ORDER : 1. This appeal, by grant of special leave, challenges the correctness of the judgment dated 18th June, 2008, passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Bombay vide which the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein and confirmed the judgment of the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, Maharashtra, in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2004. 2. In the said case, the appellant herein was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly causing murder of his wife-Dwarkabai. The Trial Court had held him in guilt of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-and in case of non-payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment of three months was also awarded. The High Court has upheld the conviction and the sentence given by the Trial Court. 3. Admitted facts which have come on record, which even the appellant does not dispute, are that the appellant was living with his wife-Dwarkabai and parents-in-law in the same house but in the adjacent rooms. At about 1 a.m. on the intervening night of 2-3 September, 2004, the appellant came to the room of his parents-in-law while they were sleeping along with other children. After waking them up, the appellant informed that Dwarkabai had fallen down from the cot on an instrument known as 'Wakas', ordinarily used by carpenters, and as a result whereof, she has suffered head injury. His in-laws believed the story and Dwarkabai was taken in a rickshaw to the Rural Hospital, Bhokar, where she was given primary aid and was advised to be taken to Government Civil Hospital, Nanded. She was taken to that Hospital where she succumbed to the injuries at about 6 a.m. Post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted and thereafter her body was handed over to the appellant and her parents. It was cremated at 6 p.m. in the evening. Immediately after the cremation, parents of the deceased suspected foul play as according to them, the deceased was maltreated by the appellant and, therefore, it might not be an accidental case. Father of the deceased lodged complaint in this behalf with the police at about 11 p.m. on the same day. FIR was registered, matter was investigated and thereafter, challan was filed in the Court and the appellant was tried and convicted, as narrated above. Father of the deceased lodged complaint in this behalf with the police at about 11 p.m. on the same day. FIR was registered, matter was investigated and thereafter, challan was filed in the Court and the appellant was tried and convicted, as narrated above. 4. As already pointed out above, the appellant admitted the incident but it was his version that it was accidental as the deceased had fallen from the cot on the Wakas because of which she suffered head injuries. However, the Courts below have found that the post-mortem report of the deceased indicated otherwise. The Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem gave the statement to the following effect: “Sutured wound (punctured) seen over forehead, left side, 3.5 cms above and lateral to lateral end of eyebrow/oblique, two stitches in situ/wound 5.5x2 mms, elliptical, with clean margins (after removing stitches) brain matter and blood coming out of wound/wound reddish.” 5. The Doctor has also observed contusion over chest, midline and left side, 8 cms, below sternal notch. The internal damage suffered is described in column no. 19 of the post mortem report. The Doctor had noted skull fracture of left side forehead, temporal region. There was extensive haematoma under scalp, involving almost whole of the left side and parietal, frontal regions of right side.” 6. On the basis of the above, the Courts have reached the conclusion that there is an injury to parietal regions of both sides which supports the theory that the blow is dealt while victim is lying. It is further recorded that if the victim had fallen from the cot, on the instrument, the opposite side of the skull could not have suffered any injury. The Doctor also noticed multiple fracture of skull vault, involving frontal/temporal/parietal bones, on left side. Left orbital plate showed comminuted fracture. 7. The aforesaid medical examination of the deceased and the nature of injuries suffered by her belies the version of the appellant that the injuries suffered were accidental and not homicidal. We find that when the incident is otherwise accepted by the appellant himself, the High Court has correctly appreciated the same and pointed out that in such circumstances, it is the appellant who owes an explanation on two counts, viz., (i) he must disclose the circumstances in which the wife suffered these homicidal injuries; and (ii) the false story put up by him to the in-laws. On the contrary, in the submission of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he simply denied the allegations against him and did not give any explanation to the aforesaid circumstances. 8. We, thus, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction recorded by the Trial Court suffers from no infirmity. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.