H Govinda Naik vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6326 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

                          AND

          THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100316/2018

BETWEEN

H.GOVINDA NAIK,
S/O.H.DENYA NAIK,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O: RAYARAL THANDA,
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT
DHARWAD THROUGH,
CPI, SANDUR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
DHARWAD.
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 03.04.2010 AND SENTENCE
DATED 05.04.2010 PASSED IN S.C. NO.37/2009 BY THE FAST
TRACK COURT, BALLARI AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498-A
OF IPC
                                   2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section

374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging his conviction dated

03.04.2010 and sentence dated 05.04.2010 in S.C.

No.37/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections

498A and 302 of IPC.

2. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the

accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period

of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He is sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC. Default sentences are also

imposed in the event of not paying the fine.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the

marriage of accused and deceased took place about 4

years prior to the date of incident and they were having a

son aged 15 months. Accused was running a Tea hotel on

the cross road of H.R.G. Mines and living with his wife i.e.,

deceased and son. It is alleged that accused was addicted

to drinking and frequently used to quarrel with the

deceased as she was not paying him money for his

addiction. Even though a number of panchayats were held

and accused was advised not to do so, he continued

harassing and ill-treating the deceased. Ultimately, on

05.08.2008 accused committed the murder of the

deceased by strangulating her with the help of a plastic

rope (nylon rope) and left the house taking his son and

thereby he committed the offences punishable under

Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

5. Accused has pleaded not guilty. In support of

the prosecution case in all 26 witnesses are examined as

PWs.1 to 26 and Exs.P1 to 9 and MOs.1 to 4 are marked.

6. During the course of his statement under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused has in-general denied the

incriminating material in the evidence led on the

prosecution side. In response to question No.6, he has

stated that "on the date of incident his sister-in-law

Nagibai was present in the house and a quarrel took place

between her and the deceased; he took his son to the

hospital and by the time he returned, he found his wife

having committed suicide by hanging and Nagibai was not

present in the house".

7. In support of his case, accused has examined

one witness as DW.1 and he has got marked a photograph

as Ex.D1.

8. By considering the oral and documentary

evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Judge has

come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against

the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt and

imposed the punishment as detailed in the impugned

judgment and order.

9. During the course of his arguments, the

learned counsel representing accused argued that the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence

are contrary to the principles of law, facts and material

evidences and as such, it is liable to be set aside. He would

further submit that the Trial Court has not appreciated the

fact that complainant being the father of the deceased has

given a false statement. He is not an eye witness and his

evidence is hear say. The allegations and circumstances

made out against the appellant suffer from serious

suspicion and doubt.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that

the accused is implicated only on the basis of suspicion.

There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The

appellant and deceased were living happily. Though

sometimes they used to quarrel, however, accused would

not go to the extent of committing the murder of his wife.

So far as the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment of

the deceased, there was never any complainant against

the accused. The evidence of the witnesses does not

corroborate with each other and the conviction is based on

hear say evidence and prays to allow the appeal and set

aside the impugned judgment and order.

11. On the other hand, the learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has

proved beyond reasonable doubt that prior to the

homicidal death of the deceased, she was harassed and ill-

treated by the accused for not giving him money for his

drinking habit. On the date of incident, the accused and

deceased were the only inmates of the house. The

evidence placed on record establishes the fact that the

death of the deceased was homicidal by strangulation. He

would further submit that being the inmate of the house, it

was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused as to what

exactly transpired and he has not come up with any

plausible explanation. After the incident, he has absconded

taking the child aged 15 months with him. The evidence

placed on record establish the allegations against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has

rightly accepted the said evidence and convicted the

accused and sentenced him appropriately and prays to

dismiss the appeal.

12. We have heard elaborate arguments of both

sides and perused the records.

13. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the

incident, the accused and deceased were married since 4

years and they were having a son aged 15 months. It is

also not in dispute that near Dharmapur on H.R.G. Cross,

accused was running a hotel in a Thatched hut and living

along with his wife i.e., deceased and their son.

14. PW.1 Rama Naik, PW.2 Shantamma are the

parents of the deceased. PW.3 Devibai, PW.4 Durgibai and

PW.5 Nimbavva are the maternal aunts of the deceased

i.e., sisters of PW.2 Shantamma.

15. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 establish the fact

that after the marriage, though the accused and deceased

lived happily for a period of 1 year, thereafter accused

started harassing and ill-treating her as he was addicted to

drinking and he was assaulting the deceased for not

allowing him to use the money for consuming the alcohol.

Their evidence also prove the fact that after 2 months of

their marriage, both accused and deceased went to an

estate near Mysore and thereafter they came to

Dharmapur and engaged as coolies in the digging work.

PWs.1 and 2 have deposed that after some time, accused

wanted to start a hotel at the H.R.G. Cross and PW.1

arranged Rs.15,000/- and with the said money, the

accused started a hotel in the Thatched roofed hut and in

the same place, both accused and deceased were living

with their son. Infact a suggestion is made to PW.2 that it

was PW.1 who arranged Rs.15,000/- for the accused to

start the said hotel.

16. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 further prove the

fact that since there used to be frequent quarrel between

the accused and deceased, they along with others held

panchayats and accused was advised not to do so and

accused was not happy with the holding of panchayat, as

he thought that the deceased insulted him by complaining

to her parents and holding panchayats.

17. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 regarding the ill-

treating and harassing the deceased under the influence of

alcohol is supported and corroborated by the testimony of

PWs.7, 8 and 14. PW.7 Dasa Naik is an acquaintance of

the complainant and his family members as well as CW.10

and 12. PW.8 Takara Naik is also an acquaintance of the

complainant and his family members. PW.14 Lakshman

Naik is a friend of the accused and he is also an

acquaintance of complainant and his family members. The

evidence of these witnesses proves that accused was

frequently quarreling with the deceased and in this regard

panchayats were held and accused was advised. The

evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 7 and 8 prove the fact that even

during the fair (eÁvÉæ) when deceased along with accused

visited the house of complainant, he quarreled with her

and snatched her Mangal Sutra (ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæ) and at that time

also a panchayat was held and he was advised not to do

so.

18. PW.6 Thotyanaik is the neighbour of the

deceased as well as the accused. He has deposed that he

is also running a hotel at the H.R.G. cross and in between

his hut and that of accused there were four other huts. He

has also deposed that every day accused used to come

drunk and under the influence of alcohol, he used to

quarrel with his wife and many a times he advised accused

not to do so. PW.14 Lakshman Naik, who is a friend of the

accused has deposed that both of them studied at Hampa

town. He has also spoken to about the frequent quarrel by

accused with his wife. Even though PWs.1 to 5 and 14 are

cross-examined at length, nothing worthy is elicited to

disbelieve their testimony. Admittedly all the material

witnesses belong to the same community and absolutely

there is no ill-will between the accused and any of the

witnesses and all of them are common acquaintance with

the deceased as well as the accused. Such being the case,

they have no ill-will or grudge against the accused to

speak against him. Through the testimony of these

witnesses, the prosecution has proved that on account of

his drinking habit, accused was frequently quarrelling with

his wife, as she was not allowing him to squander the

money they earned by running the hotel and that was the

reason for him to assault her frequently. Their testimony

also prove the fact of accused ill-treating and harassing

her within the knowledge of her family members as well as

his friend circle and in this regard, number of panchayats

were held and accused was advised.

19. PW.24 Ramanaik is a resident of Vyasapura

Tanda where the complainant and his wife were staying.

His evidence establishes the fact that on the date of

incident, he received a phone call from Raral Tanda which

is a place near H.R.G. Cross where the accused was

running the Hotel, regarding the death of deceased. He

conveyed the said information to the complainant. On this

aspect, PW.24 has deposed that his mother's parental

house was Raral Tanda and one of his sisters is also given

in marriage to a person in Raral Tanda and a message was

conveyed to him about the unnatural death of the

deceased. He has deposed that at that time, the parents of

the deceased had gone to the lands and as soon as they

returned from the lands, he conveyed the message to

them.

20. During his cross-examination, he has stated

that he could not know who called and conveyed the said

message as before he could enquire, the person

disconnected the phone. In this regard, PW.1 has deposed

that when he received the information of death of his

daughter, he called PW.6 Thotyanaik of H.R.G. Cross and

enquired him about the said information and when he

confirmed the said information, he along with 10-12

persons went to H.R.G. Cross at around 4.30 pm and saw

the dead body of his daughter. Infact this Thotyanaik is

examined as PW.6, wherein in addition to deposing that

every day accused used to quarrel with the deceased

under the influence of alcohol and he had advised him not

to do so, he has deposed that on the date of incident, at

about 11-00 am, he saw the accused going out of the

house along with his son and at that time, he thought that

he may be going for making purchase. He has also

deposed that he saw some people gathered at the Hotel of

the accused and therefore he also went and saw the dead

body of the deceased with ligature mark on her neck and

he also saw a plastic rope fallen near her. He has identified

the MO.1 as the said rope. He has also deposed that the

parents of deceased called him over telephone and

enquired about their daughter and at that time he

confirmed the fact of death of the deceased and that the

accused had gone out with the child.

21. During his cross-examination, he has stated

that on the date of incident accused did not open the

Hotel. He stated that he came to know about the incident

at 11-00 am when the accused left the house and he saw

people having gathered near his house. During his cross-

examination by the defence, he has clarified that the

parents of the deceased had received the information of

death and therefore in order to clarify the same, they

called him and enquired. Even though a suggestion is

made to this witness that he was having grudge against

the accused as he was a competitor, the evidence of this

witness makes it clear that in the said place 5-6 hotels are

being run. Such being the case, accused was not the only

one who was running the hotel and was a competitor to

this witness. Being a neighbour, PW.6 Thotyanaik is a

natural witness and his testimony is convincing and

reliable. We find no reason to doubt the evidence of this

witness merely for the reason that he is also running a

hotel similar to the accused and as such, he had any ill-will

or grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. The

evidence of PW.14 Lakshman Naik corroborates with the

evidence of PW.6 which is to the effect that after receiving

the information of death of the deceased, they cross

verified it with PW.6 through PW.14.

22. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the

evidence of PW.18 Shivanaik. He is running a hotel at

Bannihatti cross. His evidence is to the effect that on the

date of incident at 1-00 pm accused along with his son

came to him and requested to pay Rs.5,000/-. As he was

not having that much of money, he paid Rs.3,500/- to the

accused. He has also deposed that accused requested him

to give his cell phone as he had forgotten to take his cell

phone and therefore, he also allowed him to take his cell

phone and accused went away. He further deposed that at

around 5-00 pm, he came to know about the death of the

deceased and immediately he went to the Police Station.

PW.18 has further stated that at the Police Station

Lakshman Naik was present. Accused called the said

Lakshman Naik and he i.e., PW.18 took the phone from

Lakshman Naik and spoke to the accused, wherein accused

enquired whether he has come to know about murder of

Sakubai and whether any complaint has been lodged. PW

18 has also stated that when he enquired accused as to

how he committed the murder, the accused snapped him

saying that it is none of his business and therefore he did

not probe further. This important piece of evidence

brought on record through the evidence of PW.18 is not

disputed by the accused.

23. During the course of cross-examination of the

material witnesses namely the acquaintance of the

complainant, the accused has put forth a defence that the

he was having an illicit relationship with the sister of

deceased by name Nagibai and the said Nagibai is also

having a child through the accused and therefore deceased

and Nagibai used to quarrel on this subject and having

become frustrated by the illicit relationship of the accused

and Nagibai, deceased has committed suicide by hanging.

However, except making suggestions, accused has not

placed any material on record to show that he was having

illicit relationship with Nagibai and also fathered her child.

The defence of the accused that the deceased committed

suicide being frustrated of the alleged illicit relationship, is

to be examined in the light of medical evidence regarding

the cause of death of the deceased.

24. PW.23 Dr.Thippeswamy has conducted the

postmortem examination. At the relevant point of time i.e.,

from 19.05.2007 to 21.11.2009 he was working as Senior

Specialist. He has deposed that at the request of the

Tahashildar of Sanduru, in between 12-00 noon to 2-00

pm he has conducted the Postmortem examination on the

dead body of the deceased and observed the following

injuries on the dead body;

i.Female body aged 20 years moderately built and nourished. Body measures 5 feet 3 inches in length. Rigor mortis present, eyes are congested and prominent, pupils are dilated not reacting to light, tongue is prominently seen, scalp hair are black in colour measures 35 c.m., from occipital area. There is no other injuries on the body other than ligature mark.

ii.Ligature mark: Ligature mark measuring about 11 inches in length and 2 c.m., broad encircling the neck. Above the thyroid cartilage, sparing the posterior part of the neck. Above cervical vertebrae.

iii.Ligature mark is more prominent in the front and on both sides of the neck equally and gradually tapern on to back. On dissection of the ligature mark small echymosis present on superficial tarcia hyroid cartilage and hyroid bone are not injured.

25. PW.23 has deposed that except the ligature

mark, no other injuries were found on the person of the

deceased. With regard to the ligature mark he has

deposed that it was 11 inches in length and 2 cm in width.

The ligature mark was surrounding the entire neck area

except 2 inches in the back portion. He has also deposed

that the ligature mark was prominent in the front as well

as the sides but it was lighter as it proceeded towards the

back portion. He has given opinion that the death was due

to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation and he has issued

the Postmortem Report as per Ex.P 7. He has specifically

deposed that the death of the deceased was homicidal. He

has also deposed with regard to the examination of the

ligature mark and ligature material at MO.1 and deposed

that on 17.10.2008 the Police had sent MO.1 to him with a

requisition letter to examine the same and to give opinion

as to whether the death of the deceased could have been

caused by MO.1. In this regard he has specifically deposed

that the ligature material MO.1 was in a sealed cover and

the seal was in tact and after opening the same he

examined and found that the ligature mark could be made

with the same and the death of the deceased could be

possible if strangulated with MO.1. He has given opinion as

per Ex.P-9. After examining the MO.1 he has sealed and

sent it back to the Police.

26. PW.23 has been cross examined at length

suggesting that the death of the deceased was not

homicidal, but it was a suicidal due to hanging. Denying

the said suggestion, this witness has given in detail the

reasons for his opinion.

27. Giving the reasons for his opinion he has

clearly stated that in case of death by strangulation by

using a rope, the ligature mark will cover almost majority

portion of the neck and it would be horizontal, whereas in

case of death by hanging, the ligature mark will be in 'V'

shape and it won't cover the majority portion of the neck

and there will be a pressing on the portion where the knot

is situated. He has further deposed that in case of

strangulation using a rope the ligature mark may be over

or under the Thyroid Cartilage, whereas in case of hanging

it will be always over the Thyroid Cartilage. He has also

deposed that in case of strangulation when the portion

over the ligature mark is opened we would find echymosis

(bleeding in subcutaneous tissues), whereas in case of

death by hanging, the ligature mark portion will be hard.

He has also deposed that in case of strangulation, usually

the Tongue would be protruding, whereas in case of death

by hanging it will not be the case. In case of strangulation

the contusion of eye and brain portion will be dominant

whereas in case of death by hanging it may not be so

prominent. He has also deposed that in case of

strangulation, there may be fracture of Thyroid Cartilage

bone whereas in case of death by hanging this will not be

the case. He has also deposed that in case of strangulation

if the deceased tried to escape and resist, there may be

some other injuries on the person, but it may not be the

case in all such strangulation. When questioned that if a

person is strangulated with the help of a nylon rope such

as MO.1, the ligature mark would surround the entire

neck, he has replied that in case of women, except the

partition where the Braid (dqÉ) would come in the back side

of the neck the remaining area would be covered by the

ligature mark. When questioned that in case of death by

strangulation, there would be injuries on account of

resistance, the witness has deposed that this would

depend on the place where the incident has taken place

i.e., whether it is a rough surface. When suggested that

the injuries sustained by the deceased was on account of

hanging, PW.23 has denied the said suggestion. The

evidence of PW.23 makes it amply clear that it is not a

case of death by hanging, but on the other hand it is a

case of death by strangulation by using MO.1 rope. Inspite

of this witness being cross examined at length the defence

has failed to demonstrate that it is a case of death by

hanging.

28. Admittedly the deceased and accused were

living in a thatched roofed hut. There is no evidence that

the deceased was found hanging and having regard to the

fact that deceased was 5.4 inches in height, the possibility

of she having committed suicide inside the hut, that too by

using MO.1 rope which is measuring around 2 ft., 6 inches

cannot be accepted. Admittedly the ligature material is 2

ft., 6 inches. With the said ligature material it is not

possible to commit suicide that too inside the hut.

Moreover the medical evidence is contrary to the concept

of death by hanging.

29. On this aspect the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in (2019) 10 SCC 778 in the

case of Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh V/S. State of

Maharashtra, wherein the difference between death by

hanging and strangulation is dealt with in detail.

            Hanging                      Strangulation

1.   Most suicidal.               1.   Mostly homicidal.


2.   Face - Usual pale and        2.   Face - Congested, livid
     petechiae rare.                   and    marked     with
                                       petechiae.

3.   Saliva - Dribbling out       3.   Saliva    -   No    such
     of mouth down on the              dribbling.
     chin and chest.





4.   Neck - Stretched and        4.   Neck - Not so.
     elongated  in   fresh
     bodies.

5.   External    signs     of    5.   External      signs    of
     asphyxia usually     not         asphyxia, very well
     well marked.                     marked (minimal         if
                                      death due to vasovagal
                                      and      carotid    sinus
                                      effect).

6.   Ligature mark- Oblique,     6.   Ligature          mark-
     non- continuous placed           Horizontal            or
     high up in the neck              transverse continuous,
     between the chin and             round the neck, low
     the laryns, the base of          down in the neck below
     the groove or furrow             the thyroid, the base of
     being hard, yellow and           the groove or furrow
     parchment-like.                  being ofe and reddish.

7.   7Abrasions           and    7.   Abrasions         and
     ecchymoses        round          ecchymoses      round
     about the edges of the           about the edges of the
     ligature mark, rare.             ligature        mark,
                                      common.

8.   Subcutaneous     tissues    8.   Subcutaneous      tissues
     Under the mark-White,            under    the       mark-
     hard and glistening.             Ecchymosed.

9.   Injury to the muscles of    9.   Injury to the muscles
     neck-Rare.                       of the neck - Common.

10. Carolid arleries, internal 10. Carlid arleries, internal coats ruptured in coats ordinarily ruptured.

11. Fracture of the Laynx 11. Fracture of the laryns, and trachea-Very rare trachea and hyoid and may be found that bone.

too in judicial hanging.

12. Fracture-dislocation of 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae- the cervical vertebrae-

    Common      in    judicial  Rare.
    hanging.

13. Scratches,     abrasions 13. Scratches,    abrasions
    and bruises on the           fingernail marks and
    face, neck and other         bruises on the face,
    parts of the body-           neck and other pars of
    Usually not present.         the        body-Usually
                                 present.

14. No evidence of sexual 14. No evidence of sexual assault. assault.

15. Emphysematous bullae 15. Emphysematous bullae on surface of the lungs- on the surface of the Not present. lungs-May be present.

30. PW.16 Dr. Satish Kumar was also working as a

Medical Officer at the Government Hospital Sandur, where

the Postmortem was conducted. He has also deposed that

along with PW.23 Dr. Thippeswamy, he has conducted the

Postmortem examination. His evidence also corroborate

with the testimony of PW.23. Thus through the testimony

of PW.23 and 16, the prosecution has proved that the

death of the deceased was on account of strangulation

using the ligature material MO.1 and it is not a case of

death by hanging. Therefore, the defence of the accused

that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself falls to

the ground.

31. In addition to making suggestion to the

prosecution witnesses that deceased committed suicide by

hanging, the accused has tried to establish his defence by

examining DW.1 Pompa Naik. From the testimony of this

witness it appears that he is running a Hotel adjacent to

the Hotel of the accused and deceased at H.R.G Cross. He

has deposed that the accused is not addicted to drinking

and on the other hand, the relationship between accused

and deceased was very cordial. He has deposed that

Nagibai the younger sister of deceased was in love with

the accused and she was insisting him to marry her and

there used to be frequent quarrel between Nagibai and

deceased and many a times he has interfered and pacified

their quarrel. He has also deposed that on the date of

incident also both Nagibai and deceased quarreled and he

and his wife pacified them and thereafter they went to

Sanduru. But by the time they returned they found

deceased dead by hanging. He has stated that accused is

not responsible for the death of the deceased. On the

other hand on account of the humiliation meted out by

Nagibai, the deceased has committed suicide.

32. During his cross examination DW.1 has stated

that since Nagibai was speaking to the accused smilingly,

he says that they were having an affair. When questioned

whether he speak to the women relatives of his wife and

have food with them, he has answered in the affirmative.

He has stated that he never saw the accused and Nagibai

in compromising position. He has also stated that since

accused was promising to marry Nagibai and taking care of

her, it was not agreeable for deceased and that was the

reason for the quarrel between them. However no

suggestions are made to the prosecution witnesses in the

line of the testimony given by DW.1. We find that DW.1

Pompa Naik is not a truthful witness and he has been set

up to put forth a false defence which the accused has

taken.

33. Having regard to the fact that in the light of

testimony of PW.16 and 23, the prosecution has proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased

was due to strangulation using ligature material MO.1, this

falsify the testimony of DW.1 that the deceased committed

the suicide. On the other hand through his cross

examination, the prosecution has proved that on the date

of the incident, accused was very much present in the

house. On this aspect, DW 1 has deposed that on the date

of incident, while he and his wife were going to Sandur,

the accused was present in his house and he was giving

bath to his son and deceased was also in the house.

34. In unequivocal terms DW.1 has deposed that

when they were leaving for Sandur, they saw both accused

and deceased together in the house. By 12-00 noon when

he returned, he saw the dead body of the deceased in the

kitchen fallen on the ground and it was having ligature

mark on the neck and MO.1 plastic rope was available by

her side and by that time accused had left along with his

son.

35. The evidence of DW.1 instead of helping the

accused, is going against him. His cross examination

establish the fact that on the date of the incident, this

witness has seen the accused and the deceased together

and by 12-00 noon, when they returned, they found

accused missing with his son and the dead body of the

deceased was found in the kitchen fallen on the ground

with the ligature material by her side and her neck bore

the ligature mark.

36. Thus from the above discussion we hold that

the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that

it is the accused and accused alone who has committed the

murder of his wife. Being the inmate of the house, he is in

the exclusive knowledge of what transpired between him

and the deceased. He is not coming up with any plausible

explanation. On the other hand he has put forth a false

defence which he has failed to prove. As already noted

during the course of his statement under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C, he has stated that on the date of incident he took

his son to the Hospital and by the time he returned from

the hospital, he found the deceased dead by hanging.

However he has failed to prove that on the date of the

incident, when actually the death of the deceased

occurred, he had been to the Hospital. Admittedly when

the neighbors came to the spot, Accused was not found.

Similarly when the complainant and all the relatives of the

deceased came to the spot and he was not found. He has

gone along with the child. His conduct is contrary and

inconsistent with the plea of innocence put forth by him.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable

consistent and corroborates with each other. We find no

reason to disbelieve their testimony. They have no ill will

or grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him.

37. The medical evidence is contrary to the

defence of the accused that the deceased committed

suicide by hanging. Taking into consideration all these

aspects, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion

that the deceased was harassed and ill-treated by the

accused and the deceased met with homicidal death due to

Asphyxia, on account of strangulation. Being the inmate of

the house, the accused is the only person who is

responsible for the same. In absence of any plausible

explanation to the contrary, the Trial Court has rightly held

him guilty for the death of the deceased.

38. Having regard to the nature of the offence

committed by the accused, the quantum of punishment

imposed is in commensurate with the charges proved

against the accused and we find no reasons to interfere

with the same and accordingly we proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by the accused fails and accordingly

it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PJ