JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 30.8.2017 under Section 302 IPC. 2. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, it was further ordered that the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 3. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Maan Singh. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR No.74 dated 14.9.2012 was registered at Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar under Section 302 IPC. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR was that Govind Kunwar, daughter of the complainant, was married to the appellant. Gopal Singh father-in-law of Govind Kunwar, used to harass her under the influence of liquor and kept a bad eye on her and had committed murder of his daughter by strangulation. 5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant (husband of the deceased). 6. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the trial court. 7. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty two witnesses during trial. 9. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after closer of the prosecution evidence, prayed that on the day of incident he was not present in his house and had gone to his relative's house. On coming to know about the death of his wife he had returned home. He was innocent and had not committed any offence. 10. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, as per the initial version, complainant had levelled allegation against the father-in-law of the deceased and during investigation the appellant was falsely involved in this case. Appellant was not present in his house at the time of the incident. 12. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 13. Present case relates to murder of Govind Kunwar. In fact, as per the initial version, complainant had levelled allegation against the father-in-law of the deceased and during investigation the appellant was falsely involved in this case. Appellant was not present in his house at the time of the incident. 12. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 13. Present case relates to murder of Govind Kunwar. Exhibit P-6 is postmortem report of the deceased and a perusal of the same reveals that as per medical board of Doctors, the cause of death of the deceased was due to respiratory arrest as a result of strangulation leading to her death. Exhibit P-6 was proved on record by PW-18 Dr. Bhupesh Dayal. 14. Death of Govind Kunwar had occurred in her matrimonial home. Govind Kunwar had died an unnatural death as the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation. Appellant is the husband of the deceased and it was for him to have explained as to under what circumstances his wife had died an unnatural death in his house. Although, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant had taken up the plea of 'alibi' that he was not present in his house at the time of the incident, but the said plea put forth by the appellant is not established on record. Appellant had failed to lead any evidence to corroborate his plea of 'alibi'. Hence, the plea of 'alibi' put forth by the appellant is liable to be disbelieved and appears to be an afterthought. 15. Pw-1 Maan Singh/ complainant deposed that Govind Kunwar was his daughter and was married to the appellant about 6/7 years ago. His daughter used to tell him that she was being harassed by her in-laws and they used to give beatings to her. She had also told him that her husband used to harass her as she could not bear a child and wanted to perform a second marriage. He had brought his daughter to his house on the festival of 'Raksha Bandhan'. Thereafter, he received a telephonic call from the in-laws family of his daughter that their daughter-in-law be sent back. Then, his son had dropped his daughter to her matrimonial home and after 10/11 days he came to know that his daughter Govind Kunwar had died on account of strangulation. 16. Thereafter, he received a telephonic call from the in-laws family of his daughter that their daughter-in-law be sent back. Then, his son had dropped his daughter to her matrimonial home and after 10/11 days he came to know that his daughter Govind Kunwar had died on account of strangulation. 16. Statement of PW-1-Maan Singh with regard to harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant is corroborated by PW-2 Ranjeet Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-7 Vikram Singh (paternal uncle of the deceased), PW-9 Kripal Singh, PW-10 Nepal Singh (cousin brother of the deceased). All the said witnesses have deposed to the effect that the deceased was being harassed by the appellant as she could not bear a child and the appellant wanted to perform a second marriage. The said witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination. 17. As per PW-22 Omprakash Solanki, a rope used at the time of the incident was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the appellant. Although PW-11-Man Singh, PW-12- Ram Singh, PW-13-Mangu Singh, PW-14-Govind Singh, PW-16- Baluram have not supported the prosecution case during trial but the said fact is not fatal to the prosecution case as it is duly established from the other evidence led on record by the prosecution. 18. After carefully going through the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly ordered conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC as the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Appellant had failed to establish the plea of 'alibi' set up by him. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment/order dated 30.8.2017 passed by the trial court is upheld.