JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Anowar Hussain has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Samina Begum, aged about 20 years. She was wife of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, Samina Begum was married to appellant 2/3 years prior to the date of incident. They both used to live together in village Kurshapakhri part II, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Lakhipur, District Goalpara. And the appellant has been torturing her both physically and mentally. On 22.10.2010, he finally throttled her to death in his house. Md. Akbar Ali (PW-1) carried the dead body of Samina to Police Station Lakhipur and made ejahar exhibit 1, which was recorded as First Information Report. In the ejahar, Akbar Ali stated that he was grand-father of Samina and appellant had beaten her to death. The Police made inquest report exhibit 2 on the dead body of Samina at Police Station itself. Akbar Ali (PW-1), Barek Ali (PW-3) and Sukum Ali (PW-4) are witnesses to the inquest report. The police then sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 4. On 23.10.2010, Dr. Madhab Kumar Rahang (PW-8) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Samina and found the following injuries:- i. Bleeding from both ears ii. Tongue was protruded iii. Multiple petechial haemorrhage in eyes and face iv. Crescentic abrasions on both sides of neck v. Bruising and eccymosis in front of both sides of neck (finger marks) vi. Tear of larynx and muscles in front and side of the neck vii. Laceration of larynx viii. Both lungs were engorged and congested ix. Right heart was distended with blood while left was empty x. Petechial hemorrhages in liver, spleen and kidneys. 5. The doctor having regard to the injuries found on the dead body, opined that they were ante mortem in nature and cause of death of Samina was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling which was homicidal in nature. 6. The investigating Officer Anowar Hussain (PW-7) arrested the appellant on 24.10.2010. 7. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. His defence was that Samina died in the hospital due to illness. 8. 6. The investigating Officer Anowar Hussain (PW-7) arrested the appellant on 24.10.2010. 7. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. His defence was that Samina died in the hospital due to illness. 8. The trial court mainly relying upon the post mortem examination report and also considering the fact that no plausible explanation was given by the appellant regarding the homicidal death of Samina convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. As seen above, Akbar Ali (PW-1) not only carried the dead body of Samina to the Police Station, he also made the ejahar alleging that appellant had tortured her to death. And at the Police Station itself, Investigating Officer Anowar Hussain (PW-7) made inquest report exhibit 2 on the dead body, which even bearsthe signatures of Akbar Ali (PW-1), Barek Ali (PW-3) and Sukum Ali (PW-4). But during the trial, all these witnesses changed their versions and deposed that Samina died in the hospital due to illness. This, perhaps, they did because of their relations with the appellant. Similar is the evidence of Dilbar Hussain (PW-5) and Mustt. Moimma Beuwa (PW-6). They too have testified that Samina died in the hospital due to illness. But, no record of any hospital was produced in defence by the appellant to even suggest that Samina died in the hospital due to illness. On the contrary, post mortem examination report of Dr. Madhab Kumar Rahang (PW-8) completely falsifies the defence of appellant that Samina died due to illness. Not only this, Anowar Hussain (PW-7) has categorically testified that inquest report on the dead body of Samina was made at the Police Station, which bears the signatures of Akbar Ali, Barek Ali and Sukum Ali. These witnesses have not denied their signatures in the inquest report. Had Samina died in the hospital due to illness, there was no occasion for Akbar Ali, Barek Ali and Sukum Ali to carry her dead body to the Police Station. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation 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. In this case, the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband 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 house where the husband also normally resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 11. The appellant has not disputed that at the time of incident Samina lived with him in the same dwelling house. Samina died due to throttling and her death was homicidal in nature. She also had injuries around her neck, apart from other injuries. No plausible explanation has been given by the appellant regarding her homicidal death. He has also not been able to produce even iota of evidence that she was suffering from any illness or died in the hospital due to illness. 12. We therefore find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.