Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2449 (ALL)

Buddhipal Verma v. State of U. P.

2016-07-14

ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2016
JUDGMENT (Per Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J) 1. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra holding brief of Mrs. Soniya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Balrmapur in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No.627 of 2006, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Uttaraula, District-Balrampur whereby accused-appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-with default stipulation of six months' imprisonment. 3. According to the prosecution version, accused-appellant (Buddhipal Verma) is the husband of deceased (Sunita Devi). FIR was lodged by Ram Ujagar father of the deceased on 28.10.2006 at 22.30 hours stating that deceased Sunita Devi was married to accused-appellant Buddhipal Verma in their childhood. Gauna took place about three years back. Sufficient articles were giving in the marriage but in the Gauna accused and his father Madhau Ram, brother Vijay Pal and Dhrub Pal were insisting for a ''Splendor Motor Cycle' but the complainant could not give it due to his poverty. Since then deceased went to her in laws house three or four times. Whenever she was in her in laws house she was tortured for the demand of motor cycle. 4. On 19.10.2006 deceased Sunita went to her in laws house with Buddhipal Verma. In the evening of 27.10.2006 complainant got a telephonic communication that Sunita Devi is seriously ill and admitted in Mission Hospital. When complainant alongwith family members reached Mission Hospital, she was not there then he went to the in laws house of Sunita he came to know that she has been killed. Number of injuries were found on her body. 5. After lodging the FIR investigation was handed over to Sri Ajay Pratap Circle Officer Uttaraula who reached at the spot. Inquest proceedings were conducted on 29.10.2006 at 9.30 AM. Spot inspection was made. Dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 29.10.2006 at about 3.30PM. Dr. Rajendra Kapoor has conducted postmortem and opined that the cause of death is strangulation. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded. During investigation statement of complainant Ram Ujagar, Radhey Shyam, Sursati were also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against accused-appellant. 6. Dr. Rajendra Kapoor has conducted postmortem and opined that the cause of death is strangulation. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded. During investigation statement of complainant Ram Ujagar, Radhey Shyam, Sursati were also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against accused-appellant. 6. Accused-appellant was charged under section 302 IPC. He denied the charges and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced P.W. 1 Ram Ujagar complainant father of the deceased. P.W.2 Radhey Shyam brother of the deceased, P.W.3 Usha Devi sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased who was declared hostile. P.W.4 Raghaw Ram, P.W.5 Chandrawati sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased. P.W.6 Dashrath Kumar Verma. P.W.7 Gayanwati witness of inquest. P.W.8 Sursati mother of the deceased. P.W.9 Kailash Nath who is a teacher in Primary School Chawaipur where the deceased was working as ''Shiksha Mitra'. P.W.11 Dr. Rajendra Kapoor who has conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased on 29.10.2010 at 3.30pm and found following antemortem injuries on her body. (i) Contusion 6cm x 3cm on right side neck situated just below right angle of mandible underlying neck muscles contused. Hyoid bone fractured on right side haematoma at base of fracture right corner. (ii) Contusion 5cm x 2cm on left side neck situated about 2cm below left angle of mandible underlying neck muscles contused (iii) On internal examination doctor found that hyoid bone was fractured in right side. It was found that Rigor Mortis passed off in upper limbs while passing in lower limbs. Abdomen was distended. 8. According to the team of doctors, who have conducted the postmortem, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Duration was about two days. 9. P.W.12 Ajay Pratap initial investigating officer had prepared the site plan. Recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused was arrested on 13.12.2006. Case was converted under Section 3 02 IPC as no evidence was found to support the charge under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge-sheet under Section 3 02 IPC was filed against accused. 10. P.W.13 tehsildar Kunwar Bahadur Singh has conducted the inquest proceedings and recommended the postmortem by two doctors. 11. P.W.14 H.C. 15 Mohd. Zamir has prepared the chik FIR under section 498A, 304B and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and recorded it in the general diary. 12. Charge-sheet under Section 3 02 IPC was filed against accused. 10. P.W.13 tehsildar Kunwar Bahadur Singh has conducted the inquest proceedings and recommended the postmortem by two doctors. 11. P.W.14 H.C. 15 Mohd. Zamir has prepared the chik FIR under section 498A, 304B and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act and recorded it in the general diary. 12. P.W.15 Brij Mohan Yadav is inspector of CBCID, Lucknow. Investigation was transferred to him he has again recorded the statement of witnesses, thereafter, submitted the supplementary charge-sheet under section 302 IPC against accused. 13. P.W.16 Dilip Kumar has stated that he is the driver of the jeep who carried the deceased to the Mission Hospital from the house of accused. Thereafter she was taken to Government Hospital. Buddhipal told him that deceased has died. Then he took the body to village-Jogiveer. 14. In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused has denied the allegations levelled against him and has stated that the deceased was working as ''Shiksha Mitra' and was living in her parental house. Occasionally, during holidays she used to come to live with the accused who was living all alone in his ancestral house. Accused used to insist the deceased to live in her in laws house and serve from there but she was not agreeable. Deceased came to accused house before Diwali's holidays then accused again asked her to live in her in laws house but she did not agree and got annoyed. Accused left the house then deceased tried to commit suicide by hanging herself when accused came back in his house and saw his wife then he took her down to floor. She was alive, he took her by jeep to Mission Hospital Uttaraula where doctor advised him to take her to government hospital but on the way she died. Accused brought her body to his house and informed the parents of deceased. 15. Learned trial court after assessing the evidence on record concluded that accused has taken a false defence of suicide by the deceased rather it was a case of murder by the accused. Accordingly, learned trial court found the accused guilty of offence punishable under section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced accused as above. 16. Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that it was a case of circumstantial evidence wherein chain of circumstances is not complete. Accordingly, learned trial court found the accused guilty of offence punishable under section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced accused as above. 16. Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that it was a case of circumstantial evidence wherein chain of circumstances is not complete. There was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of his own wife. Deceased was a lady of loose temper who was not agreeable to live in her in laws house. Some altercation took place between the accused and deceased on this count, consequently, deceased hanged herself but accused immediately took her down to the floor. He made all attempts to save her. He took her to Mission Hospital, thereafter, District Hospital but she could not be saved. It is further submitted that it was not a case which could be covered under section 302 IPC rather it is a case which can be covered under section 304 Part I IPC or 306 IPC. 17. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that prosecution has proved the charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is an admitted position that accused and deceased were husband and wife. It is also admitted that the deceased was working as ''Shiksha Mitra' and was earning member. On the fateful day, she was in the house of accused where her dead body was found. According to the team of doctors, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, cause of death was found as strangulation. There was no sign of hanging the body of the deceased. Hence, it could not be believed that deceased has committed suicide. It is further submitted that the accused has taken a false defence that too could not be proved by him. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was taken to the Mission Hospital Utraula from where she was referred to the government hospital. It is further submitted by learned AGA that investigation was conducted in a very fair manner, investigating officer has not found any material to prove the charges under section 498A and 304B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act rather he found evidence of committing murder by the accused. 18. Admittedly, accused and deceased were husband and wife. 19. Before proceeding further on the factual matrix of the matter, we would like to advert on the medico legal aspect. 18. Admittedly, accused and deceased were husband and wife. 19. Before proceeding further on the factual matrix of the matter, we would like to advert on the medico legal aspect. In this case, postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by a team of two doctors on 29.10.2006 at 3.30PM wherein the duration of death was found two days. Cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Two injuries were found wherein hyoid bone was found fractured Dr. Rajendra Kapoor is one of the doctors of the team who has conducted the postmortem. He was cross examined in detail. It has specifically been stated by Dr. Kapoor that no sign of hanging were found on the body of deceased. There was no ligature mark present on the body. Hyoid bone was found fractured but there was no survical injuries. It is further stated by the Dr. Kapoor that it is not necessary that violent means should be adopted for strangulation. It is possible that strangulation is done while a person is sleeping. He has specifically stated that on the basis of condition of dead body, he has given a specific finding of asphyxia due to strangulation. Postmortem was conducted by a team of two doctors. Both the doctors were of the same view as per post mortem report. 20. In Raviralalaxmaiah v. State of Andra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 facts were same as in the present case, accused and deceased were husband and wife. There was also a controversy as to whether deceased was done to death by strangulation or she has committed suicide. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : "18. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the issue involved herein is no more res integra. This Court dealt with the issue in Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 2110 , and observed as under: "23. It is true that the autopsy surgeon, PW 17, did not find any fracture on the hyoid bone. Existence of such a fracture leads to a conclusive proof of strangulation but absence thereof does not prove contra. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 13th Edn., pp. 307-08, it is stated: ''The hyoid bone is ''U' shaped and composed of five parts: the body, two greater and two lesser horns. Existence of such a fracture leads to a conclusive proof of strangulation but absence thereof does not prove contra. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 13th Edn., pp. 307-08, it is stated: ''The hyoid bone is ''U' shaped and composed of five parts: the body, two greater and two lesser horns. It is relatively protected, lying at the root of the tongue where the body is difficult to feel. The greater horn, which can be felt more easily, lies behind the front part of the strip muscles (sternomastoid), 3 cm below the angle of the lower jaw and 1.5 cm from the midline. The bone ossifies from six centres, a pair for the body and one for each horn. The greater horns are, in early life, connected to the body by cartilage but after middle life they are usually united by bone. The lesser horns are situated close to the junction of the greater horns in the body. They are connected to the body of the bone by fibrous tissue and occasionally to the greater horns by synovial joints which usually persist throughout life but occasionally become ankylosed. Our own findings suggest that although the hardening of the bone is related to age there can be considerable variation and elderly people sometimes show only slight ossification. From the above consideration of the anatomy it will be appreciated that while injuries to the body are unlikely, a grip high up on the neck may readily produce fractures of the greater horns. Sometimes it would appear that the local pressure from the thumb causes a fracture on one side only. While the amount of force in manual strangulation would often appear to be greatly in excess of that required to cause death, the application of such force, as evidenced by extensive external and soft tissue injuries, make it unusual to find fractures of the hyoid bone in a person under the age of 40 years. As stated, even in older people in which ossification is incomplete, considerable violence may leave this bone intact. This view is confirmed by Green. He gives interesting figures: in 34 cases of manual strangulation the hyoid was fractured in 12 (35%) as compared with the classic paper of Gonzales who reported four fractures in 24 cases. The figures in strangulation by ligature show that the percentage of hyoid fractures was 13. This view is confirmed by Green. He gives interesting figures: in 34 cases of manual strangulation the hyoid was fractured in 12 (35%) as compared with the classic paper of Gonzales who reported four fractures in 24 cases. The figures in strangulation by ligature show that the percentage of hyoid fractures was 13. Our own figures are similar to those of Green.' 24. In Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 41 under the title -- Fracture of the Hyoid Bone in Strangulation: Comparison of Fractured and Unfractured Hyoids from Victims of Strangulation, it is stated: ''The hyoid is the U-shaped bone of the neck that is fractured in one-third of all homicides by strangulation. On this basis, post-mortem detection of hyoid fracture is relevant to the diagnosis of strangulation. However, since many cases lack a hyoid fracture, the absence of this finding does not exclude strangulation as a cause of death. The reasons why some hyoids fracture and others do not may relate to the nature and magnitude of force applied to the neck, age of the victim, nature of the instrument (ligature or hands) used to strangle, and intrinsic anatomic features of the hyoid bone. We compared the case profiles and xeroradiographic appearance of the hyoids of 20 victims of homicidal strangulation with and without hyoid fracture (n =10, each). The fractured hyoids occurred in older victims of strangulation (39 ± 14 years) when compared to the victims with unfractured hyoids (30 ± 10 years). The age dependency of hyoid fracture correlated with the degree of ossification or fusion of the hyoid synchondroses. The hyoid was fused in older victims of strangulation (41 ± 12 years) whereas the unfused hyoids were found in the younger victims (28 ± 10 years). In addition, the hyoid bone was ossified or fused in 70% of all fractured hyoids, but, only 30% of the unfractured hyoids were fused. The shape of the hyoid bone was also found to differentiate fractured and unfractured hyoids. Fractured hyoids were longer in the anterior-posterior plane and were more steeply sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids. These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation victims, with and without fracture, are distinguished by various indices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may be possible to explain why some victims of strangulation do not have fractured hyoid bones.' 25. Fractured hyoids were longer in the anterior-posterior plane and were more steeply sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids. These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation victims, with and without fracture, are distinguished by various indices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may be possible to explain why some victims of strangulation do not have fractured hyoid bones.' 25. Mr Rangaramanujam, however, relied upon Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edn. at p. 584 wherein a difference between hanging and strangulation has been stated. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to Point 12 which reads as under: Hanging Strangulation 12 Fracture of the larynx and trachea-Very rare and that too in judicial hanging. Fracture of the larynx and trachea- Often found also hyoid bone (sic fracture) 19. A bare perusal of the opinion of the learned author by itself does not lead to the conclusion that fracture of hyoid bone, is a must in all the cases." 21. No evidence has been adduced in defence to rebut the opinion of Dr. Kapoor as mentioned in the postmortem report and deposed by him before the Court. Opinion of the doctors, if corroborated by ocular evidence, becomes a very important piece of evidence in criminal trial. It is not only an opinion but an expert opinion based on the factual condition of the dead body which could only be disbelieved in a case where cogent and strong grounds of rebuttal by a counter medico legal opinion is produced before the Court. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that any counter medical opinion was sought. We do not find any reason to disbelieve or discard the medico legal opinion of P.W.11 Dr. Rajendra Kapoor. We are in full agreement with the finding of the learned trial court that it was a case of death caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It is not a case of suicide by hanging. 22. Inquest proceedings of the dead body were conducted on 29.10.2006 at 9.30AM which were conducted in front of the house of accused. P.W.1 Ram Ujagar has stated that the deceased has gone to the house of accused on 19.10.2006. He got the information on 27.10.2006 about the illness of the deceased. 22. Inquest proceedings of the dead body were conducted on 29.10.2006 at 9.30AM which were conducted in front of the house of accused. P.W.1 Ram Ujagar has stated that the deceased has gone to the house of accused on 19.10.2006. He got the information on 27.10.2006 about the illness of the deceased. He was informed that his daughter was being treated at Mission Hospital but when he reached there she was not found then he reached to the government hospital but again with no result. When he came back to the house of accused, he found that the dead body lying there. This fact is reiterated by the other prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 Ram Ujagar has stated that Sunita used to go to her in-laws house in holidays as she was working as 'Shiksha Mitra'. P.W. 3 Usha Devi has supported the prosecution version to the extent that deceased was serving as 'Shiksha Mitra' from her parental house. She used to go to her in-laws house in holidays. P.W.5 Chandrawati is Bhabhi of deceased who has also supported the prosecution version to the extent that deceased died in the house of accused. P.W.8 Sursati mother of the deceased has also stated that they were informed by the accused about the illness of deceased. It is also admitted by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that deceased was at his house on the date of occurrence. There was some difference between him and deceased on account of the fact that the deceased was living in her parental house while accused wants that she should live with him. Some altercation took place between them. He left the house and when came back then he put the deceased to floor as she attempted to commit suicide by hanging. 23. Since it is a case based on circumstantial evidence therefore before proceedings further, we would like to discuss the law regarding the standard of proof which is required under law to establish the guilt of the accused persons in such cases. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sk Yusuf v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2011 SC 2283 in para 26 has held as under: "Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sk Yusuf v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2011 SC 2283 in para 26 has held as under: "Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 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." Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has followed its earlier pronouncements in the following cases: "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430 and Wakkar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC 306 ." In the case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (12) SCC 56 , Hon'ble Apex Court following its earlier decision in the case of Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430 observed that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: "(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." Thus though a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but the Court must bear in mind the aforesaid tests while deciding a case involving the commission of a serious offence. 24. In this background, it is relevant to mention Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under: - "106. 24. In this background, it is relevant to mention Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under: - "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 25. Burden lies upon the accused to show as to how deceased died in his house. In order to discharge the burden accused has taken a plea of committing suicide by the deceased by hanging but this plea is falsified by the medical evidence. It means that accused has taken a false defence to save himself. 26. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan (2016)1 SCC 550 that: 15. Elaborating the principle of "last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006)12 SCC 254 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 265, para 23) 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, an additional link which completes the chain. The Principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohmad, AIR 1960 Mad 218 ." 27. The Principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohmad, AIR 1960 Mad 218 ." 27. In case Raviralalaxmaiah v. State of Andra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 ; It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eye-witness account is available, the principle is that: "6......when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete." 28. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80, Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "22.Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." (emphasis supplied) 29. Offence of murder was committed inside the house of the accused. Initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the accused to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The accused cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. Prosecution is not expected to prove impossible. What happened actually inside the house of the appellant was best known to him only. On the date of occurrence, only the husband and wife were inside the house and the wife was found dead. It was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how she died. Accused had offered an explanation of committing suicide by the deceased which is absolutely false. On the date of occurrence, only the husband and wife were inside the house and the wife was found dead. It was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how she died. Accused had offered an explanation of committing suicide by the deceased which is absolutely false. Hence, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime. 30. False defence plea taken by the appellant also provides an additional circumstance against him. Reference may be made on this point to the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhai Mohanbhai Koli Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 11 SCC 111 and Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2000) 5 SCC 7 . 31. Accused has taken false defence which is strong circumstances against him. No doubt, it is not a case of direct evidence wherein direct eye witness account of Commission of the crime is given by the prosecution but it is a case where circumstances are such which gives a conclusive proof about the guilt of the accused. 32. Following circumstances gives irresistible conclusion of the guilt of accused: - (i) Accused and deceased were husband and wife. (ii) Deceased was working as 'Shiksha Mitra' she came to the house of accused on 19.10.2006. (iii) Deceased died in the house of accused on 27.10.2006. (iv) Cause of death was found as strangulation. (v) A false defence was taken by the accused that deceased has committed suicide by hanging. (vi) No article such as rope or dupatta was found which could have been used for hanging by the deceased. (vii) It is not proved that accused has taken the deceased to Mission Hospital or Government Hospital for treatment rather a false story is cooked up to show that deceased was taken there while she was alive. In fact she was dead when she was taken to those two hospitals. 33. In the present case, chain of circumstances is complete which only gives an irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused. 34. Now we come to the second limb of the argument of appellant that it is a case it could be covered under Section 3 04 part I IPC or section 306 IPC. 35. 33. In the present case, chain of circumstances is complete which only gives an irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused. 34. Now we come to the second limb of the argument of appellant that it is a case it could be covered under Section 3 04 part I IPC or section 306 IPC. 35. No single circumstance or mitigating circumstance is on record which could show that the intention of the accused was not to commit the murder of the deceased or the offence was committed under a grave or sudden provocation even if we accept the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. that some altercation took place between him and deceased then he left the house, thereafter, deceased made an attempt to commit suicide by hanging and when he came back then he took her body down to the floor. This statement itself does not inspire confidence. How much time, accused was out of his house is not on record. Further medico legal evidence is fully against the defence of the accused. No sign of hanging were found on the body of the deceased. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it could be accepted that the deceased has committed suicide. Hence, the case of accused neither covered by under section 304 part I IPC nor covered by under section 306 IPC rather it was a preplanned intentional murder. 36. In Raviralalaxmaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 wife was found dead in the house of husband. A false plea of suicide by hanging was taken by the accused who was husband of the deceased. Learned trial court found the charge under Section 3 02 IPC to be proved against the accused and convicted and sentenced him under Section 3 02 IPC for imprisonment for life. Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant had been doubting the chastity of his wife and therefore had adequate motive to eliminate her. He failed to furnish any explanation as to under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. 37. In the present case also theory of suicide has been negated by the learned trial court. He failed to furnish any explanation as to under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. 37. In the present case also theory of suicide has been negated by the learned trial court. No mitigating substance could be shown to infer that it was an act which can be covered under Section 3 04 part I IPC. Hence, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the accused-appellant was guilty of murder of his wife. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302 IPC. Appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Judgment and order of conviction of trial court is hereby confirmed. 38. Accused-appellant Buddhipal Verma is in jail. He shall serve his sentence as imposed by the learned trial court. 39. Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the court concerned and to send back the lower court record to ensure compliance.