymoses subcutaneous tissues, absence of drooling of slavia, la-facie shympatheque the death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. Even testimony of PW13 H.S. Sekhon is also corroborated by testimony of PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila Registrar department of Forensic Medicine IGMC Shimla. PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila has specifically stated that cause of death was homicidal ligature strangulation and not suicidal hanging. Testimonies of medical officers namely PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapital are also trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of medical officers namely PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila. Volunteered extra judicial confession proved beyond reasonable doubt 12. PW8 Roshani Devi has stated in positive manner that accused has voluntarily confessed to her that he had killed deceased Khyalo Devi himself and thereafter created a scene of suicide by way of hanging. Testimony of PW8 Roshani Devi is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW8 Roshani Devi. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW8 Roshani Devi has hostile animus against the accused prior to the incident or after the incident. Strangulation of five foot two inches dead body of deceased disproves from four inches nail 13. Accused has took defence that deceased has committed self strangulation through rope which was tied with nail which was only four inches. Strangulation of five foot two inches dead body of deceased disproves from four inches nail 13. Accused has took defence that deceased has committed self strangulation through rope which was tied with nail which was only four inches. It is proved on record that length of dead body of deceased was five foot two inches. Plea of accused that deceased had committed self strangulation through rope which was tied with nail, length of which was four inches, is disproved because self strangulation of a lady whose height is five foot two inches is not possible to hang herself upon the nail which was of four inches. Four inches nail could not tolerate the weight of a human lady whose length is five foot two inches in the ordinary course of nature. Evidence of last seen proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt 14. In present case it is proved on record that accused remained in company of deceased till the death of deceased and in present case possibility of any third person other than the accused the author of crime becomes impossible and in present case possibility of any other person with deceased is completely ruled out. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that previous wife of accused was dead and accused was in urgent need of other woman to look after his children and it is not possible in the ordinary course of nature that accused would think to liquidate his second wife is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW1 Laiq Ram, PW3 Lachhi Ram and PW8 Roshani Devi have stated in positive manner that deceased during her lifetime personally complained qua maltreatment of accused to deceased. Deceased during her lifetime personally complained that accused used to beat the deceased in intoxicated condition several time and thereafter several time deceased left the matrimonial house of accused and came to her parental house but she was returned back by her parent to her matrimonial house. It is well settled law that generally the matrimonial disputes are narrated by a woman to her close relatives only. In present it is proved on record that deceased had narrated maltreatment meted out to her by accused to her close relatives during her lifetime. 16. It is well settled law that generally the matrimonial disputes are narrated by a woman to her close relatives only. In present it is proved on record that deceased had narrated maltreatment meted out to her by accused to her close relatives during her lifetime. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that present case was a case of self strangulation and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that ligature marks upon the body of deceased were ante-mortem in nature and he has specifically stated that death of deceased was by strangulation and not by hanging. Even PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila has stated in positive manner that cause of death was homicide and was not suicidal hanging. Hence plea of appellant that present case was suicidal hanging is disproved by way of testimonies of PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila. Testimonies of PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these medical officers namely PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW13 Dr. H.S. Sekhon and PW14 Dr. Peeyush Kapila have hostile animus against the accused at any point of time. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that keeping in view the conduct of appellant in present case, case of homicidal strangulation is not proved but case of self strangulation suicide is proved because appellant did not flee away from the place of incident is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant is husband of deceased and appellant did not flee from the place of incident. There is no evidence on record that any third person came in matrimonial house of deceased where deceased was found dead. Even there was no possibility of third person to enter the matrimonial house of deceased and it is proved on record that only deceased and accused were present in matrimonial house at the time of incident. There is no evidence on record that any third person came in matrimonial house of deceased where deceased was found dead. Even there was no possibility of third person to enter the matrimonial house of deceased and it is proved on record that only deceased and accused were present in matrimonial house at the time of incident. Conduct of accused is not in consonance with innocence of accused because there are incriminating factors cited supra which prove that accused had committed strangulation of deceased with rope and thereafter advanced the theory of self suicide by way of hanging with a rope through nail which was four inches of length only. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that opinion given by medical officers of homicidal strangulation is devoid of any reason and is only advisory in nature and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case opinion of medical officer is corroborated by other proved circumstances. In present case opinion of medical officer is also corroborated by other circumstantial evidence cited supra. Hence it is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to rely upon the opinion given by medical officer qua the fact that present case is a case of homicidal strangulation and is not a case of suicidal hanging keeping in view the cause of death and keeping in view the symptoms observed by medical officers in post mortem report. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that all incriminating questions were not put to the appellant when statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also rejected beyond devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused all questions put to the appellant and answers given by appellant when statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is held that all incriminating questions have been put to accused when statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that present case is not a case of eye witness and is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not proved on record in present case is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that present case is not a case of eye witness and is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not proved on record in present case is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case chain of circumstances is proved against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt as per seizure memo of rope and nail Ext.PW2/A, photographs placed on record, inquest report placed on record, post mortem report placed on record, site plan Ext.PW15/F placed on record and as per testimonies of oral witnesses examined by prosecution. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that deceased was under the influence of some evil spirit and under the influence of evil spirit deceased had committed her suicide is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that deceased was under the influence of evil spirit. Plea of appellant that deceased was under the influence of evil spirit is rejected on the concept of ipse-dixit (an assertion made without proof). 22. It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence combine all facts creating a net through which accused could not escape. In order to convict the accused on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under legal obligation to prove (i) That circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved (ii) That circumstances should be conclusive in nature (iii) That all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence (iv) That circumstance should, to a moral certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. (See AIR 1992 SC Court 2045 titled State of U.P. vs. Dr. (See AIR 1992 SC Court 2045 titled State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, See AIR 1952 SC 343 Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 2010 SC Court 762 titled Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 2009 SC 56 titled Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs. State of Maharashtra, See AIR 1979 Apex Court 1410 titled State of Maharashtra vs. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, See AIR 1979 Apex Court 826 titled S.P. Bhatnagar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra, See AIR 1989 SC 1890 titled Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1992 SC 758 titled Sakharam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1975 SC 241 titled Dharm Das Wadhwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, See AIR 1954 SC 621 titled Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab.) It is also well settled law that in order to convict the accused in circumstantial evidence five golden principles should be proved (i) That circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and the accused must be and not merely may be guilty (ii) That facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused (iii) That circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency (iv) That they should exclude every possibility of innocence of accused (v) That 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. (See 2013 Cri.L.J. 2040, titled Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (DB). 23. The facts of present case and facts of case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant i.e. AIR 1994 SC 1595 titled Shambhu Singh etc. vs. State of U.P., AIR 1959 Allahabad 419 titled Sohan Lal and another vs. Smt. Bindeshwari Devi and others, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1280 titled Bapurao Irbhan Tayade vs. State of Maharashtra and AIR 1964 Orissa 144 titled Paramhansa Jadab and another vs. The State are entirely different and distinguishable. vs. State of U.P., AIR 1959 Allahabad 419 titled Sohan Lal and another vs. Smt. Bindeshwari Devi and others, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1280 titled Bapurao Irbhan Tayade vs. State of Maharashtra and AIR 1964 Orissa 144 titled Paramhansa Jadab and another vs. The State are entirely different and distinguishable. Hence it is held that case law cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable in present facts and circumstances of case and it is held that in present case chain of circumstances is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In view of above stated facts we hold that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and we hold that learned trial Court has not committed any miscarriage of justice and we hold that judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court are in consonance with law and are in consonance with proved facts. Hence we affirm the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and we dismiss the appeal filed by appellant being devoid of any force. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stands disposed of.