JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He along with his mother i.e., Accused No.2 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under five (05) charges. The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC against Accused No.1, the second charge was under Section 304-B IPC against Accused No.1, the third charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1, the fourth charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.1 and the last charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.2. 2. Substance of the charge is that Accused No.1 used to harass his wife, by name Annam Koteswaramma @ Rupa (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), subjected her to cruelty, demanding her to bring additional dowry and on 24.09.2015 he caused her death by pressing her neck with force and by throttling her and to screen the evidence, he tied the body to a saree and hanged the body to a ceiling fan, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting Accused No.2 for the charge levelled against her, convicted the Accused No.1 under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Accused No.1 under Section 304-B IPC of course, no separate sentence was awarded as he was sentenced to imprisonment for “LIFE” under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Heard Smt. J. Sreelakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Public Prosecutor. 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- Accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Narasaraopet town, Accused No.2 is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 was working as a clerk in a local vegetable market. The marriage between the Accused No.1 and deceased was performed on 31.01.2013 at Bapatla. 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- Accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Narasaraopet town, Accused No.2 is the mother of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 was working as a clerk in a local vegetable market. The marriage between the Accused No.1 and deceased was performed on 31.01.2013 at Bapatla. PW-1 is the father, PW-2 is the mother of the deceased, PW-3 is the cousin of PW-1 and PW-4 is the brother-inlaw of PW-1. The parents of the deceased are residents of Bapatla Town. At the time of marriage, PW-1 paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the Accused No.1 towards dowry apart from giving house hold articles. After marriage, the deceased joined matrimonial home at Narasaraopet. Three months after the marriage, Accused No.1 and the deceased went to Bapatla, where Accused No.1 fell ill due to Dengue fever. Accused No.1 and the deceased remained at the house of PWs-1 and 2 for a period of two (02) months and thereafter Accused No.1 left for Narasaraopet, leaving the deceased at the house of her parents. Subsequently, after six (06) months, Accused No.1 set up his family at Narasaraopet along with the deceased. After the deceased joining at Narasaraopet, she informed PW-1 over phone stating that Accused No.1 is ill-treating her and demanding her to bring more money towards additional dowry. After sometime, PW-6-caste elder telephoned to PW-1 and informed him that both the accused are harassing the deceased. Having come to know the same, PW-1 went to Narasaraopet and placed the matter before the elders-PWs-6 and 8. The elders chastised the accused. PWs-6 and 8 advised Accused Nos.1 and 2 to look after the deceased well. Thereafter, the couple were sent to Ponnur, where the senior paternal uncle and aunt of Accused No.1 are staying. There also, the accused used to ill-treat the deceased having addicted to alcohol. PWs-9 and 6 admonished the accused and advised them to lead happy marital life. Two (02) months thereafter, the couple shifted to their residence to Karampudi, where the cousin of Accused No.1 was staying with family. Accused No.1 and the deceased stayed for a period of six (06) months. Thereafter, Accused No.1 again started ill-treating the deceased. Again, the couple shifted to Narasaraopet. On 24.09.2015, the Accused No.1 came to the house in a drunken state. Accused No.1 and the deceased stayed for a period of six (06) months. Thereafter, Accused No.1 again started ill-treating the deceased. Again, the couple shifted to Narasaraopet. On 24.09.2015, the Accused No.1 came to the house in a drunken state. The Accused also did not use to attend for his work. The deceased quarrelled with the Accused No.1 for consuming alcohol repeatedly and the accused left the house and returned at 7.15 P.M on the same day and beat the deceased. He hold the neck of the deceased and thrashed her to the wall, pressed her neck forcibly. During the course of galata, the deceased pulled the shirt of the appellant and two buttons of the shirt of the accused were fallen down. But, in spite of the same, the appellant forcibly hold her throat and made her to fell down, which led to instantaneous death. Blood was oozing from the nose of the deceased and having confirmed that she died, the appellant picked out a saree, tied one end to her neck and other end to the ceiling fan and hanged the body. Thereafter, Accused No.1 went out and again consumed alcohol and came back to the house at about 8.30 P.M. He cut the saree into two pieces and removed the knots from the neck and kept the body on the ground. Again, he came out of the house by closing the doors and moved here and there till mid night and went to the house of his mother i.e., Accused No.2 at about 1.00 A.M and informed her about the death of the deceased. He wrapped his torned shirt in a paper and kept in the house of Accused No.2 and brought his mother to his house. Then, Accused No.2 telephoned PW-3 about the death of the deceased. Immediately, PW-3 informed the same to PW-1, PW-1 telephoned to PW-6, who confirmed the death of the deceased. Then, PWs-1 and 2 along with their relatives went to Narasaraopet and found the dead body of the deceased in the house of Accused No.1 with injuries. Having seen the dead body with injuries, PW-1 went to the police station at about 9.00 P.M on 25.09.2015 and gave a report. 5. Then, PWs-1 and 2 along with their relatives went to Narasaraopet and found the dead body of the deceased in the house of Accused No.1 with injuries. Having seen the dead body with injuries, PW-1 went to the police station at about 9.00 P.M on 25.09.2015 and gave a report. 5. PW-16-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet II Town Police Station received Ex.P-1 from PW-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.112 of 2015 under Section 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-14 is the copy of FIR. Having received the information from PW-16, the Dy.SP, Narasaraopet, who is examined as PW-18, took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of mediators PWs-11 and 12. Ex.P-15 is the observation report. He also seized silk saree-M.O-1, two shirt buttons-M.O-2 and knife with wooden handle-M.O-3 under the said observation report. He prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW-13. Photographs were marked as Ex.P-8. He shifted the dead body to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet for Post-Mortem examination. PW-14- Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found four external injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “Asphyxia as a result of strangulation”. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate- Ex.P-9. He did not find any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. On 26.09.2015, PW-18 visited the hospital and recorded statements of PWs-1 to 5 and another. He issued a requisition to PW-17 to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW-17 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators PW-18 and another. Ex.P-13 is the inquest report. After inquest, PW-18 recorded statements of PWs-6 to 10 and others. On 30.09.2015 PW-18 sent the Viscera and Hyoid bone to RFSL, Guntur for medical examination. The RFSL report is marked as Ex.P-11. On 05.10.2015, PW-18 arrested both the accused in the presence of PWs-11 and 12. On the basis of the confession made by Accused No.1, he recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4 from the house of Accused No.2 under a panchanama-Ex.P-17. Both the accused were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW-18 filed charge sheet. 6. On 05.10.2015, PW-18 arrested both the accused in the presence of PWs-11 and 12. On the basis of the confession made by Accused No.1, he recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4 from the house of Accused No.2 under a panchanama-Ex.P-17. Both the accused were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW-18 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18 and marked Exs.P-1 to 17 apart from exhibiting M.Os-1 to 4. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid while acquitting Accused No.2. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the conviction under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 304-B IPC are illegal. He further contended that framing of separate charges under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC itself is not proper as 304-B IPC can only be charged as an alternative charge for 302 IPC. She further contended that absolutely there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case only on the circumstantial evidence. She further contends that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused murdered the deceased. 10. On the other hand, Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending inter alia that the evidence of PWs-1 to 9 clearly show that the Accused No.1 used to harass and ill-treat the deceased oftenly having addicted to consuming alcohol and also by demanding additional dowry. The evidence of PWs-1 to 9 has categorically demonstrated the harassment made by the appellant. He further contends that the accused and the deceased used to reside under one roof and as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for Accused No.1 to explain as to how the deceased died in his house. He also further contends that instead of giving explanation, Accused No.1 gave a false version weaving a story as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. As such, as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, apart from non-explanation, the accused gave a false information to the prosecution party. He also further contends that instead of giving explanation, Accused No.1 gave a false version weaving a story as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. As such, as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, apart from non-explanation, the accused gave a false information to the prosecution party. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 436. 11. We have gone through the entire material available on record. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties. It is also not in dispute that the accused and the deceased are residing in Narasaraopet on the date of incident. So far as Accused No.2 is concerned, she is residing separately. The evidence of PWs-1 to 9 has clinchingly established the factum of harassment and cruelty caused to the deceased by Accused No.1. The evidence of prosecution witnesses further disclosed that the accused and the deceased resided in various places i.e., Bapatla, Karampudi, Ponnur and Narasaraopet with a hope that Accused No.1 will change his attitude towards the deceased. Finally, the couple started living at Narasaraopet. On the fateful day, at about 7.15 P.M, the Accused attacked the deceased by holding her neck and pressed forcibly, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. Having confirmed about the death of the deceased, he created a scene as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. Thereafter, he went to his mother Accused No.2 and informed about the death of the deceased. It is only thereafter, the prosecution party came to know about the death of the deceased. Having visited the house of the accused and having found the dead body of the deceased, PW-1 set the criminal law into motion by giving a report to PW-16. Having committed the offence, Accused No.1 escaped from the scene and he could be arrested only on 05.10.2015. It is only on the confession made by Accused No.1, PW-18 recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4, which was kept in the house of Accused No.2. The evidence of PWs-1 to 9 clinchingly established that it is the Accused No.1, who caused the death of the deceased. It is only on the confession made by Accused No.1, PW-18 recovered the torned shirt-M.O-4, which was kept in the house of Accused No.2. The evidence of PWs-1 to 9 clinchingly established that it is the Accused No.1, who caused the death of the deceased. As per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased died in his house. Apart from that, the Accused No.1 came up with a false explanation, weaving a story as if the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. In Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “As seen from the evidence, appellant Gajanan and his father Dashrath and mother Mankarnabai were living together. On 07.04.2002, mother of the appellant-accused had gone to another Village Dahigaon. The prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at his home on the night of 07.04.2002. Therefore, the appellant is duty-bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused. When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of the occurrence, when the accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime”. 13. In the case on hand also, Accused No.1 and the deceased alone are residing in the house and there is no third person, as such, the accused instead of giving explanation as to how the deceased died, came up with a false explanation. 13. In the case on hand also, Accused No.1 and the deceased alone are residing in the house and there is no third person, as such, the accused instead of giving explanation as to how the deceased died, came up with a false explanation. As such, the said circumstance also goes against the accused. 14. Viewed from any angle, all the circumstances and the evidence of prosecution witnesses point out the guilt towards Accused No.1 alone. Except Accused No.1, no other person has got any grievance to kill the deceased. 15. On the above analyses and having carefully examined the case in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court needs no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in Sessions Case No.44 of 2016, dated 03.05.2016. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.