JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellant - accused has been found guilty of commission of offence under Sections 302, 323,324 of Indian Penal Code & 135 of B.P. Act and has been awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302; R.I for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month under section 323; R.I for one year and six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months under section 324 and fine of Rs. 100/- in default simple imprisonment for seven days under section 135 of B.P. Act by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2010. 2. The gist of the prosecution story is mentioned herein-below:- 2.1 The accused and the deceased were husband and wife and on 01.08.2010 the accused had asked the deceased to wash all the utensils as a part of religious custom pursuant to a death in the family. The deceased refused to do so and threw the utensils outside the bathroom on the floor. The accused got enraged seeing this and took a sickle and inflicted sickle blows on the deceased. The deceased fell down and thereafter the accused throttled her neck thereby killing her. A complaint was lodged by the deceased against the appellant - accused. 2.2 Thereafter the offence was registered against the present appellant. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. 2.3 Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses whose evidences were read before us by learned advocates for both the sides: P.W. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. 2.3 Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses whose evidences were read before us by learned advocates for both the sides: P.W. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Bakul Patel 6 2 Junaidbhai Kureshi 14 3 Nileshkumar Upadhyaya 17 4 Rafikbhai Mansuri 18 5 Mehboobbhai Mansuri 20 6 Rabari varvabhai 21 7 Rameshbhai Senma 26 8 Pravinsinh Thakore 27 9 Rajesh Thakore 31 10 Mansukhbhai Nadiya 32 11 Sunilbhai Nadiya 33 12 Dipikaben Nadiya 34 13 Lakshmiben Nadiya 35 14 Shankarbhai Nadiya 36 15 Vinodbhai Nadiya 37 16 Pradeepkumar Chauhan 38 17 Dineshsinh Rana 40 18 Jayantibhai Senma 41 19 Mahendrasinh Parmar 44 2.4 The prosecution has also relied upon certain documentary evidence such as P.M. Note at Ex. 8, Cause of death certificate at Ex. 9, medical certificate of injured at 10, complaint at Ex. 45, FSL report at Ex. 55 & 57 and the panchnamas etc which have been perused by us. 2.5 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the trial court convicted the appellant of the charges leveled against him by the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that though the case against accused cannot be said to have been proved inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence found against him. He submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence in absence of eye witnesses. He submitted that the two child witnesses who are stated to be eye witnesses have turned hostile. No evidence is produced on record that the accused has committed the alleged offence. He submitted that the turn of events where the eye witnesses turned hostile show that the case against the accused is cooked up. He submitted that the prosecution has no support from the majority of witnesses produced before the trial court. 4. Ms. No evidence is produced on record that the accused has committed the alleged offence. He submitted that the turn of events where the eye witnesses turned hostile show that the case against the accused is cooked up. He submitted that the prosecution has no support from the majority of witnesses produced before the trial court. 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, however, submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining the conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and this court may not interfere in this appeal. It is submitted that the trial court has based the conviction not only on the evidence of the complainant but also considered entire circumstances of the case and the facts which are proved by cogent evidence. Ms. Shah in support of her submissions has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2007) 10 SCC 433 and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 . 5. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant and the State. The main question that falls for our determination in this appeal is as to whether the accused could have been convicted for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 5.1 It is true that majority of witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2 to P.W. 9 are the panch witnesses who have turned hostile. Similarly, P.W. 11 to P.W. 15 who are the children, mother and neighbour of deceased have turned hostile. Though the panchas have turned hostile, the panchnamas have been proved by the Investigating Officer. 5.2 P.W. 10 - Mansukhbhai Nadiya is the father of the deceased and has been examined by the prosecution vide Ex. 32. From the evidence of this witness it is borne out that the deceased had eloped with a relative some two years prior to the alleged incident and had returned around 10-15 days back. It is also borne out that the accused and some other people had killed the deceased by way of sickle. 32. From the evidence of this witness it is borne out that the deceased had eloped with a relative some two years prior to the alleged incident and had returned around 10-15 days back. It is also borne out that the accused and some other people had killed the deceased by way of sickle. 5.3 The investigating officers have supported the case of the prosecution and the panchnamas. The vardhi and the station diary entry reveals that a case regarding quarrel between the accused and deceased and the death of deceased was received by the police. Though majority of witnesses have later on turned hostile, it appears that after the incident, the police was informed about the incident which was reduced to writing in the station diary. 5.4 From the evidence of witnesses, it is not the case that the accused was not present at the house when the alleged incident occurred. Moreover, there was an abrasion on the neck of the accused himself. As per the FSL report blood stains were found from the muddamal weapon. 6. The medical evidence states the cause of death to be asphyxia due to throttling. P.W. 1 - Dr. Bakul Patel is the medical officer who performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased. This witness has stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by way of sickle and by throttling. 6.1 Column No. 17 of the post mortem report mentions the nature of injuries as under: "(1) Incised wound present over dorsal surface of rt. Arm horizontal 2 1/2 cm, 1 cm wide at middle muscle deep. (2) Irregular shaped lacerated wound present at middle of back just below neck 1 cm x 1 cm size (3) lacerated wound present over occipital area of head 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm size. (4) 7 cm long linear abrasion present at front side of neck 9 cm below chin. (5) On right side oblique linear abrasion present starting from 5 cm below pinna of right ear extend back side 11 cm long 0.1 cm wide. (6) 11 cm below pinna of right ear, 3 1/2 cm long, 0.2 cm wide muscle deep wound present. (7) Bruise 4 cm long, 3 1/2 cm wide bluish colour present on right side of neck, 8 cm below pinna of right ear. (6) 11 cm below pinna of right ear, 3 1/2 cm long, 0.2 cm wide muscle deep wound present. (7) Bruise 4 cm long, 3 1/2 cm wide bluish colour present on right side of neck, 8 cm below pinna of right ear. (8) Bruise present at left side of face near madibular region 1/2 cm x 1 cm (9) bruise present at left side of neck 8 cm below pinna of left ear 6 cm long x 4 cm wide." 6.2 Similarly, column No. 19 of the post mortem report mentions a muscle deep lacerated wound over occipital region of head with 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm size. From the medical evidence on record it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was a result of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 7. It is true that the case is based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eye witness. There is no direct evidence implicating the appellant. It is trite that all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. In the present case however the deceased was found dead at the house of the accused and no plausible explanation is coming forth from the 313 statement of the accused as to how the incident in question happened. 7.1 A reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Tamarkar (supra) wherein para 38 reads as under: "38. It was argued that if the respondent intended to kill the deceased, he could have done after 17.07.1996, viz., after Bidai ceremony took place. The very fact that the respondent brought a revolver is itself a pointer to the fact that he wanted to kill the deceased at one point of time or the other. He might have thought that Bidai ceremony would be held on 13.07.1996 or 14.07.1996. When it was postponed, he might have found out an occasion to kill her. Under what circumstances, the occurrence took place is not known. Respondent, it would bear repetition to state, did not open his mouth. He was entitled to exercise the right of silence. He might have thought that Bidai ceremony would be held on 13.07.1996 or 14.07.1996. When it was postponed, he might have found out an occasion to kill her. Under what circumstances, the occurrence took place is not known. Respondent, it would bear repetition to state, did not open his mouth. He was entitled to exercise the right of silence. That he did not offer any explanation itself may not be sufficient to conclusively hold that he was guilty of commission of the offence, but the legal position that the same would be considered to be a circumstance against him is not in dispute." 7.2 Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), para 15 reads as under: "15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house 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 an accused to offer any explanation." 8. Looking to the evidence of witnesses, the panchnama and the post mortem notes, the injuries sustained by the deceased, we are of the considered view that the offence committed by the appellant-accused is quite brutal in nature. It appears from the record that the learned Sessions Judge noticed the vital aspects of the case while holding that the prosecution had proved the actual assault by the appellant-accused. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant-accused and therefore we see no reason to interfere. 9. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs. State of Assam reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373 has held as under: "15. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant-accused and therefore we see no reason to interfere. 9. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs. State of Assam reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373 has held as under: "15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen vs. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh & Others (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. In view of the clear decisions over decades, the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused is unsustainable, at the same time, we are not restricting the power of executive as provided in the Constitution of India. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 10. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2010 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellant may be reviewed by the appropriate authority considering the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah (supra). The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. R & P to be sent back forthwith.