JUDGMENT N. Sathish Kumar, J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.03.2008, made in S.C.No.171 of 1997, on the file of the learned Mahila Judge, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (i) The deceased is the wife of the first accused. PW.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Marriage between the first accused and deceased took place on 25.05.2005. At the time of marriage, eight sovereigns of gold jewelries were given. After the marriage, the first accused and deceased were living separately in Vellanore. The deceased was seven months pregnant. After marriage, the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- as dowry from the parents of the deceased. However, P.W.1 and P.W.2 pacified the accused and his family members. On 04.03.2017 at about 04.00p.m., P.W.1 and P.W.2 were informed through phone that their daughter died. Immediately P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the spot and thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1. On the date of occurrence, PW.3, who is the sister of the deceased and P.W.10, who is running a Social Welfare Organisation, went to the house of the deceased and they saw the first accused trying to kill the deceased. Hearing the sound, the first accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.10 reported the same to P.W.2-the mother of the deceased. P.W.6, who is the brother of the first accused, on information reached the house of the deceased. The first accused informed that the deceased fell unconscious and died. P.W.21, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, received the complaint Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.208 of 2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and forwarded the same to the Court. P.W.14, who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body and recorded the statements of witnesses and filed Ex.P.6 stating that the deceased died due to dowry harassment. P.W.22-the Deputy Superintendent of Police, conducted an investigation and prepared observation mahazhar, Ex.P.17 and rough sketch, Ex.P.15. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed final report for the offences under Sections 498(A), 302, 306 r/w.109 of IPC and P.W.22 and he arrested the accused 05.03.2007 and thereafter, the offence was altered into 304 (ii) of IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P.16. After completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed final report for the offences under Sections 498(A), 302, 306 r/w.109 of IPC and P.W.22 and he arrested the accused 05.03.2007 and thereafter, the offence was altered into 304 (ii) of IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P.16. 2(ii) P.W.15 - Doctor A.Rajukmar attached to the Government Hospital, Lalkudi, conducted autopsy over the dead body and found the following injuries : "Finger and toe nails- intact and cyanosed. Blood discharge from the nostrils and mouth present. Genital examination - Hymen- Old tear Present, no fresh wound, No discharge present. Signs of decomposition; Post Mortem peeling of skin and Post mortem blebs present on the front of both sides of the chest. Marling of skin on the front of the chest, front of both upper limbst, front of abdomen and front of both thigh. Wounds: (1) face suffused (2) Bruising of lips-Dark red. (3) contusion on the front and sides of neck- dark red. On Bloodless dissection of neck- Bruising of the soft tissues of neck- Dark Red. Diffusion of blood into the soft tissues present. Fracture of lamina of thyroid cartilage and both sides vertically and fracture of other laryngeal cartilages present. Haemorrhagic spots on the mucous membrane of upper part of wind pipe present. Hyoid bone is intact. The above mentioned wounds are ante mortem in nature. 4. Anti bite marks : On the front of left side of the chest, front of left elbow, front of inner aspect of left thigh.O/E Base is pale, edges are irregular - Post mortem in nature. Other Findings : Peritoneum- intact, cavity- empty, pleura-intact, cavity- empty, Pericardium- intact, cavity - Straw colour liquid, Heart- Flabby, chambers- empty, Lungs-decomposed, Larynx, Trachea- vide wound column, Hyoid bone- intact, stomach- contains undigested cooked rice partials, no specific smell, Mucosa-decomposed, Oesophagus- intact, Mucosa- decomposed, pancreas- decomposed, liver, spleen and Kidneys- decomposed, Omentum and Messentry- intact, Small intestine - yellowish , Chyme- so specific smell, mucosa- decomposed, Appendix-decomposed, Large intestine- filled with gas, Urinary bladder- intact and empty, Uterus - Enlarged, size 24cm x23camx7cm,c/s. cavity contains 7 months old dead male foetus , length-33 cm. Head circumference - 23 cm, Pelvis-intact, Scalp,Skull bones and Membranes- intact, Brain -pulpy, Vertebral Column and cord- intact. All other internal organs on c/s. decomposed. Opinion as to the cause of death "RESERVED" During Autopsy, viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Head circumference - 23 cm, Pelvis-intact, Scalp,Skull bones and Membranes- intact, Brain -pulpy, Vertebral Column and cord- intact. All other internal organs on c/s. decomposed. Opinion as to the cause of death "RESERVED" During Autopsy, viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis. On conclusion of the Post-mortem, he issued the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P.11) 2(iii). Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 22 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.22 and marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and material objects M.O.1 to 12 and on the side of the accused, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3, 1 document marked as Ex.D.1. Based on the evidence and materials, the Trial Court has found the appellant/first accused guilty under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the trial court acquitted the appellant/first accused for the offences under Sections 498(A), 302 r/w.109 & 316 r/w.109 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the first accused is before this Court. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws 1 to 3 are the father, mother and the sister of the deceased. Their evidence is highly unbelievable and unreliable. Their presence itself is doubted. P.W.s 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 22 were turned hostile. Further, there are certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidences relied on by the prosecution. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He prayed for acquittal of the accused. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused and deceased lived in the same house. Homicidal death has been clearly established on record. Prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials carefully. 6. The deceased is the wife of the first accused. The first accused and deceased got married on 25.05.2005. At the time of death, she was seven months pregnant. The accused and the deceased are residing separately in the house of the first accused after the marriage. 6. The deceased is the wife of the first accused. The first accused and deceased got married on 25.05.2005. At the time of death, she was seven months pregnant. The accused and the deceased are residing separately in the house of the first accused after the marriage. P.W.1 and P.W.2-the parents of the deceased have clearly spoken that after the marriage, the first accused used to demand dowry and caused cruelty to the deceased. When the matter stood thus, on 04.03.2007, they received an information that their daughter died and immediately they rushed to the house and found their daughter dead. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1, on the basis of which, a case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. These facts are not in dispute. 7. The Medical evidence and Post-mortem Certificate would clearly establish the fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence and in fact, the deceased died out of compression of the neck. P.W.10, though claims to be eye witness. After witnessing such occurrence, she has not informed the same to the family members. According to her, she has informed the same to P.W.3. Such evidence is highly improbable. The trial court highly disbelieved the evidence of PW.3. 8. It is not the case of the accused that he was residing somewhere else and the deceased alone was residing in the house. Admittedly, the deceased died in the dwelling house, where the first accused and deceased were residing. These facts have been clearly established on record. Thus, the entire burden lies on the appellant to come out with an explanation on those facts, which are exclusively within her knowledge as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. 9. Though the appellant has taken stand in his 313 Cr.P.c questioning that he left the house in the morning and he has returned in the evening after his work and when he returned home he found his wife dead, such reason is imaginary for the simple reason that he has taken a different stand during cross-examination in this regard. During cross examination, his stand was that the deceased suffered epilepsy and she was hit against wall and died even P.W.6-own brother of the accused has also stated appellant informed him that deceased fell down unconscious and died. Therefore explanation of the appellant in 313 Cr.P.C nothing but false. 10. During cross examination, his stand was that the deceased suffered epilepsy and she was hit against wall and died even P.W.6-own brother of the accused has also stated appellant informed him that deceased fell down unconscious and died. Therefore explanation of the appellant in 313 Cr.P.C nothing but false. 10. It is also to be noted that the conduct of the accused in this case assumes significance. When he found his wife lying dead, the immediate conduct would be to take some steps to take her to hospital or inform the same to the parents. But he has not taken any steps in this regard, but, he remained silent claiming himself to be innocent. The above conduct also would go against him under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. The trial court though convicted the accused under Section 304(ii) of IPC has not considered any materials to find out how the act of appellant would fall within the ambit of Section 299 of IPC. The trial court simply convicted the accused under section 304(ii) of IPC without any materials. On the other hand, homicidal violence has been clearly established on record. When the explanation of the accused found false and when his wife died out of homicidal death in the dwelling house, circumstances clearly proves that he is a real culprit and committed homicidal violence and caused death. That being the position, the trial court has simply awarded lesser punishment under Section 304(ii) of IPC without any legal basis. However, this Court do not want to interfere with the findings given by the trial court since no appeal is filed by the State Government challenging the findings of enhancing the sentence. 12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence imposed on the accused to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, by the learned Mahila Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C No. 171 of 1997, dated 20.03.2008, are, hereby, confirmed. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused viz., Napolean, aged about 30 years, S/o. Abraham, Mathakoil Street, Vellanore Lalkudi, Trichy, to custody, to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, by the learned Mahila Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C No. 171 of 1997, dated 20.03.2008, are, hereby, confirmed. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused viz., Napolean, aged about 30 years, S/o. Abraham, Mathakoil Street, Vellanore Lalkudi, Trichy, to custody, to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 is closed.