JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased Latha and the accused were in love with each other. Thereafter, the parents of both the deceased and accused consented for their marriage and their marriage was solemnized 10 months prior to her death in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru. Thereafter, the accused started to ill-treat her stating that she was not good looking woman and if she dies, he would marry with another lady and subjected her to both mental and physical harassment by ill-treating and assaulting her and sent her back to her parent’s house to bring money. At that time, the complainant gave gold ornaments worth 15 grams and thereafter, the accused shifted his residence from Baddihalli to Oorukere village and started to lead their matrimonial life. There also, the accused started to harass her both mentally and physically. On 22.10.2010, in between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and committed her murder by strangulating her neck manually. Based on the complaint lodged by Smt. Savithramma (PW.1), the mother of the deceased on 22.10.2010 at 8.30 p.m., the respondent police registered a case in crime No.331/2010 initially for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. On receipt of the postmortem report and opinion from the doctor, and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections-498-A, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, marked 15 documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.15. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-498-A and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Shri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was a love marriage and hence, question of he subjecting the deceased for mental and physical harassment does not arise. Secondly, he contended that since there was no independent eye-witnesses to incident and as, on the date and time of the death of the deceased, the accused was not at all present in the house, the prosecution has not established the chain of circumstances to implicate the accused-appellant in the alleged murder of the deceased. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and misdirected itself in convicting the accused. There is no material evidence to indicate that the accused had committed the offences alleged against him and that the statements of the witnesses cannot be believed, as they are all close relatives of the deceased. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends that evidence of Smt. Savithramma (PW.1), the mother of the deceased, Renukaprasad (PW.8), elder brother of the deceased, Manjula (PW.4), Manjanna (PW.5), Palaksha (PW.6), Ramakrishna (PW.7) who have clearly narrated the manner in which the accused subjected the deceased Latha to both mental and physical harassment. The evidence of the relatives of the deceased, coupled with the medical evidence amply proves the guilt of the accused. He submits that in view of the substantial material evidence led in by the prosecution, no fault could find in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and hence, he pleads for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State and examined the records. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels and in view of the above mentioned rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in accepting the medical evidence alone to arrive at a conclusion of convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC., in the absence of eyewitness to the incident?” 7. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and complainant PW.2 is the owner of the house where the accused and the deceased were residing. PW 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are the relatives of the deceased. PW8 is the brother of the deceased. PW.10 is the doctor who conducted postmortem report over the dead body of deceased Latha. PW.11 is the engineer who prepared sketch in respect of scene of appearance. PW.12 and 14 are the police personnel who conducted the investigation of the case. PW.13 is the Taluk Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest Mahazar over the dead body of the deceased. 8. Smt. Savithramma (PW.1) who is the mother of the deceased and the complainant, lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. She has stated in her evidence that the accused and her daughter were in love with each other and hence, their marriage was performed 10 months prior to her death in the office of the Sub Registrar, Tumakuru. Thereafter the deceased Latha used to inform her that the accused subjecting her both mental and physical harassment stating that she was not looking fair and if she dies, he would get marriage with another lady. Hence, she gave gold ornaments worth 15 grams and also lodged complaint to Kyathsandra Police about the ill treatment meted out to her daughter as per Ex.P. 4 who in turn advised the accused to look after her daughter Latha in a proper manner. Thereafter the accused shifted his house to Urukere Village and started to live there. There also, he used to assault her and same has been informed to her by her daughter through phone and in that regard Palaksha, Krishnappa, Jagganna, Manjula and the complainant visited the house of the accused and advised him not to give torture to her daughter. On 22.10.2010 at about 4.30-5.00 p.m., the accused himself informed her over phone that her daughter Latha died in his house. Immediately, she and other relatives went to the house of the accused and saw that her daughter Latha’s dead body lying on the mat and at that time accused was not present in the house. Suspecting that some foul has been played by accused, she lodged complaint at 7.30 p.m. on the same date. Immediately, she and other relatives went to the house of the accused and saw that her daughter Latha’s dead body lying on the mat and at that time accused was not present in the house. Suspecting that some foul has been played by accused, she lodged complaint at 7.30 p.m. on the same date. She has further deposed that subsequently she discovered a death note written by her deceased daughter Latha beneath the aluminum container and the same has been handed over to the police who seized the same as per Ex.P.3. In that note, her daughter has written that the accused alone is responsible for her death. The earlier complaint lodged by the deceased to Kyathsandra Police against the accused, about the ill treatment given by the accused also got marked through this witness as per Ex.P.4. Sri. Jagannatha (PW.3), Manjula (PW.4), Palaksha (PW.6), Renuka Prasad (PW.8), H.M. Kumar (PW.9) are all the close relatives of the deceased Latha. They also categorically deposed that the accused who had addicted to bad habits like playing cards, drinking alcohol and cigarettes and used to give torture to deceased Latha stating that she is not a fair looking girl and if she dies, it would be helpful for him to get marriage with some other lady. On the date of the incident, after receipt of the information about the death of Latha they went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of Latha was lying on the mat in the house of the accused. During the course of inquest mahazar also, they narrated the facts before the Taluk Executive Magistrate stating that the accused, right from the date of marriage with the deceased, used to abuse and assault her stating that she was not a fair looking lady and if she dies, he would marry with another lady. The evidence of all these witnesses corroborate with each other on all material aspects. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examinations to discard their evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section-498-A of IPC. Thus, it takes us to the main question as to whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC., in the absence of eyewitness to the incident?. 9. Dr. Thus, it takes us to the main question as to whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC., in the absence of eyewitness to the incident?. 9. Dr. N. Rudramurthy (PW.10) who conducted post mortem over the dead body of deceased Latha has noticed the following injuries: 1. Contusion measuring 9 cms X 3.6 cms present over right side of neck, obloquy placed running upwards. 2. Contusion measuring 10 cms X 3 cms present over left side of neck obloquy running upwards. The doctor has opined that all the injuries are ante mortem and fresh in nature and the death was between twelve hours to twenty four hours prior to post mortem examination. Further, he has stated that on dissection of neck it was observed that blood extravagation seen into muscles of neck bilaterally below injuries diffusely. He opined that death is due to Asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. In his deposition he has categorically stated that the external injuries and internal injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Latha could be caused if a person strangulates the neck and that as per his opinion it was a case of murder. Accordingly he had issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.8. In the cross-examination, while answering to the suggestion made by the counsel for the accused, the doctor has categorically stated that there was an abrasion wound in the form of circle found on the neck of the deceased and such wound could be caused while compressing the neck by using hands. He has further stated that if a neck is forcibly compressed by using hands, death of such person could be caused. Hence, the medical evidence clearly indicates that the death of the deceased Latha was not a suicide, but it was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. 10. The contention of the learned counsel that, as the accused was not present in the house at the time of death of his wife Latha, he has no role in the death of Latha, could not be accepted for the simple reason, the prosecution material clearly reveals that it is the accused and the deceased residing in the house and information about the death of the deceased Latha was given to complainant PW.1 by the accused himself. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn that on the date and time of incident, the accused was very much present in his house it is the accused alone who caused the death of the deceased. Despite having an opportunity to rebut such an inference by adducing evidence or stating in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused has failed to lead such rebuttal evidence, in support of his defence. Hence, we are of the view that there is no substance in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. On careful scrutiny of the death note of the deceased produced at Ex.P.3 and the averments made in the earlier complaint lodged by the deceased herself to Kyathsandra Police as per Ex.P.4 clearly reveals that the accused subjected his wife deceased Latha to both mental and physical torture. The deceased was not an illiterate lady but she was an educated lady. Hence, the Trial Court by comparing the handwriting found on the death note at Ex.P.3 with the hand writing found at Ex.P.4, the earlier written complaint lodged by the deceased against the accused are one and the same. No fault could be found with such finding. 12. Further contention that many of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are related to the deceased and therefore, they are not trustworthy witnesses. It settled principle that if the witnesses are trustworthy, their evidence has to be accepted, even though they are related to the deceased. Having heard the learned counsels, we are of the view that statement of the relatives of the deceased cannot be rejected, merely on the ground that they are related to the deceased. Therefore, their evidence would have to be scrutinized with greater caution. Having considered the evidence of relatives of the deceased, we are of the view that they have truthfully narrated the incident, as it happened. Therefore, their deposition is worthy of credence. Under these circumstances, such a contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 13. The oral evidence of the relatives of the deceased coupled with the medical evidence clearly proves the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these circumstances, we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court calling for interference from this Court. 14. 13. The oral evidence of the relatives of the deceased coupled with the medical evidence clearly proves the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Under these circumstances, we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court calling for interference from this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2001)6 SCC 407 : AIR 2001 SC 2124 to contend that in the absence of medical certification, and in the absence of corroboration of evidence of the relatives, the death note written by deceased Latha as at Ex.P.3 cannot be accepted. We have carefully perused the above judgment. It was a case wherein, the deceased therein died on account of burn injuries and her statement was recorded at the time when she was alive. The facts in the present case are entirely different and hence, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the above case cannot be applicable to the present case. The next judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is in the case of Jose Alial Pappachan vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, (2016) 10 SCC 519 to contend that links in the chain of circumstances has not been established in this case, linking the involvement of the accused in the death of his wife and hence, benefit of doubt be extended to the accused. Here, in this case also, the facts are entirely different from the facts of the present case. That was a case wherein the husband of the deceased strangulated to her death and then hanged her. In the case on hand, there was no such defence taken by the accused and apart from that the medical evidence clearly reveals that death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. In the case on hand, there was no such defence taken by the accused and apart from that the medical evidence clearly reveals that death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. The next citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to by the learned counsel is in the case of Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 12 SCC 588 , to contend that the prosecution has not established the theory of last seen together and that there was no evidence to show that the accused was present in the room at the time of occurrence of the incident. That was a case wherein the death was due to burn injuries and the accused was not present at the time of occurrence. Whereas, in the present case, it is all along case of the prosecution that the accused himself had intimated to the mother of the deceased about the death of his wife and hence, the above judgment is not helpful to the accused, inasmuch as, the facts of the present case are entirely different. Hence, we are of the view that none of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. No doubt there was no eyewitness to speak that it was the accused-husband himself committed the murder of his wife Latha by strangulating her neck manually. The death of deceased did occur within a span of 10 months after her marriage, in the house where the accused and deceased being husband and wife staying together. The relatives of the deceased, in an unequivocal terms have stated about the manner in which the accused subjecting the deceased both mental and physical torture prior to her death. There was an earlier complaint lodged by the deceased herself to the police about the ill-treatment meted to her by the accused. It was not the case of the defence that the accused was not at present in the village on the date of incident. To establish that he was not at all present in the house, he has not adduced any rebuttal evidence either in his statement recorded under Section-313 of Cr.P.C., or during trial. It was not the case of the defence that the accused was not at present in the village on the date of incident. To establish that he was not at all present in the house, he has not adduced any rebuttal evidence either in his statement recorded under Section-313 of Cr.P.C., or during trial. The time of death, as mentioned in the postmortem report is between twelve hours to twenty hours prior to postmortem report. The death was occurred on 22.10.2010 between 3.00pm to 4.00 p.m., and the postmortem was conducted on 23.10.2010 between 12.20 pm to 1.20 p.m. Indisputably, the accused himself intimate to his mother-in-law about the death of the deceased at 4.00 p.m. on 22.10.2010. As noted by the Taluk Executive Magistrate in the inquest report Ex.P.6, one Ramadevi (PW.2) had seen the deceased alive at 4.00 p.m. on 22.10.2010. The medical evidence clearly reveals that the death was on account of strangulation manually. Thus, an inference could be drawn against the accused that he was very much present in his house on the date and time of incident. 16. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record it is seen that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances leading up to the death of the deceased. The oral and documentary evidence on record unerringly point the fingers towards the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no error or perversity committed by the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court are just and proper. There is no perversity in the order of the trial Court. We find no good ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, point for consideration is answered by holding that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC., solely based on the medical evidence and the same cannot be said to be either perverse or that it calls for interference in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2012 and order of sentence dated 14.08.2012, passed by the II Fast Track Court, Tumakuru in S.C. No.59 of 2011 is affirmed.