Dr. Indira Shah, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, Assam in Sessions Case No. 34/2009 convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC for causing death of his wife Rasida Begum by strangulation. The accused appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. t 2. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned advocate for the appellant. Also heard learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 3. The death of victim Rasida occurred within 5 years of her marriage with the accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the marriage there were frequent quarrel between the husband and wife. On two or three occasions, Rasida left her matrimonial home and came to her parental home. However, she was brought to matrimonial home by the accused with the assurance of good behaviour. A day ahead of the incident of death of the victim, there was quarrel between the accused and his wife. The sister-in-law of the accused had cut branches of Bagari tree and as Rasida failed to prevent his sister-in-law (PW 10) from cutting the branches of the Bagari tree, she (Rasida)was rebuked and assaulted by her husband. Rasida called her father (PW 15) over phone and requested him to settle the dispute. She informed her father that she was assaulted by her husband. PW 15 Akash Ali requested Allabox, father of the accused to look after his daughter for one day so that the matter may be settled on the next day by calling other people from the village. Next day, morning, he was informed that his daughter Rasida was killed. PW 1. Ms. Margina Begum, sister of the deceased, was also informed that her sister was murdered and then she went to the house of the accused. She noticed injury on the dead body and she lodged the FIR. On 26.9.2014 on the basis of the FIR, Morigaon PS. Case No. 280/2008 u/s 302 read with Section 34 PC was registered. On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused Abdul Karim. 4. During the trial the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him u/s 302 IPC and claimed to be tried. 5. Case No. 280/2008 u/s 302 read with Section 34 PC was registered. On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused Abdul Karim. 4. During the trial the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him u/s 302 IPC and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he is innocent. He examined himself as defence witness and adduced evidence of three more witnesses in support of his defence of the case. The defence case, as it appears from the defence evidence, was that on the day of occurrence Rasida wanted to go to her parental house but the accused husband refused to take her as he was going to market. The victim being annoyed entered into her room and bolted the room from inside. Then the accused left for Morigaon. Thereafter, she committed suicide and when the accused came back home, he saw her dead-body. 6. PW 1, Marjina Begum, PW 4 Abdul Gani, PW 11 Awal Hussain, PW 15 Akash Ali, PW 17 Mustt. Rafia Begum are relative of the deceased. PW 1, PW 11, PW 15 and PW 16 have stated about the previous quarrel between the accused and the deceased. PW 9 Hamed Ali deposed that he was informed by the sister-in-law of the accused that the accused had quarrel with his wife in the morning. PW 9 went to the house of the accused and enquired about the quarrel. The accused told him that his wife asked him to take her to Morigaon. On his query he told him that she is asleep on her bed. It was around 7 to 8 A.M. of the day of incident. After two hours of visit of PW 9 he heard that the wife of the accused is dead. In cross-examination he stated that the accused told him that he wanted his wife should accompany him to Morigaon but she refused to go with him, and there was a quarrel. 7. PW 10 Ajiban Begum is sister-in-law of the accused. She deposed that she had cut branches of Bagari tree which was standing at her courtyard. In cross-examination he stated that the accused told him that he wanted his wife should accompany him to Morigaon but she refused to go with him, and there was a quarrel. 7. PW 10 Ajiban Begum is sister-in-law of the accused. She deposed that she had cut branches of Bagari tree which was standing at her courtyard. The accused questioned his wife as to why she did not prevent her from cutting the branches and for that he slapped his wife. Next morning, the accused wanted to take with him his wife to the house of her parents at Morigaon for celebration of ‘idd' but she was reluctant and conveyed that she will go only when her father takes her. Thereafter, the accused left for Morigaon to purchase commodities for his shop. PW 10, then went to her field and when she came back she saw the accused weeping at his house, who had returned back his home to collect the slip of items which he had forgotten to take, while proceeding for Morigaon. The accused informed her that Rasida is dead. Corroborating the evidence of PW 9, she deposed that she had called him (PW 9) to settle the dispute between the accused and his wife. In her cross-examination, she stated that on opening the door of the house of the deceased she was found lying dead on her bed. She could not say how Rasida died. 8. PW 15, Akash Ali father of the deceased has also narrated the story of quarrel between the accused and the victim prior to her death. On the previous day of the incident, he was called by the victim and she told him that she (victim) was assaulted by the accused as she failed to prevent his sister-in-law from cutting the branches of bagari tree. PW 15, with a view to settle the matter attempted to call the villagers but as no one was available at the relevant time, he requested the father of the accused to keep his daughter with him for one day so that on the next day the matter may be settled in presence of villagers. Unfortunately, on the next day, he was informed that his daughter was killed. He noticed mark of injury on the neck of Rasida, which according to him was due to strangulation. Unfortunately, on the next day, he was informed that his daughter was killed. He noticed mark of injury on the neck of Rasida, which according to him was due to strangulation. PW 1, stated that she found right hand and left leg of the deceased fractured and she also noticed mark of injury on her upper chest. 9. PW 3, Mafizuddin Ahmed, was reported by the accused that the victim committed suicide and he had shown a piece of cloth tied with the post of Paleng(bed). PW 3, however noticed finger mark in the neck of Rasida. 10. PW 4, Abdul Goni who witnessed the inquest on the dead body, saw injuries on breast and near the waist of the dead body. He stated that a piece of cloth was tied with the post of Paleng. However it is not possible to commit suicide with the help of the piece of cloth, exhibited as M.Ext. 1. 11. PW 8, Dina Kanta Das who was the village Head man, went to the place of occurrence on being informed and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the bed. He was told that there was quarrel between the husband and wife and thereafter, the husband left his home. He stated that when the wife of the accused was called, she did not respond and then villagers entered inside the room. The accused was not there. The villagers found the body of Rasida on her bed. 12. PW 12 Faziran Nessa, PW 13 Basiran Nessa have stated that they were called for giving bath of dead body prior to her burial ceremony. They noticed finger, mark on the front side of the neck and they also noticed right hand and left leg fractured. PW 12 and 13 also noticed injury mark on her breast. 13. The autopsy on the dead body was held by Dr. Bhogeswar Thakuria (PW 18) on 26.9.2008 at 3:30 P.M. PW 18 in his examination-in-chief stated that while he was working as Senior Medical & Health Officer, Morigaon on 3.9.2008, he performed post­mortem examination on the dead body of the Rasida Begum in connection with Morigaon PS. U.D. Case No. 32/2008 dated 26.09.2008. His findings are as follows: “External Appearance: A dead body of a young female in healthy condition. Rigor mortis is present. Eyes are closed. There is no ligature mark on the neck. U.D. Case No. 32/2008 dated 26.09.2008. His findings are as follows: “External Appearance: A dead body of a young female in healthy condition. Rigor mortis is present. Eyes are closed. There is no ligature mark on the neck. Face congested and cyanosed. Tongue is swollen and slightly protruded out. There is slight bruise and petechia at the base of the tongue. There is slight conjunctiva! peticle both sides on eyes. There is abrasion over the larynx ½" x ¼". There is abrasion on the right side of neck ½" x ¼". On section of the neck, there is petechia and ecymosis in the muscles of the neck. There is extensive bruise under surface of the skin of the neck. There is petechia and echymoses with deep bruises also. Fracture of larynx (upper part) cervical is found. There is fracture on the 5th cervical vertebra. Scalp, skull, vertebrae:: Healthy. Cranium, membrane - healthy Brain: Congested. Liver: Congested Spleen: Congested. Kidney: Congested. Thorax: Walls, ribs and cartilages: Healthy Pleurae: Sub plural haemorrhage, sub-plural emppysene found Laryns and treachere: congested Right lung: Congested. On section, blood ladues out. Pericardium: Congested. Heart: Right side full of dark blood. Left empty.” In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is due to asphyxia and cerebral anisia as a result of strangulation which is homicidal in nature. In cross-examination the doctor denied that the death was due to hanging or it was suicidal hanging not homicidal. He did not find any ligature mark on the dead body of the deceased. 14. Post-mortem report does not suggest that death of the deceased may be suicidal, hi the case of suicidal hanging there would have been visible mark of ligature which was absent in the present case. From medical evidence as well as ocular evidence it is established that the deceased was killed by strangulation. 15. PW 1, Morijina Begum, PW 13 Basiran Nessa stated that when the dead body, after autopsy, was handed over to them they noticed right hand and left leg of the deceased fractured and also mark of injury on her upper chest. PW 3 Mofizuddin noticed finger mark on the neck of the deceased. PW 4 noticed finger mark on the neck of the deceased. But no such injuries were found by the doctor during post-mortem examination. 16. PW 3 Mofizuddin noticed finger mark on the neck of the deceased. PW 4 noticed finger mark on the neck of the deceased. But no such injuries were found by the doctor during post-mortem examination. 16. It is settled law, that when there is conflict between the ocular evidence and medical evidence and evidence of the witnesses and when the prosecution evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, it amounts to fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by the medical witness need not be last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the Court. 17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur hi depositions of witnesses. Due to normal errors of that they noticed fracture of the leg and hand on the dead body after post-mortem examination. Fracture of limb cannot be determined on observation and that too where rigor mortis passes out. PW 13 could say so, as the hand and leg of deceased could be moved freely. They had noticed finger marks on neck of the body. Medical evidence also shows that there were abrasion and bruise over the larynx and surface of the skin of the neck. Therefore, there was no material contradictions so far as external injuries sustained by the deceased hi her neck. 18. None of the witnesses saw the deceased hanging. PW 5, PW 8, PW 9 and PW 10 all saw the dead body lying on the bed. Aforesaid witnesses are independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, there is no denial of the fact that the body of deceased was found lying on her bed. 19. PW 1, PW 7, PW 8 had stated that there were frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife. On the date of occurrence PW 9, Hamed Ali was called to the house of accused by PW 10. He was informed that accused had querel with his wife. PW 9 went to the house of accused in between 7 to 8 A.M. On his quarry accused informed him that his wife (deceased) was asleep on bed. PW 9 asked the accused not to quarrel with her. After 2 hours he was informed about the death of the deceased. 20. PW 9 went to the house of accused in between 7 to 8 A.M. On his quarry accused informed him that his wife (deceased) was asleep on bed. PW 9 asked the accused not to quarrel with her. After 2 hours he was informed about the death of the deceased. 20. Lending support to evidence of PW 9, Ajiban Begum (PW 10) stated that the accused slapped his wife as she failed to resist PW 10 from cutting the branches of Bagari tree. Next day the accused had wanted to take her to her parental house but she was reluctant. Then accused although left for Morigaon, he came back after a short while and he was found weeping. He told PW 10 that Rasida is dead. The fact that a day ahead of death of the deceased, there was quarrel between husband and wife has been narrated by PW 15 (father of the victim). The quarrel between the accused and the victim has not been disputed. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9,10 and PW 15. 21. It was accused-appellant who was last seen together with his wife. There was quarrel between them. 22. The standard of proof required, for the purpose of convicting a person, on the basis of circumstantial evidence have been laid down in catena of cases. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundhar v. State of M.P. 1952 SCR 1091 , Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , it has been pointed out that in a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to be drawn shall be fully established and the facts so established, shall be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 23. In this case, the evidence, as has been discussed above clearly shows that accused had quarrel with his wife a day ahead of the incident and the wife had called her father to settle the dispute. Next day i.e. on the date of occurrence, just before the incident accused had altercation with the deceased. The quarrel between the accused and victim stands well proved by the evidence on record. The accused left his house and after a short while he came back. The victim was lying dead on her bed with injury on her neck. Next day i.e. on the date of occurrence, just before the incident accused had altercation with the deceased. The quarrel between the accused and victim stands well proved by the evidence on record. The accused left his house and after a short while he came back. The victim was lying dead on her bed with injury on her neck. Since there were frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife, the accused had a motive. It was accused who alone was with his wife in the house. No evidence has been given to the effect that someone else visited the house. The explanation given by the accused that the victim committed suicide is not consistent with his innocence since her death was homicidal. 24. The circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found alive and the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could be completely ruled out. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172 , State of Goa v. Sanjoy Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755 . 25. In the face of the overwhelming evidence on record against the accused appellant, we do not find that the conviction of the accused appellant, for the cause of offence of murder, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. The conviction, therefore, neither needs interference nor the sentence against him calls for any interference by this Court. 26. In the result, we uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence passed against him. This appeal is accordingly stands dismissed. 27. Send back the LCR.