JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence held by the Trial Court in S.C.No.67 of 2011 dated 30.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of IPC, thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to pay fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 OF IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and all the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 22.11.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant Thungotappa had gone to Madhugiri Police Station and had filed a written complaint alleging that his daughter Vanajakshi was given in marriage to the accused. Subsequent to her marriage, she had begotten two children namely, Manjunatha aged five years and Indushree aged 1½ years. It transpires that during her marriage, her parents had provided dowry in terms of cash in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, 10 grams of gold chain, a pair of ear studs and a pair of hangings apart from incurring the marriage expenditure. Subsequent to her marriage, the accused and the deceased had led a happy marital life. The accused was said to be working as a Watcher in the Forest Department. In order to get his posting permanent, he was in need of Rs.10,000/-. He started asking his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental home. Since she had refused, he had started tormenting her and picked up a quarrel with her for simple reasons and forcibly sent her to her parental home. He also started physically abusing her. On 13.11.2010, the accused harassed her physically and sent her to her parental home along with her two children. The complainant had in turn advised his daughter and send her back to her matrimonial house. He also started physically abusing her. On 13.11.2010, the accused harassed her physically and sent her to her parental home along with her two children. The complainant had in turn advised his daughter and send her back to her matrimonial house. Vanajakshi had tried to convince her husband saying that within 10 to 15 days the amount of Rs.10,000/- would be adjusted by her father. On 21.11.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., the accused had informed telephonically saying that his daughter Vanajakshi had committed suicide by hanging. After receipt of information about his daughter Vanajakshi, he rushed to Hosahalli. At about 5.30 p.m., he had reached the house of the accused. By the time, he noticed that the accused was not present in the house. As he entered into the house, seeing the dead body of his daughter Vanajakshi he observed that on the left side of her neck, some abrasion wound was there and her dead body was hanging in the kitchen tied with a nylon saree. The accused had spread the news all over the village that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. But however, on seeing the state of the complainant, he was very skeptical about her suicide and believed that she had not committed suicide but must have been killed by her husband. Hence, he lodged a complaint with the police. It is based upon the complaint filed by him the case in Crime No.152/2010 came to be registered by the Madhugiri Police by registering an F.I.R. 3. During investigation, the accused was apprehended and accused No.2 and accused No.4 were also apprehended by the police. Subsequently, investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer who has laid the charge-sheet against the accused nos.1 and 2, who had faced trial for the alleged offences. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused has been recorded wherein the accused who had faced trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution in all examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked Exhibits P- 1 to P-32. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, material objects MO-1 to MO-9 were also got marked. 4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution in all examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked Exhibits P- 1 to P-32. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, material objects MO-1 to MO-9 were also got marked. Subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. The accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far and did not come forward to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. and no document has been got marked. Subsequently, after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution as well as defence counsel, the Trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, had found him guilty and sentenced the accused for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the entire records consisting the evidence of the prosecution and the documents which have been got marked. 6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, “Whether the court below was justified in convicting the accused – appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of IPC by its judgment in S.C.No.67 of 2011 dated 30.06.2012?” 7. PW-1 being the complainant and also being the father of the deceased, he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint that his daughter Vanajakshi was given in marriage to the accused. Subsequent to her marriage, she gave birth to two children namely Manjunatha and Indushree. During her marriage with the accused, dowry in terms of cash of Rs.10,000/- and some gold ornaments were given. The accused was working as a Watcher in the Forest Department and he was in need of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to get the said post permanent. So he started demanding his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental home and in the process, started extending physical as well as mental harassment to her. The complainant had given an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the accused and had told that he would arrange another Rs.5,000/- in a few days. So he started demanding his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental home and in the process, started extending physical as well as mental harassment to her. The complainant had given an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the accused and had told that he would arrange another Rs.5,000/- in a few days. But the accused was persistent and he again sent his wife Vanajakshi to her parental home to bring the said amount. However, the complainant had pacified his daughter and had sent her back to her matrimonial home saying that he will arrange for the remaining amount shortly. In the meanwhile, he received a telephonic message that his daughter had committed suicide. On receipt of information the complainant went to the house of his daughter but her husband was not found in the house. On seeing the dead body, it was found that she must not have committed suicide by hanging. Therefore, he filed a complaint as per Exhibit P-1. The same has been reiterated in his evidence for the prosecution. 8. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that in the complaint, he had subscribed his signature only and he did not know writing. He gave Rs. 10,000/- in terms of dowry to the accused. But he had no documents in his possession to prove that he provided cash and gold chain of 10 grams to the accused. He has denied the suggestion made to him that he did not know how his daughter Vanajakshi died. When he saw the dead body it was found that she was not wearing bangles. The broken bangles of the deceased Vanajakshi was found in the house. He has denied the suggestion made to him that they did not permit to see the children of Vanajakshi but the accused did not come to his house to see his children. He has denied. He has given a supplementary statement before the police denying the suggestion made to him that he gave supplementary statement on 28.12.2012 has angered about the accused and also given a complaint which has angered the accused. P.W.2 Ranganatha, the son of Thungotappa, Vanajakshi was the second sister to him. He has deposed that her marriage with this accused was performed about five years back in the Anjaneya temple of his village. During her marriage with the accused, cash in a sum of Rs. P.W.2 Ranganatha, the son of Thungotappa, Vanajakshi was the second sister to him. He has deposed that her marriage with this accused was performed about five years back in the Anjaneya temple of his village. During her marriage with the accused, cash in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, gold chain has been provided weighing 10 grams. This first accused was pestering Vanajakshi to bring sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parental house. The same has been briefed to them when she used to come to their house. On receipt of information about her death he went to Hosahalli village and saw the dead body of Vanajakshi which was lying in his house. His father and all his relatives had also come there from their village. He got information that accused was also weeping over the death of his wife. He noticed some injuries on the left neck of Vanajakshi and abrasion wound and also found some broken bangles in the house. The accused was not present in Hosahalli Village. He came to know that a complaint has been given to the police that Vanajakshi had committed suicide. It is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness that he did not know whether Vanajakshi made an attempt to fall into the well as she was suffering from stomach ache. He has denied that his sister Vanajakshi had died by hanging as she could not tolerate her stomach pain and he has denied that the accused is not cause for the death of the deceased. P.W.5, Doctor Savitha has stated in her evidence that she conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of Vanajakshi and issued P.M report as per Ex.P.11. She has opined that the cause of death may be due to compressing caused to her neck. It is elicited in the crossexamination that she has denied the suggestion that death would have been caused by hanging and she did not give proper information as to the cause of the death of the deceased. Once she had seen the dead body of Vanajakshi and opined that she did not notice any symptoms about death caused by hanging. But all the features as to the neck having been compressed by pressing as a result of which that death might have occurred, was present. Once she had seen the dead body of Vanajakshi and opined that she did not notice any symptoms about death caused by hanging. But all the features as to the neck having been compressed by pressing as a result of which that death might have occurred, was present. P.W.7, Govindaiah has stated in his evidence that the dead body of Vanajakshi was found in the house of the accused in Hosahalli village. He was one of the mahazar witnesses in respect of the inquest held by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Magistrate over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.2 wherein he has subscribed his signature. He has deposed that on the left side of her neck there was an abrasion wound and also he had noticed that bangle pieces were lying in the scene of crime. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he has denied the suggestion that he has subscribed his signature in the police station but had told that he had subscribed his signature where the inquest was held over the dead body. He had deposed that he had seen the dead body lying on the floor and there was no mark found in saree which was used to hang herself. P.W.10 being the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that the belongings of the deceased including saree and ornaments were produced by the police constable and the same had been seized by conducting a mahazar. On 02.12.2010 he secured the post-mortem report from the doctor. On the same day he recorded the statements of Nagarajappa, Lakkamma, Rangappa and Kenchappa. He had conducted seizure mahazar of the clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P.24 and had recorded the voluntary statement of the first accused as per Ex.P.25 to which he had subscribed his signatures. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he did not lead any enquiry about the accused having insisted to provide a sum of Rs.10,000/- to get a permanent posting of the post of watcher which he held in the forest department. He has denied the accused has not given any voluntary statement and also he did not record the statement of any witnesses. He further denied that he has laid false charge sheet against the accused in order to suit the purpose. 9. He has denied the accused has not given any voluntary statement and also he did not record the statement of any witnesses. He further denied that he has laid false charge sheet against the accused in order to suit the purpose. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far to prove the guilt of the accused wherein the evidence of P.W-1 being vital in nature as he being the complainant and also father of deceased Vanajakshi wherein he has stated in his evidence that he had given dowry during the marriage of the deceased Vanajakshi as per the demand made by the accused. But subsequent to her marriage with him, i.e., after four years the accused is alleged to have begun to give harassment to her to bring additional dowry. But when she did not heed to his request that he is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi. P.W-2 being the brother of the deceased has spoken about the demand of dowry made by the accused during his sister’s marriage which was provided. And also the fact that after some years of the marriage of the deceased with him he began to give harassment to bring additional dowry from her parental house. P.W-3 who being the neighbor of P.W.1 had stated that he attended the marriage talks of the deceased and also stated that at the time of her marriage talks, the parents of the accused had demanded dowry. But no circumstance is placed by the prosecution against the accused that he was the perpetrator of the crime. Further, no evidence is forthcoming for the prosecution to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and also as regards the accused screening the evidence to escape from legal punishment. Whereas the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence relating to the charges which were levelled against the accused. Neither has any witness for the prosecution spoken about any strong circumstances to prove the charge against the accused to commit the murder of his wife Vanajakshi nor is there any material evidence placed by the prosecution in support of strong circumstantial evidence despite of which Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. It is contrary to the evidence on record and also the principles governing criminal jurisprudence relating to the charges levelled against the accused to prove the facts where the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material available on record such as the evidence placed before the Court for the offences alleged against the accused to commit the murder of his wife and also insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parental home. Though the incriminating statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded but not a single incriminating material evidence against the accused has been placed by the prosecution. Absolutely no evidence has been put forth by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid demand of dowry and also facts relating to the accused having committed murder of the deceased by strangulating her. The charge has been framed against the accused that on 22.11.2010 while the appellant being the first accused was present in the house that he had strangulated the neck of the deceased and committed the murder of his wife. But there is no evidence placed by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused that he was present in the house nor is there any evidence that all the accused were present in the house. Under these circumstances, without any basis of evidence against this accused the Trial Court has held that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder of his wife. The Trial judge has relied upon the voluntary statement of appellant-accused no.1. Moreover, it is settled principles of criminal jurisprudence relating to voluntary statement given by the accused before the Investigating Officer. In that, voluntary statement has to be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act relating to recovery and discovery. The rest of the portions of the statement said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer is inadmissible. This aspect is required to be appreciated in this appeal keeping in view the evidence of the witnesses such as P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 who are material witnesses for the prosecution. Whereas in this case there is no motive established by the prosecution as there is no overt act attributed against this accused to establish the motive to commit the murder of his wife. Whereas in this case there is no motive established by the prosecution as there is no overt act attributed against this accused to establish the motive to commit the murder of his wife. There is no single circumstance relating to the case established by the prosecution against the accused as this circumstance is also very much required to be appreciated on record with the evidence available. But the Trial Judge has misdirected the evidence adduced by the prosecution and so also misread the evidence relating to the charges levelled against the accused. The learned counsel hence submits that there is not even semblance of evidence to remotely connect the accused with the incident in question for having committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi. On that count alone the impugned judgment of conviction is required to be interfered with and is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has taken us through the evidence of P.W-5, the Doctor who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Vanajakshi and issued a PM report as per Exhibit P.11, wherein the Doctor has opined that cause of death could be due to compressing her neck. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W-1 as per Exhibit P-1, the crime came to be registered. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that it is purely a case of murder which has been framed by the accused into a case of suicide in order to escape from legal punishment. The post mortem report issued by the Doctor clearly reveals the fact that the neck of the deceased was compressed, which would not have been the case if in fact she had strangulated herself by means of a synthetic saree. Strangulation by means of a synthetic saree would give rise to ligature marks on just the particular portion of the neck where the pressure is applied, which is not the case in the present case on hand. Instead of just ligature marks being visible, the doctor has noticed that the left side of her neck had been compressed which has been the reason for her death. Moreover, bruises were noticed on that part of the neck. Instead of just ligature marks being visible, the doctor has noticed that the left side of her neck had been compressed which has been the reason for her death. Moreover, bruises were noticed on that part of the neck. Only in case of injury by means of physical attack, bruises are expected to be noticed. If really she had strangulated herself, only ligature marks are expected to be noticed externally and not bruises. It clearly reveals that after murdering her by compressing her neck by some means, the accused had proceeded to hang her to the top of the ceiling using a synthetic saree. It is also seen that the ceiling was about seven feet from the ground. There is no evidence that there was any stool present in the said room which was used by her to hang herself. In the absence of any stool or ladder to reach the ceiling, tying the knot and strangulating herself is an impossibility. Hence, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court does not call for any interference. 11. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, it is relevant to state a few facts for the purpose of deciding the case. On 22.11.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., a complaint came to be filed by P.W-1 being the father of the deceased. It is based upon the complaint an FIR has been registered by the police as per Ex.P.29. In his complaint he has specifically stated that his daughter Vanajakshi was given in marriage to the appellant-accused and during her marriage that he has provided cash in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and also gold chain in the form of dowry. Subsequent to her marriage, the accused and the deceased had led a happy marital life and gave birth to two children namely, Manjunath and Indushree. The accused was said to be working as a Watcher in the Forest Department. In order to get his posting permanent, he was in need of Rs.10,000/-. He started asking his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental home. The accused was said to be working as a Watcher in the Forest Department. In order to get his posting permanent, he was in need of Rs.10,000/-. He started asking his wife Vanajakshi to bring the said amount from her parental home. Since she had refused, he had started tormenting her and picked up a quarrel with her for simple reasons and forcibly sent her to her parental home. He also started physically abusing her. He had also sent her to her parental home along with her two children. The complainant had in turn advised his daughter and send her back to her matrimonial house. Vanajakshi had tried to convince her husband saying that within 10 to 15 days the amount of Rs.10,000/- would be adjusted by her father. This fact is evident in the complaint at Exhibit P-1. The averments made in the complaint corroborates with the evidence of P.W-2 being the brother of the deceased. Inquest had been held over the dead body of deceased Vanajakshi and an inquest report had been issued as per Ex.P.23. On seeing the averments made in the inquest report and also the photos at Ex.P.30 and P.31 relating to the scene of crime PW-2 had depose that there was some suspicion about the death of his sister Vanajakshi and that the accused might have committed the murder of his sister. It is also evident from the deposition of PW-2 that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the very day of her death, which fact had been gathered from the neighbours. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner who being the Executive Magistrate who had held inquest over the dead body has observed that broken bangle pieces were lying at the scene of crime. The same is also revealed in the mahazar. Therefore it fortifies that there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased as a result of which her bangles had broken and were lying at the scene of crime. Further, it is impossible to believe that the deceased Vanajakshi herself has committed suicide by hanging with means of a saree as the ceiling from where the dead body of Vanajakshi hung was 7 feet high, which would make it impossible for her to have hung herself from such a height without even the presence of a stool or a ladder for the said purpose. Therefore, if she had committed suicide certainly there would have been ligature marks caused due to the force with which the saree had pressed her neck. But nothing of that sort has been found. Instead, it revealed that there were bruises on the left side of the neck. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body has given evidence before the Court that the death has not been caused by hanging but it has been caused by forcible compression caused over the neck. Hence, it is the first accused who had committed the murder of deceased Vanajakshi by compressing her neck and in order to escape from the clutches of law he has created a theory that she herself has committed suicide. The averments made in the voluntary statement as per Ex.P.25 said to be given by the accused and also the evidence which has been given by the prosecution witnesses tally with each other which proves the fact that it was the accused who alone committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses there may be some contradiction. Such omission and contradiction however will not cut the root of the prosecution and destroy the case of the prosecution in entirety. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 being the Investigating Officer who has done the entire investigation for the prosecution and laid the charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by placing cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probabalize that he committed the murder of his wife Vanajakshi by compressing her neck and further destroyed the evidence by making everybody believe that Vanajakshi had committed suicide herself. Therefore, in this appeal, we do not find any infirmity or perversity committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and findings in this appeal, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any justifiable grounds for intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held by the Trial Court against the accused. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and findings in this appeal, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any justifiable grounds for intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held by the Trial Court against the accused. The point framed in this appeal is answered in positive and the appeal filed by the appellant – accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri, in S.C. No. 67 of 2011 dated 30.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the IPC is hereby confirmed.