JUDGMENT Kirti Singh, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as TPC') and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default whereof he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Brief Facts 2. The prosecution case centers on the alleged murder of Sukhwinder Kaur by her husband Swaranjit Singh. The factual matrix of the prosecution case culminating to the trial is that on 11.08.2012 Bhupinder Singh (PW1) (brother of deceased) statement was recorded to the effect that his sister Sukhwinder Kaur was married to the accused Swaranjit Singh approximately 7/8 years ago. On 10.08.2012, he and his mother Mohinder Kaur visited village Lopon to present customary gifts to Sukhwinder Kaur on the occasion of Teej festival. After having dinner the complainant and his mother slept in the courtyard. Around 2/2.30 AM they were awakened by Sukhwinder Kaur shrieks. Upon waking up, they saw Swaranjit Singh strangulating deceased with a cloth while sitting on her body through a window pone. Despite her pleas for help Swaranjit Singh continued with his action. When Bhupinder Singh (PW1) and his mother tried to intervene and urged him to stop, they found that the door was bolted from inside. Sukhwinder Kaur eventually stopped screaming and went limp. Swaranjit Singh then fled from the scene pushing the complainant and his mother aside. When they managed to enter the room they found Sukhwinder Kaur dead on the bed. The alleged motive for the murder was the ongoing marital dispute between Swaranjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur despite numerous efforts of Panchayat to resolve their issues. It was alleged that Swaranjit Singh was harboring resentment and ultimately murdered Sukhwinder Kaur. 3. On the basis of above statement FIR No.49 dated 11.08.2012 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant/accused Swaranjit Singh, who was the husband of the deceased Sukhwinder Kaur. Investigation Proceedings 4. After recording the statement, Inspector Deepak Singh (PW-4) inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report (Ex-PS) in the presence of the witnesses. 3. On the basis of above statement FIR No.49 dated 11.08.2012 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant/accused Swaranjit Singh, who was the husband of the deceased Sukhwinder Kaur. Investigation Proceedings 4. After recording the statement, Inspector Deepak Singh (PW-4) inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report (Ex-PS) in the presence of the witnesses. He took into possession one Pama vide memo Ex.P9 and prepared site plan (Ex.PIO) of the place of occurrence. The postmortem of the dead body of Sukhwinder Kaur was conducted at Civil Hospital, Moga. Accused Swaranjit Singh was arrested on 17.08.2012. On completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents in compliance Section 207 Cr.P.C. Court Proceedings 5. The learned Illaqa Magistrate finding the case exclusively triable by the Court of Session vide order dated 18.09.2012 committed the same to the Court of Session. Thereafter finding a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in order to substantiate the allegations against the accused/appellant examined 8 witnesses namely Dr. Rajesh Attri (PW-1A), Bhupinder Singh (PW1), Mohinder Kaur (PW2), Inspector Deepak Singh (PW4), ASI Dilbagh Singh (PW5), HC Nachhattar Singh (PW6), Jugraj Singh (PW7) and SI Swaran Singh (PW8). 7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating evidence led by the prosecution was put to him. The accused denied all the allegations against him and took the plea that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He further took the plea that he was having an obsession for cleanliness and expected the same from his family members. He used to pressurize his family members to keep cleanliness in the house throughout the day. Due to this behavior, his wife was fed up from him and committed suicide by hanging from an iron peg with the help of pama (cloth). He further stated that he was not responsible in any manner for the death of his wife as when his wife committed suicide he was away in the fields for irrigation purpose and when the incident came to his notice he informed the parents of his wife about the same. He further stated that he was not responsible in any manner for the death of his wife as when his wife committed suicide he was away in the fields for irrigation purpose and when the incident came to his notice he informed the parents of his wife about the same. The accused examined DW1 HC Kulwant Singh and DW2 Gurlabh Singh in his defence evidence. Submissions Of The Learned Counsel For The Appellant. 8. (i) There is delay in lodging the FIR. (ii) The physical presence of complainant Bhupinder Singh (PW1) and his mother Mohinder Kaur (PW2) who are referred as eye-witnesses in the case is highly unnatural on the date of occurrence. (iii) The accused/appellant and deceased have two children aged 08 years and 06 years, however their testimony was not taken on record to establish the presence of the PW1 and PW2 at the time of occurrence. (iv) There was sufficient evidence to prove that Sukhwinder Kaur had hung herself to the iron peg and it was not a case of manual strangulation. Submission of the learned State counsel. 9. Per contra the learned State counsel has argued that the impugned judgment of conviction is based upon the eye witness account of PW1 Bhupinder Singh and PW2 Mohinder Kaur and who were the brother and mother of the deceased respectively and the impugned judgment of conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the prosecution has proved its case against the accused-appellant by leading cogent and convincing evidence and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Analysis 10. We have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have also scrutinized the entire record and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and find no merit in the present appeal for the reasons described hereinafter. 11. As regard to the point of determination regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned we do not find any substance in this argument. The occurrence took place on 11.08.2012 at about 2-2.30 AM in the morning, in the house of accused/appellant-Swaranjit Singh. Bhupinder Singh who was the brother of deceased-Sukhwinder Kaur lodged the complaint with the police on 11.08.2012 at 9:00 AM on the basis of which the present FIR No.49 dated 11.08.2012 was registered. Hence there was no delay in lodging the FIR. 12. Bhupinder Singh who was the brother of deceased-Sukhwinder Kaur lodged the complaint with the police on 11.08.2012 at 9:00 AM on the basis of which the present FIR No.49 dated 11.08.2012 was registered. Hence there was no delay in lodging the FIR. 12. The contention that the physical presence of Bhupinder Singh PW1 and his mother Mohinder Kaur PW2, who were eye witnesses, is highly unnatural on the date of occurrence is also devoid of merits. PW2 Mohinder Kaur who was the mother of the deceased and an eye witness to the fateful occurrence, upon her stepping into the witness box, made a narration in respect of penal occurrence. She testified that she has three daughters and one son. Her daughter Sukhwinder Kaur was married to accused Swaranjit Singh seven years ago. On 10.08.2012, she along with her son Bhupinder Singh had gone to the matrimonial house of their daughter Sukhwinder Kaur at village Lopon. She along with Bhupinder Singh and Sukhnoor daughter of the accused were lying asleep in the courtyard of the house of the accused. Her daughter Sukhwinder Kaur and the accused were sleeping in the next room. At about 2/2.30 a.m., they heard shrieks of Sukhwinder Kaur. The electric bulb of the Verandah was on and she along with her son saw the accused strangulating Sukhwinder Kaur with a pama (piece of cloth) while her daughter was lying on the bed with her face down and the accused was sitting on her and she became unconscious. They mshed towards the room which was locked from inside. Later, the accused opened the door and ran away by pushing them aside. They entered the room where they saw Sukhwinder Kaur was lying dead on the bed. While she remained present with the dead body, her son Bhupinder Singh went to inform the police. Thereafter the police reached the spot where her statement was recorded with the police which is Ex.Dl. The motive behind the occurrence was that the accused used to quarrel with their daughter and used to raise demand of dowry. He also used to beat her up. On earlier occasions, the panchayat was also convened with regard to the behavior of the accused. 13. The occurrence had been duly proved on record from the testimony of PW2 Mohinder Kaur, who was cross examined at length by the defence counsel and she withstood it. He also used to beat her up. On earlier occasions, the panchayat was also convened with regard to the behavior of the accused. 13. The occurrence had been duly proved on record from the testimony of PW2 Mohinder Kaur, who was cross examined at length by the defence counsel and she withstood it. The testimony clearly establishes her presence at the place of occurrence. As the credibility of this witness was not impeached, therefore, immense credence is to be assigned to the testimony of PW2. PW1 Bhupinder Singh who was the complainant corroborated the prosecution version of the occurrence dated 11.08.2012 as narrated by PW2 Mohinder Kaur. His cross examination was deferred at the request of the defence counsel but later this witness could not come present again as he had expired. A collective reading of the testimony of PW1 and PW2 reveal that it was the accused/appellant who had strangulated the deceased. 14. This Court also does not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the testimony of child witness was not taken on record as it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2011(2) SCC (Cri) 150 that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of the single yet credible witness. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar, 2014(3) SCC 401 has held that the conviction can be done on the testimony of the sole eye witness if the same inspires confidence. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under: - "14. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Even in Probate cases, where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that production of more witnesses does not carry any weight. Thus, conviction can even be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, if the same inspires confidence. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626 ; Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10 ; and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222)." 16. We also do not find any substance in the argument that the deceased strangulated herself by hanging and it is not a case of manual strangulation. This contention is devoid of merit as PW4 Inspector Deepak Singh who was the Investigating Officer of this case had testified that on 11.08.2012 he was posted as SHO Police Station Badhni Kalan and Bhupinder Singh lodged his complaint Ex.Pl/A on that day. On the basis of the complaint Ex.Pl/A FIR Ex.P7 was registered by ASI Balwinder Singh. He then went to the spot and carried out the investigation. The inquest report is Ex.PB was prepared. At the place of occurrence, the pama which was tied to an iron rod in the wall was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.P9. He was also cross examined at length by the defence counsel. The Investigating Officer specifically denied the suggestion put up by the defence to the effect that when they reached the spot, the dead body of Sukhwinder Kaur was hanging to iron rod/peg and they took it down. Medical Evidence 17. To support the version that the accused had committed the murder by strangulating the deceased, the prosecution examined PW-1A Dr. Rajesh Attri of Civil Hospital, Moga who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Sukhwinder Kaur along with Dr. Rajesh Mittal and Dr. Daisy Sood. Medical Evidence 17. To support the version that the accused had committed the murder by strangulating the deceased, the prosecution examined PW-1A Dr. Rajesh Attri of Civil Hospital, Moga who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Sukhwinder Kaur along with Dr. Rajesh Mittal and Dr. Daisy Sood. As per postmortem report the following injuries were found on the person of deceased Sukhwinder Kaur. 1. Infraorbital swelling dark brownish colour present on left side. 2. Brownish discoloration 10cm x 2cm present medial aspect of left leg. 3. Depressed groove 6 cm in width at and below the level of thyroid cartilage anterior to neck and 2cm on lateral aspect encircle the neck. Abrasions and bmises seen around the ligature mark. Dissection of neck shows sign of subcutaneous tissue. Cranium and spinal cord were found healthy. Walls, ribs, cartilages and plural cavity were found healthy. Lungs showed sign of congestion. Heart and large vessels were found healthy. Stomach and its contents were found healthy and contained semisolid food particles. Small intestine was healthy and contained chime. Large intestine was found healthy and contained faecal matter. Liver, spleen and kidneys were found healthy. External genitalia was normal. 18. PW-1A Dr. Rajesh Attri who conducted the post mortem of the deceased opined that the cause of death in this case was asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He also stated that in case of death by hanging there would have been a dislocation or fracture of vertical vertebrae. In his opinion the injury No.3, it was mentioned that there were abrasions and bruises around the ligature mark. This fact clearly indicates that just before the death of Sukhwinder Kaur there was a struggle which led to bruises and abrasions around the ligature mark. In case of suicide or hanging, there is no occasion for appearance of bruises or abrasions on the body of the deceased. 19. Strangulation cannot be treated as hanging as these are two distinct causes of death. The difference between hanging and strangulation has been highlighted by Modi's on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition, as follows: Hanging Strangulation 1. Most suicidal. 1. Mostly homicidal 2. Face-Usual pale and petechiae 2. Face-Congested, livid and marked rare with petechiae. 3. Saliva-Dribbling out of mouth down on the chin and chest 3. Saliva-No such dribbing. 4. Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. Most suicidal. 1. Mostly homicidal 2. Face-Usual pale and petechiae 2. Face-Congested, livid and marked rare with petechiae. 3. Saliva-Dribbling out of mouth down on the chin and chest 3. Saliva-No such dribbing. 4. Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. 4. Neck-Not so. 5. External signs of asphyxia usually not well marked 5. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect. 6. Ligature mark-Oblique, Non-continuous placed high Up in the neck between the Chin and the larynx, the Base of the groove or furrow Being hard, yellow and Parachment-like. 6. Ligature mark-Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck the below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. 7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature Mark, common. 8. Subcutaneous tissues Under the mark-White, Hard and glistening. 8. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 9. Injury to the muscles of Neck-Rare. 9. Injury to the muscles of the neck-Common. 10. Carotid arteries, Internal coats ruptured in 10. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinarily ruptured. 11. Fracture of the larynx and trachea-Very rare and may be found that too in judicial hanging. 11. Fracture of the larynx, trachea and hyoid bone. 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae-Common judicial hanging. 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae-Rare. 13. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. 13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail mark and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 14. No evident of sexual Assault. 14. No evidence of sexual assault. 15. Emphysematous bullae on Surface of the lungs-Not present. 15. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of die lungs - May be Present. 20. It has been clearly mentioned by the doctor in injury No.3 that abrasions and bruises were seen around the ligature mark. Dissection of neck shows sign of subcutaneous tissue. These injuries clearly show that it is a result of strangulation and not hanging. 21. In a situation, where the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home, the onus and burden of proof rests upon the husband to explain the cause of the unnatural death of his wife. 22. Dissection of neck shows sign of subcutaneous tissue. These injuries clearly show that it is a result of strangulation and not hanging. 21. In a situation, where the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home, the onus and burden of proof rests upon the husband to explain the cause of the unnatural death of his wife. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyaneskwar v. State of Maharashtra 2007(3) SCC (Cri) 728 that in cases where the deceased is murdered in her matrimonial home then it is for the appellant to set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence as it is for the husband to explain unnatural death of his wife. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- "11. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access. It is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. Conclusion 24. This Court upon thorough examination of the record of complete case finds that the eye witness testimony is thoroughly supported by the medical evidence presented. A comprehensive review of both the chief and cross-examination of the witnesses indicate that it was indeed the appellant who strangulated the deceased in the matrimonial home and the defence was unable to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 25. In view of the legal proposition as well as the factual circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2014. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga is affirmed. 26. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of, accordingly. 27. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga is affirmed. 26. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of, accordingly. 27. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal(s). Record of the case be sent back to the Court below.