JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2010, whereby the present appellant-original accused No. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months was awarded. Accused No. 1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 316 of IPC and ordered to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months was awarded. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 had married the deceased and they were husband and wife. It is alleged that the deceased used to complain about the ill-treatment given to her by the accused to the complainant. It is also alleged that accused No. 1 was having illicit relation with accused No. 2, who is the sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased. On 24.9.2010, accused No. 1 with the help of accused No. 2 strangulated the deceased and thereby committed her murder. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused with police. 2.1 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 During the trial, the prosecution has examined following witnesses:- S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Ishwarbhai Samantbhai Jgrejiya 9 2. Rajubhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya 12 3. Samantbhai Maganbhai Ugrejiya 13 4. Jitubhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya 14 5. Prabhaben Shankarbhai 15 6. Valubhai Bhalabhai Bharvad 16 7. Ranjitbhai Rameshbhai 18 8. Rakeshbhai Govindbhai Parmar 20 9. Sanjaybhai Ambalal 23 10. Chetanbhai Prabhudas Solanki 26 11. Manishbhai Maheshbhai Shah 27 12. Shardaben Chaturbhai 30 13. Kantibhai Dahyabhai 31 14. Dineshbhai Chhaganbhai 32 15. Ramnikbhai Laljibhai Gondaliya 31 16. Lakhabhai Vashrambhai 36 17. Dr. Vaishakhiben Yashvantray Shukla 37 18. Amrutbhai Joitaram Patel 41 19. Chandrashankar Dungarrav Jadav, PSO 44 20. Rakeshbhai Govindbhai Parmar 20 9. Sanjaybhai Ambalal 23 10. Chetanbhai Prabhudas Solanki 26 11. Manishbhai Maheshbhai Shah 27 12. Shardaben Chaturbhai 30 13. Kantibhai Dahyabhai 31 14. Dineshbhai Chhaganbhai 32 15. Ramnikbhai Laljibhai Gondaliya 31 16. Lakhabhai Vashrambhai 36 17. Dr. Vaishakhiben Yashvantray Shukla 37 18. Amrutbhai Joitaram Patel 41 19. Chandrashankar Dungarrav Jadav, PSO 44 20. Arvindbhai Dhanjibhai Jasodiya 47 S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Ishwarbhai Samantbhai Jgrejiya 9 2. Rajubhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya 12 3. Samantbhai Maganbhai Ugrejiya 13 4. Jitubhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya 14 5. Prabhaben Shankarbhai 15 6. Valubhai Bhalabhai Bharvad 16 7. Ranjitbhai Rameshbhai 18 8. Rakeshbhai Govindbhai Parmar 20 9. Sanjaybhai Ambalal 23 10. Chetanbhai Prabhudas Solanki 26 11. Manishbhai Maheshbhai Shah 27 12. Shardaben Chaturbhai 30 13. Kantibhai Dahyabhai 31 14. Dineshbhai Chhaganbhai 32 15. Ramnikbhai Laljibhai Gondaliya 31 16. Lakhabhai Vashrambhai 36 17. Dr. Vaishakhiben Yashvantray Shukla 37 18. Amrutbhai Joitaram Patel 41 19. Chandrashankar Dungarrav Jadav, PSO 44 20. Arvindbhai Dhanjibhai Jasodiya 47 2.3 The prosecution has also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- S. No. Description Exhibit 1. Complaint 10 2. Receipt of dead body of the deceased 11 3. Panchnama of the place of offence 17 4. Inquest panchnama 19 5. Panchnama of clothes of the deceased 21 6. Panchnama of physical condition of the accused 24 7. Discovery panchnama 28 8. Primary scientific report 34 9. Police yadi 35 10. Post-Mortem report 38 11. Cause of death Certificate 39 12. Police yadi 40 13. Yadi for inquest 42 14. Yadi for registering the offence 43 15. Extract of the station diary 45 16. Yadi for investigation of accidental death 46 17. Letter for sending viscera to FSL 48 18. Forwarding letter for sending viscera 49 19. Receipt of FSL, Surat 50 20. Letter for sending muddamal to FSL, Vadodara 51 21. Dispatch note for sending muddamal to FSL 52 22. Receipt regarding muddamal being received by FSL 53 23. Original viscera report 54 24. Analysis report of FSL 55 25. Yadi regarding note of accident 56 S. No. Description Exhibit 1. Complaint 10 2. Receipt of dead body of the deceased 11 3. Panchnama of the place of offence 17 4. Inquest panchnama 19 5. Panchnama of clothes of the deceased 21 6. Panchnama of physical condition of the accused 24 7. Discovery panchnama 28 8. Primary scientific report 34 9. Police yadi 35 10. Post-Mortem report 38 11. Complaint 10 2. Receipt of dead body of the deceased 11 3. Panchnama of the place of offence 17 4. Inquest panchnama 19 5. Panchnama of clothes of the deceased 21 6. Panchnama of physical condition of the accused 24 7. Discovery panchnama 28 8. Primary scientific report 34 9. Police yadi 35 10. Post-Mortem report 38 11. Cause of death Certificate 39 12. Police yadi 40 13. Yadi for inquest 42 14. Yadi for registering the offence 43 15. Extract of the station diary 45 16. Yadi for investigation of accidental death 46 17. Letter for sending viscera to FSL 48 18. Forwarding letter for sending viscera 49 19. Receipt of FSL, Surat 50 20. Letter for sending muddamal to FSL, Vadodara 51 21. Dispatch note for sending muddamal to FSL 52 22. Receipt regarding muddamal being received by FSL 53 23. Original viscera report 54 24. Analysis report of FSL 55 25. Yadi regarding note of accident 56 2.4 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeal is preferred by the accused before this Court. 3. Mr. Harshad Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-original accused No. 1 has taken us through the evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. He submitted that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances which may prove the guilt of the accused. He also submitted that there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and all panchas as well as neighbours of the deceased have turned hostile and the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused on the basis of such evidence. He further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is believed, the prosecution has failed to prove that strangulation was done by the accused. He further submitted that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution in this regard as the reason of death as per the medical evidence is not strangulation. He further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is believed, the prosecution has failed to prove that strangulation was done by the accused. He further submitted that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution in this regard as the reason of death as per the medical evidence is not strangulation. He also submitted that there is no eye witness to the offence and no one has seen the accused committing the offence. He submitted that there is no substantive piece of evidence and the trial Court could not have convicted present appellant on the basis of the evidence on record. In view of these, he prayed that the appellant may be acquitted from the charges levelled against him and this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the accused is just and proper and he has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. He has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who reached the scene of offence immediately after the incident. He also took us through the evidence of father of the deceased and submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused. He further submitted that marriage span of the accused with the deceased was less than one year, therefore, adverse inference was required to be drawn against him. He also submitted that the complainant and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused. In view of these, he has submitted that the accused is rightly convicted and this Criminal Appeal filed by the accused may be dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP appearing for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to asphyxia because of strangulation. From column No. 17 of the postmortem report, it is clear that there was injury around the neck and it also suggests that the deceased was strangulated. In his evidence, complainant-Ishwarbhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya, PW-1, Exh. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased died due to asphyxia because of strangulation. From column No. 17 of the postmortem report, it is clear that there was injury around the neck and it also suggests that the deceased was strangulated. In his evidence, complainant-Ishwarbhai Samantbhai Ugrejiya, PW-1, Exh. 9 has stated that accused No. 1 and the deceased had got married in March 2010, however, accused No. 1 was not treating her well and he used to beat her. He deposed that when the deceased came to his house, she said that accused No. 1 is beating her. He further deposed that the deceased had also informed that her husband was having illicit relation with a lady. Therefore, this fact was informed to the father of accused No. 1 and they agreed to take the deceased back home. He further deposed that on 24.9.2010 he sent his sister back and on the same day the incident in question had happened. Upon receiving the information about the incident, he went there and upon seeing the dead body of his sister informed the police about the incident. Other brothers and sister of the deceased have also deposed in the same manner and supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that accused No. 1 used to beat the deceased and their relations were not good. Not only that accused No. 1 has not produced any evidence on record to counter the allegations levelled against him. Accused No. 1 has not tendered any explanation as to how and in which manner the incident has happened. Accused No. 1 has failed to tender any explanation to prove that he was innocent and he was not involved in the offence. Considering all these circumstances of the case, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , wherein it is observed as under:- "16. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said 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. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 17. 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 placed 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. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." 6. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." 6. In the present case also, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is clear that the deceased was ill-treated by accused No. 1. It is also proved that accused No. 1 had brought the deceased back from her parental home on the same day when the incident had happened. When the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the crime alleged against him and this appeal is required to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2010, convicting the appellant herein-accused No. 1, is hereby confirmed. So far as sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, we make it clear that life imprisonment means imprisonment for 20 years and accused No. 1 may be released after completion of imprisonment of 20 years. Remaining part of the impugned judgment shall remain unaltered. The period of sentence already undergone by accused No. 1 be given set off to him. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the Court below forthwith.