JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 7-12-2015 (Correction carried out as per the chamber order dated 01.09.2015) passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2004 is appealed against by the convicted accused. 2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Though Mr. Somashekar Angadi, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Somashekar Angadi, has not appeared before the Court to assist us. Hence, we have appointed Sri B. Chetan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and to argue on behalf of the appellant. The papers are supplied to him well in advance. 4. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records. 5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that the impugned judgment and order dated 7-12-2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 181 of 2004 was confirmed by this Court in Cri. Appeal No. 826 of 2006 disposed of on 7-1-2010. The appellant-convicted accused, questioning the said judgment dated 7-1-2010, approached the Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 95 of 2015, which is later numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 329 of 2015. The Apex Court set aside the judgment and order of this Court dated 7-1-2010 and remitted the matter to this Court, with a direction to rehear the appeal afresh and to pass a considered order. Accordingly, Cri. Appeal No. 826 of 2006 is taken up for final hearing today. 6. In the meanwhile, i.e. after disposal of the matter by this Court on 7-1-2010 and before filing of appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Trial Court has destroyed the original file, inasmuch as it did not receive any intimation from the Apex Court regarding filing of special leave petition. It appears, the special leave petition was filed in the year 2015 before the Apex Court and in the meanwhile, the records were destroyed by the Trial Court after waiting for a reasonable period. Since the records were destroyed before the Trial Court, we directed the Trial Court to reconstruct the papers based on the available material. It appears, the special leave petition was filed in the year 2015 before the Apex Court and in the meanwhile, the records were destroyed by the Trial Court after waiting for a reasonable period. Since the records were destroyed before the Trial Court, we directed the Trial Court to reconstruct the papers based on the available material. We also requested the learned State Public Prosecutor (SPP) to provide the relevant records, if any, maintained by the Office of learned SPP pertaining to the case on hand. Pursuant thereto, certain records are made available by the learned SPP including the charge-sheet presented before the Trial Court by the Investigation Officer. The paper books prepared earlier in this criminal appeal are traced and the same are also made available before us. Except the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, all other important material are found in the paper books. Since we find that the appeal may be disposed of judiciously based on the records found in the paper books, we have proceeded to hear the matter. We hasten to add here itself that two witnesses are examined on behalf of the accused as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and the defence of the accused can be gathered from the versions of D.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, the accused may not have any grievance to hear this appeal, in the absence of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. 7. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Gowramma is the wife of the accused; marriage was performed on 8-5-2003 at the time of marriage, the accused was given Rs. 20,000/- in addition to 100 gms. of gold as dowry by the parents of the deceased; after the marriage, the accused started harassing the victim to bring more money from her parents place and accordingly, the parents of the deceased paid Rs. 20,000/- more in two instalments of Rs. 10,000/- each; after the marriage, the married couple lived in the native place of the accused i.e. Kammacheruvu Village in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State, for about nine months and thereafter, they shifted the residence to Chelur, Bagepalli Taluk of Kolar District, Karnataka State. In the meantime, the victim became pregnant and it seems that the pregnancy was aborted. 10,000/- each; after the marriage, the married couple lived in the native place of the accused i.e. Kammacheruvu Village in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State, for about nine months and thereafter, they shifted the residence to Chelur, Bagepalli Taluk of Kolar District, Karnataka State. In the meantime, the victim became pregnant and it seems that the pregnancy was aborted. Since the parents of the deceased could not satisfy repeated demands of the accused regarding money, the accused had grouse against the deceased. In the early hours of 16-5-2004, the victim was done to death by the accused by smothering her. Before smothering the deceased, the accused had beaten her with stick M.O.1. Without informing the parents of the deceased about the death of the deceased, the accused shifted the dead body to Kammacheruvu Village, Chittoor District, in Andhra Pradesh State; the family members of the deceased after getting the news of the death of the deceased went to Chelur and thereafter to Kammacheruvu Village and saw the dead body. By that time, the relatives of the deceased visited Kammacheruvu Village, wherein the dead body was kept, the accused was not there and he had left the house leaving the dead body isolated. First information came to be lodged by P.W. 11 (elder brother of the deceased) as per Ex. P. 13 before Chittoor Police Station in Andhra Pradesh State on 16-5-2004 at 11.45 p.m. It is relevant to note that Kammacheruvu Village, where the dead body was shifted comes within the jurisdiction of Chittoor Police Station, Andhra Pradesh State. First information lodged by P.W. 11 as per Ex. P. 13, is registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 19) attached to Chittoor Police Station in Crime No. 41 of 2004 and he sent the FIR as per Ex. P. 14 to the jurisdictional Magistrate in Andhra Pradesh State. He conducted part of the investigation. He requested the Jurisdictional Officer to conduct the inquest proceedings and sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination. Subsequently, the proceedings were transferred from Chittoor Police Station to Chelur Police Station in Bagepalli Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State on the point of jurisdiction. P.W. 20 (PSI attached to Chelur Police Station, Bagepalli Taluk) received the records and registered FIR as per Ex. P. 16 in Crime No. 23 of 2004 of Chelur Police Station on 19-5-2004. Subsequently, the proceedings were transferred from Chittoor Police Station to Chelur Police Station in Bagepalli Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State on the point of jurisdiction. P.W. 20 (PSI attached to Chelur Police Station, Bagepalli Taluk) received the records and registered FIR as per Ex. P. 16 in Crime No. 23 of 2004 of Chelur Police Station on 19-5-2004. P.W. 13 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, COD completed investigation and laid the charge-sheet. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits and 5 material objects. 9. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined. As aforementioned, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC apart from Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 10. Sri Chetan B. learned Amicus Curiae taking us through the entire material on record submits that the Court below is not justified in convicting the accused, inasmuch as the deceased must have expired due to acute bleeding, since she had suffered abortion of pregnancy; the evidence of D.W. 2 the Doctor who conducted abortion supports the said argument; merely because the accused shifted the victim to his native place, may be for the purpose of cremation, the role cannot be suspected. The very fact that the family members of the deceased came to Kammacheruvu Village, on getting the news itself, would clearly reveal that the accused must have sent news to the family members of the deceased about the death of the deceased; the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are not proper and correct, since none of the circumstances are proved by the prosecution to the satisfaction of the Court and the Trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused. 11. Per contra, learned SPP argued in support of the judgment impugned. 12. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:- (a) Motive. (b) Ill-treatment by the accused. (c) The death of the deceased has occurred in the matrimonial house wherein the accused and deceased alone were living. The accused has not explained the injuries sustained by the victim, thereby suppressed the true facts before the Court. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:- (a) Motive. (b) Ill-treatment by the accused. (c) The death of the deceased has occurred in the matrimonial house wherein the accused and deceased alone were living. The accused has not explained the injuries sustained by the victim, thereby suppressed the true facts before the Court. Stick M.O. 1 is recovered from the scene of offence under panchanama-Ex. P. 2. Cause of death as opined by the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination is asphyxia due to smothering. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 11, 12 and 15 clearly reveal the ill-treatment meted towards the deceased by the accused. All of them have deposed that the accused used to ill-treat the deceased, since the deceased could not satisfy the frequent demands of money by the accused. P.W. 1 is the neighbour of the complainant. The deceased used to visit her house frequently and during such visits, she used to tell her about the ill-treatment by the accused against her. P.W. 1 received the telephone call about the incident and the same was told by her to P.W. 11 (elder brother of the deceased). P.Ws. 2 and 3 were present during marriage talks. They have deposed about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- apart from 100 gms. of gold at the time of marriage to the accused by the parents of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the mother of the deceased. She has also deposed about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry to the accused at the time of marriage. She has also deposed about the harassment by the accused. P.W. 11 is the elder brother of the deceased and he has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 13. The complaint-Ex. P. 13 as well as his version before the Court below amply reveals that the accused was harassing the deceased mainly for the purpose of getting money from the parents house of the deceased. P.W. 12 is another brother of the deceased. P.Ws. 14 and 15 are the uncles of the deceased. 13. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand and payment of dowry as well as about the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent and cogent. P.W. 12 is another brother of the deceased. P.Ws. 14 and 15 are the uncles of the deceased. 13. All these witnesses have deposed about the demand and payment of dowry as well as about the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent and cogent. Nothing is brought out by the defence in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to discard their evidence. Even in the cross-examination, they have withstood and have reiterated about the harassment. 14. It is not in dispute that the incident has taken place in the matrimonial house of the accused and the deceased. It is also not in dispute that only the deceased and the accused were living in the same house. So also, it is not in dispute that the incident has taken place during the night intervening between 15-5-2004 and 16-5-2004 and more probably at the early hours of 16-5-2004. The scene of offence panchanmama-Ex. P. 2 discloses that the stick-M.O. 1 was recovered from the scene of offence. Though P.W. 6 is the witness for scene of offence, he has turned hostile. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W. 20 the Investigation Officer. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the version of P.W. 20, inasmuch as he is an independent Officer of the State. Moreover, the scene of offence is not in dispute. Since the death has occurred in the house, in which only the accused and deceased were living, it is incumbent on the part of the accused to explain as to the cause of death. The accused has tried to explain the cause of death though D.W. 2 who opined that there was pro-fused bleeding due to abortion of pregnancy of the deceased when she was five months pregnant. In that context, so-called Doctor-D.W. 2 is examined by the accused. D.W. 2 has deposed that deceased suffered abortion in fifth month of her pregnancy and she was suffering with over bleeding and pain in abdomen; he gave some medicine to control over bleeding and bleeding was reduced. He advised the deceased to approach the Gynaecologist and he does not know as to whether she approached or not and he also does not know as to what happened subsequently to her. It is specified by D.W. 2 that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP). He advised the deceased to approach the Gynaecologist and he does not know as to whether she approached or not and he also does not know as to what happened subsequently to her. It is specified by D.W. 2 that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP). He is not a M.B.B.S. Degree holder. Be that as it may, even according to D.W. 2, the deceased had approached him in the month of April 2004 i.e. one month prior to the incident in question. According to the Doctor, it is likely that the deceased has expired on account of abortion and excessive bleeding. In the cross-examination, he admits that there is RMP Doctors' Association at Chittoor and he is not a member of that Association. He has not maintained any register or case history regarding the patients who approach him for treatment. In this matter also, he has not maintained any case history or any entry in his register. Firstly, he is not a qualified Doctor. He has not completed M.B.B.S. Degree. He claims that he is a registered medical practitioner. However, nothing is on record to show that he has registered himself as a medical practitioner. Moreover, he admits that he is not a member of RMP Doctors' Association, Chittoor. Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that he is qualified to treat the abortion patients. Though according to him, the deceased had taken treatment for two days with him, he has not maintained any record to that effect. In his hospital, he has not maintained any register of patients. He has also not maintained any case history or any entry in any register. Under these circumstances, it could be very difficult for the Court to believe the version of D.W. 2. So also, it would be very difficult for the Court to believe the version of the defence that the deceased was suffering from pro-fused bleeding and she took treatment from D.W. 2. However, the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 14 and 15 reveals that the victim had suffered abortion. Merely because the victim had suffered abortion, it cannot be said that the death was due to abortion, particularly when there is no concrete material to show that the victim suffered acute bleeding and consequently, death took place. 15. Moreover, the version of the defence is falsified by the medical evidence on record. Merely because the victim had suffered abortion, it cannot be said that the death was due to abortion, particularly when there is no concrete material to show that the victim suffered acute bleeding and consequently, death took place. 15. Moreover, the version of the defence is falsified by the medical evidence on record. The post-mortem report is at Ex. P. 7. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination is P.W. 10. The said Doctor is working in Area Hospital, Madanpalli, in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State. Immediately after the inquest panchanama, the dead body was taken to postmortem examination. The post-mortem report as well as the evidence of the Doctor discloses that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. It is also found from the medical evidence that both upper and lower lips were swollen and congested; vertical injuries were seen inner side of the right upper lip measuring 3 x 2 cms. skin deep; a defused oval shaped contusion was seen on the right maxillary area; a small vertical lacerated injury with congestion was seen on the tip of the nose. So also the brain matter and meninjus were congested. Lungs were congested. Spleen, liver and kidneys were congested. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The Doctor has opined that the injuries stated above viz. contusion etc., could be caused if one is beaten with a stick, such as M.O. 1. Though the Doctor was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited by the defence so as to discard his evidence. Thus the medical evidence makes it clear that the death is due to smothering and that the deceased was assaulted with the stick prior to the death. Consequently, it is clear that the death is not due to profused bleeding suffered by the deceased, pursuant to the abortion as contended by the defence. The death is not related to abortion at all. 16. From the medical evidence, it is clear that it is a case of homicidal death. Since the homicidal death has taken place within the matrimonial house at odd hours in which only the accused was living along with the deceased, it is incumbent on the accused to explain the cause of death as well as the injuries. No attempt is made by the accused in that regard, to give correct explanation. 17. Since the homicidal death has taken place within the matrimonial house at odd hours in which only the accused was living along with the deceased, it is incumbent on the accused to explain the cause of death as well as the injuries. No attempt is made by the accused in that regard, to give correct explanation. 17. It is by now well-settled that it is obligatory on the part of the accused to explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries in his house. The silence of the accused on this aspect gives rise to drawing adverse inference against him. Such adverse inference also forms a link in the chain of circumstances which point to his guilt. In the matter on hand, the accused not only has not explained the injuries sustained by the deceased, but has taken a false stand in his defence that the deceased died because of bleeding pursuant to abortion. 18. As the accused has taken false contention and as the accused has not explained the injuries found on the dead body, the Court will draw adverse inference against him. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the accused has not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain, but had taken an incorrect and false stand. As aforementioned, in such a situation, a false answer can also be counted as providing 'a missing link' in completing the chain of circumstances. 19. More importantly, the accused has shifted the dead body from Chelur Village (Bagepalli Taluk, in Kolar District in Karnataka State) to Kammacheruvu Village, which comes under Chittoor Taluk in Andhra Pradesh State. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming from the accused as to why the dead body was shifted from the place of death to his native place situated in different State. Not even a suggestion is made by the accused while the witnesses were in the witness-box denying the said fact. Such factum of shifting the dead body is not denied by the accused either expressly or impliedly. If really the accused was innocent, he would not have shifted the dead body without informing the brothers, parents and relatives of the deceased. Such factum of shifting the dead body is not denied by the accused either expressly or impliedly. If really the accused was innocent, he would not have shifted the dead body without informing the brothers, parents and relatives of the deceased. The accused ought to have, as an ordinary prudent man, waited for the relatives of the deceased to come and see the dead body and thereafter, ought to have taken decision if really he wanted to shift the dead body for cremation to his native place. The said fact that the accused did not inform anybody, much-less the relatives of the deceased about the shifting of the dead body also needs to be viewed with all seriousness. The non-explanation by the accused about the purpose of shifting the dead body also is an additional circumstance against him. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, we reach to a definite conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder. The Trial Court on appreciation of the entire material on record has come to the correct conclusion. We also find that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 just and proper. 21. Accordingly, the following order is made:- 1. The appeal stands dismissed. 2. The judgment and order of conviction dated 7-12-2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 181 of 2004, against the accused convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, stands confirmed. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri B. Chetan, learned Amicus Curiae. Hence, registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the learned Amicus Curiae as honourarium.