JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Una District Una HP in Sessions trial No. 27 of 2008 decided on 31.7.2009 titled State of H.P. Vs. Ashwani Kumar and others. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Ashwani Kumar was married with deceased Monika in the year 2000. It is alleged by prosecution that after marriage accused persons started maltreating and harassing deceased Monika on the pretext of not bringing anything from her parental house in the marriage. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased Monika came back from her parental house on 2.4.2008 after about 22 days and accused persons demanded Rs.500000/- (Five lacs) but deceased Monika brought only Rs.100000/- (One lac) when deceased came back to her matrimonial house from her parental house. It is further alleged by prosecution that co-accused Ashwani Kumar deserted deceased Monika after she blessed with daughter and deceased Monika was constrained to live at her parental house in Dalhousie for one year. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased Monika filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC and also filed a complaint before HP State Women Commission. It is further alleged by prosecution that brother of deceased had given mobile phone to deceased Monika when she came back from her matrimonial house and same was broken by co-accused Ashwani Kumar. It is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 5.4.2008 in the morning a telephonic message was received in police station Gagret that deceased Monika had died after hanging herself from ceiling fan at Daulatpur chowk and police party headed by SI Mohinder Singh reached at the spot. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW30 SHO P.S. Thakur police station Gagret also reached at the spot and statement of PW1 Anil Gupta was recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC and thereafter FIR Ext PW26/A was recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW29 SI Mohinder Singh had prepared inquest report Ext PW5/A and also clicked photographs at the spot Ext PW12/A to Ext PW12/F. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW30 Inspector P.S Thakur prepared site plan Ext PW30/A and also took into possession scarf Ext. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW29 SI Mohinder Singh had prepared inquest report Ext PW5/A and also clicked photographs at the spot Ext PW12/A to Ext PW12/F. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW30 Inspector P.S Thakur prepared site plan Ext PW30/A and also took into possession scarf Ext. P1 and P2 vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 was made by co-accused Ashwani Kumar Ext PW1/C and as per disclosure statement thin rope and scarf were recovered. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW30 Inspector P.S.Thakur prepared site plan at the spot and also took into possession complaints filed by deceased Monika and copy of bill pertaining to purchase of mobile phone. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons were medically examined. It is further alleged by prosecution that post mortem of deceased Monika was conducted and as per post mortem report deceased Monika had died due to strangulation homicidal leading to asphyxia and death. It is further alleged by prosecution that scarf and thin rope were sent for chemical examination and as per report of chemical analyst death could be caused by strangulation with thin rope and scarf. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per medical opinion ligature marks found on the neck of deceased Monika were possible with scarf. It is further alleged by prosecution that injuries were also observed upon the body of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons caused disappearance of evidence by way of concealing scarf and by way of concealing strangulating material to screen the offender from legal punishment. Charge was framed against accused persons under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined thirty oral witnesses in support of its case and also produced documentary evidence. 4. Statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Accused has stated that deceased Monika wanted that co-accused Ashwani Kumar should shift his work to Banikhet and when co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not accept the request of deceased Monika thereafter deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house. 4. Statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. Accused has stated that deceased Monika wanted that co-accused Ashwani Kumar should shift his work to Banikhet and when co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not accept the request of deceased Monika thereafter deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial house. Learned trial Court convicted co-accused Ashwani Kumar under Section 302 IPC and acquitted co-accused Ashwani Kumar under Section 498-A and 201 IPC. Learned trial Court acquitted co-accused persons namely Dina Nath and Manorma under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 IPC. Learned trial court sentenced co-accused Ashwani Kumar to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine convict Ashwani Kumar shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Learned trial Court further directed that both sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention undergone during the inquiry, investigation and trial would be set off. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court appellant Ashwani Kumar filed present appeal. 6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent and also gone through entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination before us. (i) Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice to appellant as alleged in memorandum of grounds of appeal? (ii) Final order. 8. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons 8.1 PW1 Anil Gupta has stated that deceased Monika was his younger sister. He has stated that deceased Monika was married to co-accused Ashwani Kumar son of Dina Nath in the year 2000. He has stated that deceased Monika had given birth to two children namely Kritka aged 7 years and son Kartik aged two years. He has stated that after marriage accused persons present in Court maltreated and harassed deceased Monika. He has stated that accused persons have demanded dowry from deceased Monika. He has stated that deceased Monika stayed in her parental house for about 22 days and thereafter Monika returned to her matrimonial house on dated 2.4.2008. He has stated that after marriage accused persons present in Court maltreated and harassed deceased Monika. He has stated that accused persons have demanded dowry from deceased Monika. He has stated that deceased Monika stayed in her parental house for about 22 days and thereafter Monika returned to her matrimonial house on dated 2.4.2008. He has stated that accused persons have demanded Rs.500000/- (Five lacs) and he had managed only Rs.100000/- (One lac) and paid the same to his sister Monika when she went to her matrimonial house from her parental house. He has stated that when his sister Monika blessed with daughter she was deserted by accused persons and deceased Monika lived with them for about one year at Dalhousie. He has stated that deceased Monika had also filed petition seeking maintenance allowance from co-accused Ashwani Kumar in Court at Dalhousie. He has stated that one complaint was also filed in HP State Women Commission. He has stated that thereafter due to interference of family members and friends the matter was compromised and deceased Monika was sent to her matrimonial house. He has stated that even after compromise accused persons had demanded golden ornaments from deceased Monika and maltreatment of deceased Monika continued. He has stated that he had given mobile phone to his deceased sister Monika when she came to her parental house but same was broken by co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that on dated 4.4.2008 deceased Monika had complaint about maltreatment given to her. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 some un-known persons had sent telephone call at about 9.10 AM informing about death of Monika. He has stated that when he along with relatives reached at Daulatpur chowk police officials were already reached at the spot. He has stated that when he reached at about 1.30 PM at the spot he noticed that there was a mark on the neck of his deceased sister bluish in colour and blood was coming out from nostrils. He has stated that deceased Monika had died because of act and conduct of accused persons. He has stated that his statement Ext PW1/A was recorded by police officials which bears his signature. He has stated that during investigation police officials had recovered two scarfs from the room of co-accused Ashwani Kumar and same were took into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/B. He has stated that scarfs were sealed. He has stated that his statement Ext PW1/A was recorded by police officials which bears his signature. He has stated that during investigation police officials had recovered two scarfs from the room of co-accused Ashwani Kumar and same were took into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/B. He has stated that scarfs were sealed. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar had given disclosure statement that he could recover rope with which co-accused Ashwani Kumar strangulated deceased Monika. He has stated that as per disclosure statement given by co-accused Ashwani Kumar rope was recovered which was took into possession vide memo Ext PW1/D which bears his signature and that of accused persons. He has stated that rope Ext P3 is the same which was recovered by police officials at the instance of coaccused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that on dated 11.4.2008 he had produced certified copy of complaint filed by deceased Monika before criminal Court at Dalhousie and also produced copy of application filed before HP State Women Commission. He has stated that deceased Monika had qualified B.Sc. B.Ed. and had also qualified one year diploma in computer and she was in perfect state of mind. He has admitted that in laws of deceased Monika used to live in ground floor of residential house and deceased Monika and her husband used to live on the top floor of the residential house. He has admitted that their kitchens were separate. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not demand dowry at any point of time. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not maltreat deceased Monika. He has denied suggestion that he had not given Rs.100000/- (One lac) to deceased. He has denied suggestion that accused persons were not instrumental in the death of deceased Monika. 8.2 PW2 Tarsem Raj father of deceased has stated that he retired as teacher and he has two sons and two daughters. He has stated that deceased Monika was one of them. He has stated that in the year 2000 deceased Monika was married to co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that marriage was solemnized at Ashia Palace Dhangu Road Pathankot. He has stated that after about 15 days of marriage deceased Monika was maltreated and harassed by accused persons on account of insufficient dowry. He has stated that accused persons also used to give beatings to deceased Monika. He has stated that marriage was solemnized at Ashia Palace Dhangu Road Pathankot. He has stated that after about 15 days of marriage deceased Monika was maltreated and harassed by accused persons on account of insufficient dowry. He has stated that accused persons also used to give beatings to deceased Monika. He has stated that in the year 2001 deceased Monika was blessed with daughter. He has stated that thereafter again accused persons maltreated deceased Monika for giving birth to a female baby child. He has stated that deceased Monika was forced to left her matrimonial house after 15 days of the birth of female child. He has stated that deceased Monika came to Banikhet. He has stated that for about 1½ years deceased Monika remained with him at Banikhet. He has stated that during said period accused persons did not enquire about the welfare of deceased and her female child. He has stated that thereafter petition for maintenance allowance for child was filed before criminal Court at Dalhousie. He has stated that thereafter with the intervention of relatives and friends matter was resolved and maintenance case was withdrawn and deceased Monika was brought back to her matrimonial house. He has stated that all accused persons continued to maltreat and harassed deceased Monika. He has stated that after two years son was born to deceased Monika. He has stated that he spent Rs.200000/- (Two lacs) as per desire of accused persons but maltreatment and harassment remained continued. He has stated that in the month of March 2008 deceased Monika came to her parental house and stayed for about 20 days and thereafter she returned back to her matrimonial house on dated 2.4.2008. He has stated that accused persons have demanded Rs.500000/- (Five lacs) and his son managed to collect only Rs.100000/- (One lac). He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 he received telephone call that his daughter Monika had passed away. He has stated that he reached at Daulatpur at about 3/4 PM and thereafter he went to police station Gagret where dead body was kept. He has stated that he noticed bluish mark of injuries upon the neck of deceased Monika. He has stated that blood was also oozing out from the nose of deceased Monika. He has stated that mobile phone given to deceased Monika by her brother as gift was also broken by co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that he noticed bluish mark of injuries upon the neck of deceased Monika. He has stated that blood was also oozing out from the nose of deceased Monika. He has stated that mobile phone given to deceased Monika by her brother as gift was also broken by co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that he suspected that all accused persons have killed deceased Monika. He has stated that he also noticed scratch marks on the neck of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has denied suggestion that his deceased daughter wanted her husband to settle his business at Banikhet. He has denied suggestion that accused persons did not demand dowry. He has denied suggestion that he had not given any money to accused persons. He has denied suggestion that accused persons have no role in the death of deceased Monika. 8.3. PW3 Pawan Jaryal has stated that he is dentist working at Banikhet. He has stated that deceased Monika came to his clinic on dated 30.3.2008. He has stated that on dated 1.4.2008 Anil Gupta brother of deceased demanded money from him because of some problem and he paid Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) to Anil Gupta. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has admitted that Anil Gupta told him that deceased Monika maltreated by in-laws and also told that in-laws of deceased had demanded Rs.100000/- (One lac). He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 Anil Gupta had informed him that his sister was killed. He has stated that he went to Daulatpur along with Anil Gupta and noticed marks of injuries on the neck of deceased Monika. He has denied suggestion that he had beaten co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has denied suggestion that he had not given Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) to Anil Gupta. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing falsely because Anil Gupta is his friend. 8.4. PW4 Ms. Kritika daughter of deceased Monika aged 7 years has stated that she along with her father, mother and brother used to reside together in the upper floor of the residential house and her grand parents used to reside in the ground floor of the residential house. She has denied suggestion that her father and grand parents used to beat her deceased mother. She has stated that her parents did not quarrel between themselves. She has stated that on the day of incident mother and father were sleeping separately. She has denied suggestion that her father and grand parents used to beat her deceased mother. She has stated that her parents did not quarrel between themselves. She has stated that on the day of incident mother and father were sleeping separately. She has stated that she noticed that her mother was hanging from the ceiling fan. She has stated that people brought dead body down from ceiling fan by cutting the rope. She has stated that her maternal uncle had given beatings to her father. 8.5. PW5 Pardeep Kumar has stated that he was member of N.A.C. Ward No.1 Daulatpur Chowk. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 at about 7 AM he came to know about death of Monika. He has stated that at about 9 AM he reached at the spot. He has stated that police officials have already reached at the spot and many people were assembled. He has stated that body of deceased Monika was lying in the room. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar told that deceased had died after hanging herself from ceiling fan. He has stated that he does not know anything else about the incident. Witness was declared hostile. He has stated that inquest report Ext PW5/A bears his signature. He has stated that people assembled at the spot have disclosed that deceased Monika had hanged herself from ceiling fan. He has stated that people who came from in-laws of co-accused Ashwani Kumar have manhandled accused persons and thereafter police officials took them to police station. 8.6. PW6 Smt. Pushpa Kumari has stated that she is running shop of scarf at Daulatpur chowk. She has stated that her house is adjoining to the house of accused persons. She has stated that deceased Monika was the wife of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. She has stated that deceased was married to co-accused Ashwani Kumar about 7/8 years ago and two children born. She has stated that she does not know about relations between deceased Monika and co-accused Ashwani Kumar. She has stated that she had not heard nor seen any quarrel between deceased Monika and co-accused Ashwani Kumar. Witness was declared hostile. She has denied suggestion that deceased Monika and co-accused Ashwani Kumar frequently used to quarrel with each other. She has denied suggestion that all accused persons used to maltreat and harassed deceased Monika for not bringing sufficient dowry. Witness was declared hostile. She has denied suggestion that deceased Monika and co-accused Ashwani Kumar frequently used to quarrel with each other. She has denied suggestion that all accused persons used to maltreat and harassed deceased Monika for not bringing sufficient dowry. She has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar had beaten deceased Monika in the night of 5.4.2008. 8.7. PW7 Dr. Ashish Lakhi has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 at about 5.30 AM he was informed that a patient was brought in emergency ward. He has stated that attendants were 6/7 in number asked him to examine patient outside the gate of hospital. He has stated that patient was lying in the vehicle on the lap of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that on checking pulse of patient it transpired that Monika had already died. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that he had noted marks of strangulation on the neck of deceased Monika. He has denied suggestion that on examination he found case of homicidal death. He has denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save accused persons from punishment. 8.8. PW8 Surinder Bhawani has stated that he is running shop and he is also a press reporter. He has stated that his house is next to parental house of deceased Monika. He has stated that mother of deceased Monika told him that deceased was maltreated and harassed by her in-laws for want of dowry. He has stated that deceased had stayed at Banikhet with her parents for about one year. He has stated that deceased had also filed a case for maintenance allowance in Court situated at Dalhousie and also filed complaint before HP State Women Commission. He has stated that thereafter matter was amicably resolved and all cases were withdrawn and thereafter Monika returned back to her matrimonial house. He has stated that deceased Monika met him about 3/4 days prior to her death and she told him that things were not going well at her matrimonial house. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 he received telephonic message about demise of Monika. He has stated that he along with brother of deceased Anil Gupta went to Daulatpur chowk. He has stated that dead body of deceased Monika was lying in police station. He has stated that he had noticed blue marks on the neck of deceased. 8.9. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 he received telephonic message about demise of Monika. He has stated that he along with brother of deceased Anil Gupta went to Daulatpur chowk. He has stated that dead body of deceased Monika was lying in police station. He has stated that he had noticed blue marks on the neck of deceased. 8.9. PW9 Dalip Singh has stated that deceased Monika was known to him. He has stated that he deal in ready made garments. He has stated that deceased Monika used to visit his shop. He has stated that deceased was married at Daulatpur chowk. He has stated that deceased told him that her in-laws have maltreated and harassed her and used to demand dowry. He has stated that brother of deceased Anil Gupta had also disclosed to him about said fact. He has stated that before incident deceased was at Banikhet for about 22 days and thereafter she returned back to her matrimonial house on dated 2.4.2008. He has stated that deceased Monika had also filed criminal case at Dalhousie about three years back. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar came for executing compromise and he also associated in compromise proceedings. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar had sought pardon. He has stated that thereafter deceased returned back to her matrimonial house. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 Anil Gupta brother of deceased told about demise of Monika. He has stated that dead body of deceased was lying in the house and he seen blue strangulation mark upon the neck of deceased Monika. He has stated that deceased had disclosed to him about maltreatment given to her by accused persons. He has denied suggestion that deceased Monika did not inform him about maltreatment and harassment meted out to her by in-laws. 8.10. PW10 Rajiv Kumar has stated that he is running a shop at Daulatpur chowk and he has a personal car. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 at about 5.30 AM co-accused Ashwani Kumar came to him and informed him that his wife Monika was unwell. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar requested him to take her deceased wife to hospital in his car. He has stated that he along with co-accused Ashwani Kumar and two other persons took deceased to Lakhi hospital. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar requested him to take her deceased wife to hospital in his car. He has stated that he along with co-accused Ashwani Kumar and two other persons took deceased to Lakhi hospital. He has stated that medical officer checked wife of co-accused Ashwani Kumar in the vehicle. He has stated that medical officer had declared deceased Monika brought dead. He has stated that medical officer did not disclose anything else. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that medical officer seen bluish mark on the neck of deceased. He has denied suggestion that thereafter co-accused Ashwani Kumar had disclosed to medical officer that he and deceased had fight in the night and thereafter deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar was crying to save his wife. 8.11. PW11 Pardeep Kumar has stated that Anil Gupta and deceased Monika were known to him. He has stated that on dated 8.4.2008 he had accompanied Anil Gupta to police station Gagret to collect post mortem of deceased Monika. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar and his parents were present at police station. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar had given disclosure statement that he could recover rope with which he had strangulated deceased Monika. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar disclosed that he had concealed rope in the store. He has stated that memo Ext PW1/C was prepared which bears his signature. He has stated that thereafter as per disclosure statement of co-accused Ashwani Kumar rope was recovered and same was sealed in cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ext PW1/D which bears his signature. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to him. He has stated that he had lost seal. He has stated that rope Ext P3 shown to him in Court is the same which was recovered by police officials as per disclosure statement of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that rope was having shreds of fiber of scarf which was took into possession by police officials vide seizure memo Ext PW1/D. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not give any disclosure statement. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected in pursuance to disclosure statement. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely because he is friend of Anil Gupta. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected in pursuance to disclosure statement. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely because he is friend of Anil Gupta. He has denied suggestion that his statement regarding loss of seal was false. 8.12. PW12 Rakesh Kumar is running photograph studio at Daulatpur chowk. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 he was called by police officials to click photographs of deceased Monika. He has stated that photographs are Ext. PW12/A to Ext PW12/F and negatives are Ext PW12/A-1 to Ext PW12/R-1. He has stated that after developing same he handed over photographs and negatives to police officials. 8.13. PW13 Gian Chand has stated that he retired from bank. He has stated that his house is on the backside of coaccused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that wife of coaccused Ashwani Kumar had died about 7/8 months ago. He has stated that he could not state how deceased Monika had died. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar used to beat and harassed his wife Monika. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not allow deceased Monika to go out from her matrimonial house. He has denied suggestion that coaccused Ashwani Kumar had disclosed him that deceased Monika had died due to heart attack and later on co-accused Ashwani Kumar told him that deceased Monika had committed suicide by way of hanging herself from ceiling fan. He has denied suggestion that when police officials came at the spot he saw blue mark of injury on the neck of deceased. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely in connivance with accused persons. 8.14. PW14 Kimiti Lal Jain has stated that Rajan Gupta is known to him. He has stated that he and Rajan Gupta have business relating to manufacture of footwear. He has stated that on dated 4.4.2008 Rajan Gupta was sitting over a cup of tea at about 5 PM. He has stated that he received telephonic call on his mobile phone and thereupon he was informed that his wife Vanita came and he had picked her from bus stand. He has stated that he immediately left without consuming tea. 8.15. PW15 Dr. N.S Dogra has stated that he was posted at Zonal hospital Una. He has stated that he received telephonic call on his mobile phone and thereupon he was informed that his wife Vanita came and he had picked her from bus stand. He has stated that he immediately left without consuming tea. 8.15. PW15 Dr. N.S Dogra has stated that he was posted at Zonal hospital Una. He has stated that in pursuance to request received from police officials Ext PW15/A he along with other members of the board had conducted post mortem of deceased Monika at 11 AM. He has stated that body of deceased Monika was identified by Davinder Kumar and Anil Gupta. He has stated that on examination the body was found to be of normal built of 5’-2” fair complexion, no external evidence of putrefaction and rigor mortis was in the disappearing stage. He has stated that no blood from both ears and mouth was coming forthwith. He has stated that he observed as under. Ligature mark and neck findings. There was transverse bruise mark with epithelial damage encircling the neck in front and extending upto the back except on postero lateral aspect of neck were present at the level of thyroid region colour redish blue. Width 7.5 cm front and sides with intervening normal skin colour on posterolateral region backside and there was deep discoloration reddish blue of width 1.5 cms superior with an extension toward superiorly toward left side submendibular region and face livid with slight swelling. No fracture of thyroid bone and thyroid cartilage detected and neck not elongated. No passage or urine or face or discharge seen and ecchymosed of underlying subcutaneous tissue present and mark was found to be ante mortem in nature. No contusion of carotid artery seen. Injury No.1. Abrasion (Antemortem of size 1.7 cms x 0.5cm on left inframalleolar region of lateral malleolus, oblique and reddish brown in colour. Injury No.2 A linear frictional abrasion of size 2 cms x 3 mm on front of left leg middle 1/3rd reddish blue. He has stated that as per opinion of board deceased died due to strangulation homicidal leading to asphyxia and death. He has stated that viscera was sent for chemical examination. He has stated that no poison was detected in the viscera. He has stated that probable duration between injury and death was immediate within five minutes. He has stated that as per opinion of board deceased died due to strangulation homicidal leading to asphyxia and death. He has stated that viscera was sent for chemical examination. He has stated that no poison was detected in the viscera. He has stated that probable duration between injury and death was immediate within five minutes. He has stated that probable duration between post mortem and death was 24-36 hours. He has stated that on dated 16.6.2008 request was received from police officials as to verify whether ligature marks were possible with scarf and rope. He has stated that as per post mortem report ligature marks upon neck of deceased were possible with scarf. He has stated that there were no marks corresponding to rope. He has stated that post mortem report Ext PW15/D bears his signature and other members of board. He has stated that ligature marks found on the person of deceased were possible with Ext P1 and Ext P2 shown to him in Court. 8.16. PW16 Dr. Pankaj Kumar has stated that he was posted as medical officer in CHC Gagret since 2002. He has stated that on dated 6.4.2008 police officials made request for medical examination of co-accused Ashwani Kumar, Dina Nath and Manorma vide Ext PW16/A. He has stated that he examined co-accused Ashwani Kumar on dated 6.4.2008 at about 10 AM who was in police custody and noticed following injuries on his person. 1. Two abrasions on dorsum of right middle and right ring finger of the size of 1x0.5cm each. Both were skin deep and crust had started appearing on the abrasion. There was no evidence of fracture of underlying bone. 2. Multiple scratches marks on the anterior of the neck. Skin deep. Dark brown in colour. Crust has started appearing. 3. Multiple scratches on the anterior of left shoulder. Dark brown in colour. 4. Contusion on the posterior aspect of right shoulder of the size of 4x0.5 cm dark brown in colour. He has stated that all four injuries were found simple in nature caused by some blunt weapon. He has stated that probable duration of injuries were beyond 24 hours. He has stated that he had issued MLC Ext PW16/B. He has stated that such injuries are possible by nail while deceased struggled for survival. He has stated that he also examined co-accused Dina Nath. He has stated that probable duration of injuries were beyond 24 hours. He has stated that he had issued MLC Ext PW16/B. He has stated that such injuries are possible by nail while deceased struggled for survival. He has stated that he also examined co-accused Dina Nath. He has stated that no fresh injuries were found on the person of co-accused Dina Nath and co-accused Manorma. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext PW16/C and Ext PW16/D. He has stated that injuries reflected in Ext PW16/B were minor and superficial in nature. He has stated that these injuries are possible in beating process. 8.17. PW17 HHC Dhanna Singh has stated that in the year 2008 he was posted at police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 MHC police station Gagret had handed over two sealed parcels bearing three seal impressions ‘M’, four seal impressions ‘B’ along with sample seals, post mortem report, inquest report and FIR along with a letter to Forensic Science Laboratory vide RC No. 128 of 2008 with direction to hand over the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. He has stated that he had deposited aforesaid parcels and articles in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on dated 17.4.2008. He has stated that on his return he had handed over receipt to MHC. He has stated that articles remained intact in his custody. 8.18. PW18 Constable Gurmail Singh has stated that in the year 2008 he was posted at police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 8.4.2008 co-accused Ashwani Kumar had made disclosure statement in the presence of one Pardeep Kumar and Anil Gupta that he could get recovered scarf and rope which he had used in the commission of crime. He has stated that in pursuance to disclosure statement rope and scarf were recovered which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/D. He has stated that scarf was sealed in a cloth parcel. He has stated that rope is the same which was recovered at the instance of co-accused Ashwani Kumar. He has stated that on dated 11.4.2008 Anil Gupta produced certified copy regarding complaint filed before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dalhousie and same was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not give any statement to police officials. He has stated that on dated 11.4.2008 Anil Gupta produced certified copy regarding complaint filed before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Dalhousie and same was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not give any statement to police officials. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected in pursuance to disclosure statement. 8.19. PW19 K.K. Gupta has stated that he is Advocate practicing as Lawyer in District Courts Chamba since 1972. He has stated that he filed petition under Section 125 Cr.PC on behalf of deceased Monika and her minor daughter. He has stated that certified copy of the same is Ext PW1/E. He has stated that application was drafted at the instance of deceased Monika. He has stated that he was informed telephonically by petitioner that some conciliation process was going on inter se the parties. He has stated that thereafter deceased Monika did not contact him. 8.20. PW20 Dr. Piush Kapila has stated that he was posted as Assistant Professor in the department of Forensic Medicine IGMC Shimla since 1998. He has stated that he has conducted more than 1500 autopsies. He has stated that on dated 27.5.2008 a letter was received from police station Gagret District Una along with inquest report, post mortem report and two packets containing ligature material. He has stated that he issued expert opinion Ext PW20/B which is in two pages and two leaves and duly signed by him. He has stated that ligature marks upon neck of deceased Monika were contused and ruptured. He has stated that in photograph Ext PW12/E the mark present between two red lines is possible with rope shown to him in Court. He has stated that strangulation also possible with scarf Ext P1 to Ext P2 shown to him. He has stated that in cases of hanging fracture of thyroid bone is common whereas in the case of strangulation it is very uncommon. He has denied suggestion that injury shown as 1.5 cms in post mortem report around the neck could not be caused with rope Ext P3. He has denied suggestion that he has given wrong opinion. 8.21 PW21 Anoop Kumar has stated that he is running electronic shop at Banikhet. He has stated that he sold one mobile phone for Rs.1299/- to Anil Gupta on dated 21.3.2008. He has denied suggestion that he has given wrong opinion. 8.21 PW21 Anoop Kumar has stated that he is running electronic shop at Banikhet. He has stated that he sold one mobile phone for Rs.1299/- to Anil Gupta on dated 21.3.2008. He has stated that he brought copy of bill book Ext PW1/H. He has stated that same was took into possession vide memo Ext PW1/J. He has stated that he had also given reliance SIM to Anil Gupta. He has denied suggestion that he did not sale any mobile phone to Anil Gupta. 8.22 PW22 Constable Sukhwinder Jit Singh has stated that he was posted at police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 MHC Bikram Singh had handed over to him two sealed parcels containing scarf and rope. He has stated that he handed over the same to medical officer who conducted post mortem of deceased Monika. He has stated that thereafter medical officer has examined same and handed over sealed articles to him. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the same to MHC. He has stated that parcels remained intact in his custody. 8.23 PW23 Kuljeet Singh has stated that on dated 28.5.2008 MHC police station Gagret vide RC No. 178 of 2008 handed over him two parcels containing scarf and rope with direction to deposit the same in the office of Medicine Forensic Department IGMC Shimla. He has stated that parcels remained intact in his custody. 8.24. PW24 Vikram Singh has stated that he was posted as MHC police station Gagret since 17th July 2006. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 Inspector Partap Singh had deposited two parcels with him along with sample of seal. He has stated that parcels were sent through HHC Dhanna Singh to FSL Junga on dated 16.4.2008 vide RC No. 128 of 2008. He has stated that on dated 28.5.2008 he sent two parcels containing scarf and rope to Medicine Forensic Department IGMC Shimla. He has stated that on dated 16.6.2008 parcels received from IGMC Shimla were sent to regional hospital Una for obtaining opinion of medical officer who conducted post mortem. 8.25. PW25 HHC Faquir Mohammad has stated that he was posted at police post Daulatpur since 2007. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 Inspector P.S. Thakur handed over rukka Ext PW1/A to him for registration of FIR. 8.26. 8.25. PW25 HHC Faquir Mohammad has stated that he was posted at police post Daulatpur since 2007. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 Inspector P.S. Thakur handed over rukka Ext PW1/A to him for registration of FIR. 8.26. PW26 ASI Kuldeep Singh has stated that in the year 2008 he was posted at police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 on receipt of rukka Ext PW1/A he recorded FIR Ext PW26/A which bears his signature. He has stated that thereafter he sent case file through HHC Faquir Mohamad to investigating officer. He has stated that rukka is Ext PW1/A. He has denied suggestion that he deposed falsely. 8.27. PW27 Sumeshwar Singh has stated that he was posted as Clerk in the office of HP State Commission for Women Shimla. He has stated that he brought summoned record. He has stated that complaint Ext PW1/F was filed by deceased Monika and was received in the office of Commission on dated 5.11.2003. He has stated that complaint was diarized vide No. 1547. He has stated that on asking by police the same was handed over to police officials vide letter Ext PW27/A. He has stated that both parties were summoned by Commission in pursuance to complaint. He has stated that as per record deceased Monika was summoned twice but she did not appear before Commission and consequently complaint was filed. He has stated that as per record co-accused Ashwani Kumar appeared before Commission and his statement was recorded by Commission. He has stated that photo copy of statement made by co-accused Ashwani Kumar is mark ‘O’ which is dated 24.7.2003. 8.28. PW28 HC Mulkh Raj has stated that he was posted at police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 25.6.2008 he was deputed by SHO police station Gagret to procure a copy of complaint moved by deceased Monika before HP State Women Commission Shimla vide letter Ext PW28/A. He has stated that complaint Ext PW1/F was supplied to him by Women Commission vide letter Ext PW27/A. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the same to investigating officer. 8.29 PW29 SI Mohinder Singh has stated that he was posted at police station Gagret since 2007. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 a telephonic message was received at police station Gagret that a lady hanged herself from ceiling fan at Daulatpur chowk. 8.29 PW29 SI Mohinder Singh has stated that he was posted at police station Gagret since 2007. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 a telephonic message was received at police station Gagret that a lady hanged herself from ceiling fan at Daulatpur chowk. He has stated that information was recorded in DDR Ext PW24/A. He has stated that on the aforesaid information he along with other police officials visited at the spot. He has stated that body of deceased Monika was kept in a room on the ground floor of the house of co-accused Dina Nath. He has stated that he inspected the body and prepared inquest report Ext PW5/A. He has stated that photographs of the body was clicked vide Ext PW12/A to Ext PW12/F. He has stated that on arrival of SHO and Dy. SP he handed over case file to them. He has stated that he prepared application for getting post mortem of body. He has stated that on dated 15.4.2008 he recorded the statement of Kimiti Jain as per his version. He has stated that on dated 16.4.2008 he moved an application to SMO Zonal hospital Una to get opinion regarding scarf and rope recovered from the place of incident vis-a-vis ligature marks found on the person of deceased Monika. 8.30. PW30 P.S. Thakur has stated that in the year 2008 he was posted as SHO police station Gagret. He has stated that on dated 5.4.2008 he received information that a lady had died by way of hanging. He has stated that SI Mohinder Singh had already proceeded to spot along with other police officials. He has stated that after reaching at the spot he recorded the statement of complainant Anil Gupta Ext PW1/A under Section 154 Cr.PC. He has stated that he inspected dead body and sent rukka to police station for registration of FIR. He has stated that he prepared site plan Ext PW30/A. He has stated that he took into possession scarf Ext P1 and Ext P2 from middle room of first floor in the presence of witnesses Anil Gupta and Pardeep Kumar vide seizure memo Ext PW1/B. He has stated that scarf Ext P1 and Ext P2 shown to him in Court are same which he recovered from the spot. He has stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses as per their respective versions. He has stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses as per their respective versions. He has stated that co-accused Ashwani Kumar had given disclosure statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act in the presence of witnesses. He has stated that in pursuance of disclosure statement of co-accused Ashwani Kumar rope was recovered. He has stated that opinion of forensic medicine expert also obtained. He has stated that opinion regarding weapon of offence and ligature marks was also sought from medical officer who conducted post mortem. He has stated that after receipt of chemical examiner report he prepared challan. He has denied suggestion that co-accused Ashwani Kumar did not make any disclosure statement. He has stated that it came in the investigation that co-accused Ashwani Kumar and his parents have separate kitchen. He has stated that it came in investigation that on the day of incident deceased Monika and co-accused Ashwani Kumar were in the upper floor of residential house and his parents were in the ground floor of residential house. He has denied suggestion that he had conducted investigation in biased manner. He has denied suggestion that on dated 5.4.2008 complainant had manhandled co-accused Ashwani Kumar and thereafter he sustained injuries on his person. He has denied suggestion that he had created false evidence against accused persons. 9. Following documentaries evidence produced by prosecution. (1) Ext.PW1/A Statement of Anil recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. (2) Ext.PW1/B Recovery memo of scarf from residential house of appellant. (3) Ext.PW1/C Memo of disclosure statement given under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act by appellant and recovery of scarft and rope. (4) Ext.PW1/D Recovery memo of rope as per dislosure statement given by appellant. (5) Ext.PW1/F Copy of petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by deceased and her minor daughter against appellant before learned SDJM Dalhousie. (6) Copy of complaint filed by deceased against appellant before State Women Commission. (7) Ext.PW1/G Memo of recoveries of documents. (8) Ext.PW1/H Copy of bill of purchase of mobile phone. (9) Ext.PW1/J Memo of recovery. (10) Ext.PW5/A Inquest report of deceased dated 5.4.2008. (11) Ext.PW12/A to Ext.PW12/F Photographs of dead body of deceased. (12) Ext.PW12/A/1 to Ext.PW12/F-1 Negatives of photographs of dead body of deceased. (13) Ext.PW15/A Application filed for post mortem of deceased. (14) Ext.PW15/B Report of SFSL H.P. Junga. (15) Ext.PW15/C Application filed for obtaining opinion of medical officer. (10) Ext.PW5/A Inquest report of deceased dated 5.4.2008. (11) Ext.PW12/A to Ext.PW12/F Photographs of dead body of deceased. (12) Ext.PW12/A/1 to Ext.PW12/F-1 Negatives of photographs of dead body of deceased. (13) Ext.PW15/A Application filed for post mortem of deceased. (14) Ext.PW15/B Report of SFSL H.P. Junga. (15) Ext.PW15/C Application filed for obtaining opinion of medical officer. (16) Ext.PW15/D Post mortem report of deceased Monika aged 32 years dated 6.4.2008. (17) Ext.PW16/A Application filed for medical examination of accused. (18) Ext.PW16/B to Ext.PW16/D Medico legal certificates of accused persons. (19) Ext.PW20/B Opinion given by medical officer. (20) Ext.PW24/A Copy of rapat No. 7 dated 5.4.2008. (21) Ext.PW26/A FIR No. 58 of 2008 dated 5.4.2008 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. (22) Ext.PW27/A Letter written by H.P. State Commission for Women. (23) Ext.PW28/A Application filed before Secretary H.P. State Commission for Women. (24) Ext.PW30/A Site plan. (25) Ext.PW30/K Sample of seal. (26) Ext.PW30/L Site plan. (27) Ext.PW30/M Chemical examiner’s report issued by SFSL H.P. Junga. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that on the basis of facts proved on record possibility of deceased committing suicide by hanging could not be ruled out is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that deceased had died in her matrimonial home on 5.4.2008 during midnight. PW1 Anil Gupta brother of deceased has stated in positive manner that deceased had returned to her matrimonial house on 2.4.2008. PW1 has specifically stated that accused had demanded Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only). PW1 has stated in positive manner that when deceased was blessed with her daughter she was deserted by appellant and she lived in her parental house for about one year. PW1 has stated in positive manner that deceased had also filed maintenance petition against Ashwani Kumar in the criminal court situated at Dalhousie and also filed complaint before H.P. State Women Commission. PW1 has stated in positive manner that appellant also demanded golden ornaments from deceased. Testimony of PW1 is corroborated by PW2 Tarsem father of deceased. PW2 Tarsem has specifically stated in positive manner that after fifteen days of marriage deceased was harassed and maltreated by appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. PW2 has also stated in positive manner that appellant also used to beat the deceased. Testimony of PW1 is corroborated by PW2 Tarsem father of deceased. PW2 Tarsem has specifically stated in positive manner that after fifteen days of marriage deceased was harassed and maltreated by appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. PW2 has also stated in positive manner that appellant also used to beat the deceased. PW2 has stated that after the birth of female child the deceased was forced to leave her matrimonial house and she came in her parental house at Banikhet and resided there for about 1-1½ years. PW2 has stated in positive manner that maintenance petition was filed before criminal Court at Dalhousie. PW2 has stated in positive manner that appellant had demanded Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) as dowry. Testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are corroborated by PW9 Dalip Singh who has stated that deceased personally told him that appellant used to maltreat her and used to demand dowry. Even PW19 K.K. Gupta Advocate has specifically stated that he has filed maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further stated that application for maintenance was drafted at the instance of deceased Monika. Oral testimonies of PW1 Anil Gupta, PW2 Tarsem and PW9 Dalip Singh and PW19 K.K. Gupta Advocate are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW9 and PW19. 11. Testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW9 are also corroborated by testimony of medical officer PW15 Dr. M.S. Dogra who has specifically stated that deceased died due to strangulation leading to asphyxia and death. Even as per post mortem report Ext.PW15/D placed on record deceased had died due to strangulation i.e. homicidal leading to asphyxia and death. As per testimony of PW15 medical officer who conducted post mortem of body of deceased no fracture of thyorid bone was detected. As per testimony of PW20 medical officer in case of hanging by way of suicide fracture of thyroid bone is common whereas in case of strangulation same is uncommon. It is held that as per testimonies of PW15 and PW20 medical officers it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that deceased died due to strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death. 12. Even as per testimony of PW16 Dr. Pankaj Kumar appellant Ashwani Kumar had sustained four injuries i.e. two abrasions, multiple scratches and contusion. It is held that as per testimonies of PW15 and PW20 medical officers it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that deceased died due to strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death. 12. Even as per testimony of PW16 Dr. Pankaj Kumar appellant Ashwani Kumar had sustained four injuries i.e. two abrasions, multiple scratches and contusion. No explanation given by the appellant how the appellant had sustained two abrasioned injures and multiple scratches upon his body. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that present case is a case of suicide and is not a case of homicide and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Medical officers have ruled out the possibility of suicide in present case in positive manner and medical officers have stated in positive manner that deceased had died due to strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death. PW20 Dr. Piyush Kapila posted in IGMC Shimla as Forensic expert has specifically stated that ligature marks upon the neck were consistent with rope. PW20 Dr. Piyush Kapila has stated that force was applied. PW20 has specifically stated in positive manner that injuries mentioned in post mortem report upon the neck of deceased could be caused with rope Ext.P3. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that as per testimony of PW4 Ms. Kritika daughter of deceased appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW4 Ms. Kritika minor. Testimony of PW4 Ms. Kritika is contrary to the opinion of medical officers placed on record. Medical officers have stated that present case is a case of homicide by way of strangulation. Testimony of PW4 was recorded by learned trial Court without oath. It is proved on record that parents of appellant at the time of incident were residing in ground floor of residential building and appellant along with deceased and PW4 Ms. Kritika were residing in first floor of residential building. We are of the opinion that PW4 is daughter of appellant and was directly under the control of appellant. It is proved on record that parents of appellant at the time of incident were residing in ground floor of residential building and appellant along with deceased and PW4 Ms. Kritika were residing in first floor of residential building. We are of the opinion that PW4 is daughter of appellant and was directly under the control of appellant. We are of the opinion that tutoring of PW4 by appellant could not be ruled out in present case because testimony of PW4 is not corroborated with evidence of medical officers who have specifically stated that present case is a case of strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death and is not a case of suicide. 15. Even as per disclosure statement given by appellant rope Ext.P3 was recovered and rope Ext.P3 was having shreds of fiber of scarf. PW11 Pardeep Kumar has stated in positive manner that appellant had given disclosure statement in his presence. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant himself brought the deceased for her medical treatment to hospital and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW7 Dr. Ashish has stated in a positive manner when he appeared in witness box that when deceased was brought to hospital she was already dead. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct evidence that appellant had committed the murder of deceased and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that criminal offence can be proved by way of direct evidence or by way of circumstantial evidence. In present case it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that deceased had died in her matrimonial house during night period in forewalls of residential room in which only appellant, deceased and her minor daughter Kritika were present. There is no possibility of committing offence of murder in present case by third person because approach of third person in residential house within forewall of residential room is ruled out. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that third person has entered into the residential house after breaking the window or door and committed murder of deceased. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that third person has entered into the residential house after breaking the window or door and committed murder of deceased. Deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellant only during the night period of 5.4.2008. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that there are material contradiction and improvements in present case and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the entire record carefully. There is no material contradiction in present case which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when statements of prosecution witnesses are recorded after a gap of sufficient time. In present case dead body of deceased was found in forewalls of residential house of appellant in the intervening night of 5.4.2008. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on 17.12.2008, 18.12.2008, 19.12.2008, 18.2.2009, 19.2.2009, 20.2.2009, 30.3.2009 and 24.4.2009. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when testimonies of prosecution witnesses are recorded after a gap of sufficient time. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu that even if there are some omissions contradictions and discrepancies then entire evidence would not be discarded. It was held that undue importance should not be given to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case. It was held that undue importance should not be given to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case. See AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, See AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, See AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, See AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash, See (2009)11 SCC 588 titled Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, See (2009)9 SCC 626 titled State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others, See AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, See AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, See (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another, See (2004) 10 SCC 94 titled Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others, See (2012)10 SCC 433 Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan. It is well settled law that maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal law. (See: AIR 1980 S.C.957 Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. See AIR 2006 SC 321 titled Triloki Nath and others vs. State of U.P.) 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that case by way of circumstantial evidence is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt against appellant is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case following facts are proved on record. (1) That appellant Ashwani Kumar was lastly seen with deceased in residential house within four walls. (2) That injuries sustained by deceased as per testimonies of medical officers proved homicide by way of strangulation. (3) That there were strained relations between the deceased and appellant and there was litigation between deceased and appellant before criminal judicial Court at Dalhousie. (4) That rope was recovered as per disclosure statement given by appellant. (5) That appellant has also suffered injuries upon his body. (6) That as per chemical analyst report fiber found on rope matches with fibre of scarf used in commission of crime. (7) That subsequent conduct of appellant raising plea of suicide by deceased at her matrimonial house during midnight in four walls of residential house. (5) That appellant has also suffered injuries upon his body. (6) That as per chemical analyst report fiber found on rope matches with fibre of scarf used in commission of crime. (7) That subsequent conduct of appellant raising plea of suicide by deceased at her matrimonial house during midnight in four walls of residential house. It was held in case reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 2040, Apex Court titled Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (DB) 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. It is also well settled law that circumstantial evidence combine all facts creating a net through which accused could not escape. See AIR 1992 SC 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. 20. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that deceased was not happy with her married life and she committed suicide due to depression and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no direct evidence that deceased was suffering from mental depression. There is no medical evidence on record in order to prove that deceased was suffering from mental depression. On contrary deceased was B.Sc., B.Ed. student and she was young lady of 32 years. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by prosecution are not sufficient for conviction is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that in criminal case conviction can be based on honest and trustworthy evidence of single witness. See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. State of Kerala. 22. It is well settled law that in criminal case conviction can be based on honest and trustworthy evidence of single witness. See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. State of Kerala. 22. Facts of case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant i.e. (2009) 17 SCC 273 titled Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) 1 SCC 530 titled Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC 129 titled Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka, 1998 (4) RCR 74 (SC) Panchhi and others vs. State of U.P., (1993) Supp 3 SCC 667 titled Baby Kandayanathil vs. State of Kerala, 2998 (2) RCR (Cri.) 74 titled Nivrutti Pandurang Kotate vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (4) RCR(Cri.) 183 titled Golla Yelugu Govindu vs. State of A.P., (1997) 5 SCC 341 titled Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 13 SCC 643 titled Acharaparambath Pradeeepan vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 1 SCC 64 titled Ratansinh Dalsukhbai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, 2006 (10) SCALE 369 titled Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 titled Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 225 titled Prakash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1998) 3 SCC 561 titled State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh (dead) and others, 2014 Cri.LJ 1217 titled Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1539 titled Niwas vs. Ram Bharose, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 120 titled Umesh Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 88 titled Suraj Singh vs. State of U.P., (2007) 14 SCC 16 titled Mahmood vs. State of U.P., (2002) 3 SCC 57 titled Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 679 titled Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 433 tiled Kuria vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 200 titled M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashta, (2012) 10 SCC 464 titled Munish Mubar vs. State of Haryana and facts of present case are entirely different. It is held that facts of cases cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant are distinguishable and are not applicable in present facts and circumstances of case. It is held that above said rulings do not relate to the facts where deceased died due to strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death within forewalls of residential room during midnight. 23. It is held that above said rulings do not relate to the facts where deceased died due to strangulation (Homicidal) leading to asphyxia and death within forewalls of residential room during midnight. 23. Even as per site plan Ext.PW30/A homicidal death of deceased was committed in forewalls of room during midnight. Even as per State Forensic Scidence Laboratory report placed on record as per microscopic examination maroon coloured fibres in rope matches with fibres removed from maroon scarf. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative against the appellant. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 24. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court are affirmed. It is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and it is held that learned trial Court did not commit any miscarriage of justice to appellant. File of learned trial Court along with ceritified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.