Judgment · High Court · 2012

We have heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. KA Mazumdar

#7. While considering the present appeal, let us, first, consider as to what kind of relation deceased Ayesha had maintained with the present accused-appell ant. In this regard, the evidence of PW4, a co-villager of the appellant, is of great importance and so is the evidence of PW7, father of deceased Ayesha.

#8. PW4, a co-villager of the appellant, has deposed that since after the ma rriage between the accused and his wife, Ayesha, both the husband and the wife h ad not been maintaining cordial relation and the accused, sometimes, tortured Ay esha. In fact, in his cross-examination by the defence, PW4 has asserted that he had himself seen Ayesha being beaten on three or four occasions.

#9. Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW4 to show that his evidence, that since after their marriage, the couple had not been maintain ing cordial relation and that he had himself seen Ayesha being beaten by the app ellant, cannot be believed. It was merely suggested to PW4, which he, of course, denied, that because of his enmity with the accused, he had given false evidenc e. The defence has not even put to PW4 as to what kind of enmity PW4 had maintai ned with the accused-appellant or what the cause of enmity was. The suggestion, so put to PW4, was wholly vague and carries, therefore, no value at all. In fact , PW4 has deposed that he went to the house of the accused and asked him, (cid:28)Why d o you torture her in this way? (cid:29) This assertion of PW4 went unchallenged by the d efence. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, when we proceed further with th 10. e evidence of PW4, it transpires that in his cross-examination, PW4 has clarified that his house is at a distance of one furlong from the house of the a ccused and the parental house of deceased Ayesha is at Goreswar, which is at a d istance of about 100 miles, and that on 2-3 occasions, when he went to the house of the accused for settling his dispute with his wife, 20-25 people also went w ith him, such as, Kader Maulana and Chand Mia. These assertions of PW4, too, rem ained unchallenged by the defence. This apart, it is in the evidence of PW4 that he had asked father of the accused to settle the dispute between the deceased a nd her husband, but the accused did not even obey his father. The evidence, so g iven by PW4, remained fully unchallenged by the defence. From the evidence of PW4, what becomes clear is that since after their m 11. arriage, the accused and his wife, Ayesha, had not been maintaining cordial rela tion and that the accused used to even beat Ayesha. The above discussion of the evidence brings us to the evidence of Ayesha 12. ’s father (PW7). His evidence is that after marriage, Ayesha passed three years of conjugal life with the accused and she gave birth to a male child, who was ab out seven years old at the time of the occurrence. Describing as to what had happened in the past, i.e., before Ayesha died 13. , PW7 has deposed that since after one year of their marriage, accused used to t orture Ayesha and when he (PW7) came to the house of the accused after about a y ear of her marriage, he came to know that they used to quarrel and that after on e year of their marriage, the accused took Ayesha to her parental house and left her there saying that he would take her back after a month, but he did not take her back for nine months and after nine months, the accused came and take Ayesh a back to his house promising not to torture her again. It is extremely importan t to note, in the evidence of PW7, that according to him (PW7), during the said period of nine months, Ayesha gave birth to a dead female child and, on being in formed about the death of the female child, the accused did not even come to enq uire. It is also in the evidence of PW7 that while taking back Ayesha to his hou se, the accused was accompanied by some other people and it was, thereafter, tha t a male child was born.

#14. Though PW7 has been put to cross-examination by the defence, the evidenc e, as depicted above, remained wholly unshaken by the defence. The defence, rath er, offered a suggestion to PW7, the suggestion being that PW7 had borrowed Rs.2 ,000/- from the accused and as the accused had asked to return his money, a misu nderstanding developed between them. There is nothing on record even probablisin g this suggestion. Hence, the suggestion, so offered to PW7, has remained a mere suggestion without adversely affecting his evidence, which is, otherwise, we fi nd, completely believable.

#15. Keeping in view the kind of hostile relation, which the accused had main tained towards his wife, and the fact that the evidence on record proves, cogent ly and convincingly, that the accused used to even beat his wife, Ayesha, let us , now turn, to the evidence of PW1, younger brother of the accused-appellant.

#16. The evidence, as given in the Court by PW1, is that on the day Ayesha di ed, it was a Friday and he was at home and, on that day, at about 9.30 am, the a ccused left for Dhula Mosque to lead prayer, because he was the Imam there and A yesha was at home. PW1 has claimed, in his evidence, that Ayesha gave him her ch ild at around 12.30 pm and when the child was handed over to him, he asked Ayesh a as to what she was going to do and Ayesha replied by saying that she would be washing clothes of her husband. PW1 has also claimed, in his evidence, that afte r some time, when he came back home, he did not find Ayesha in the house; so, he proceeded towards the kitchen, which was closed, and when he opened the door of the kitchen, he saw that Ayesha had hanged herself by a rope and, on witnessing the scene, he raised alarm, whereupon other people came and that he also went t o Dhula Police Station and informed the police.

#17. What is, now, extremely important to note is that PW1 was declared hosti le by the prosecution, because his evidence, given in the Court, ran contrary to his previous statement given to the police and, then, PW1 was cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. The previous statement of PW1, as proved by the Investigating Officer, read: (cid:28)During recording of statement of witness- Kudrat Ali, he stated to me that (cid:28)on 19.04.2002 at morning his elder brother did quarrel with his wife and on that da y at about 11:30 AM h, after hearing cry of a person, went to the residence of h is elder brother (the accused) and visited the kitchen and saw that his elder br other’s wife was lying over the ground and his elder brother was dragging her th ereover and his elder brother told him that (cid:28)do not tell anybody about that happ ening and if you tell, I will also cause same thing to me (cid:29). He saw that his elde r brother hanged his wife with a rope; thereafter his elder brother again told h im that (cid:28)your sister in law died by hanging (cid:29), and hearing that he became fainted and thereafter his elder brother went to the Mosque for saying namaj; his elder brother is a dreaded person and hence he had not stated the said thing to anybo dy else, and his elder brother was the only person who is responsible for the de ath of his sister in law. (cid:29)

#18. Though the previous statement, made to the police by PW1, can be used on ly for contradiction and there is no assurance that the said statement given by PW1 to the police was the truth, what cannot be denied is that in the light of t he previous statement, which PW1 had made to the police, his evidence, given in the Court, cannot but be held to be wholly unsafe to place reliance upon.

#19. Thus, the facts, stated by PW1 to the effect that Ayesha had handed over her child to him (PW1) after her husband (i.e., the accused-appellant) had left the house for Dhula Mosque at about 9.30 am, cannot at all be believed and must be discarded as evidence given by a wholly unreliable witness.

#20. When the evidence of PW1 is rejected as wholly unreliable, there remains nothing in the evidence of PW1 and, as we would point out, in the evidence of o ther prosecution witnesses, too, showing convincingly that Ayesha was alive at t he time before the appellant left his house for leading prayer, at Dhula Mosque, as Imam or after the appellant left his house for the purpose as aforesaid.

#21. Coming to the evidence of PW2, who is a co-villager of the appellant, we notice that he claims to have found Ayesha hanging. His evidence, it needs to b e noted, does not show at all that he had seen Ayesha alive at the time, when th e occurrence had taken place. No wonder, therefore, that in his cross-examinatio n by the defence, this witness has clearly stated that he did not know how Ayesh a died.

#22. When we come to the evidence of PW3 (father of the accused), we find tha t according to him, he had gone, on the day of the occurrence, to the house of h is elder son, Jahed Ali, along with his wife and it was at the house of Jahed th at he had heard about the incident, but he (PW3) denies that the accused ever be at his wife. This witness’s evidence that his son, i.e., the appellant, never be at his wife, Ayesha, cannot be believed in the light of the unassailable and uns haken evidence of PW4 and PW7, whose evidence, with regard to the kind of relati onship, which the accused had maintained with his wife, Ayesha, we have already discussed. Moreover, even the evidence of PW3, i.e., father of the accused-appel lant, does not show that Ayesha was seen by him alive before the accused had lef t his house or after the accused-appellant had left his house.

#23. One can, thus, see that the evidence of PW1 having been found to be whol ly unreliable, there is really no evidence of any member of the family of the ac cused-appellant that his wife, Ayesha, was seen alive at any time before the acc used-appellant left his house or at any time, after the accused-appellant has le ft his house at the time, when the accused-appellant was leaving his house. Henc e, Ayesha being dead before the accused-appellant left his house cannot be ruled out.

#24. Turning to the evidence of PW5, it is interesting to note that after hav ing deposed that Ayesha died two years back, her promptly given evidence was tha t she had never heard of any quarrel or dispute between Ayesha and her husband a nd that she had never seen Ayesha being beaten. Though her evidence does not pro ve that the accused used to torture his wife, her evidence does not completely a bsolve the accused either that he never tortured his wife. Merely because PW5 ha d not heard any quarrel between the two or had not seen Ayesha being beaten by t he accused, it cannot be stretched to mean that there was cordial relation betwe en the couple, there was no quarrel or dispute between them or that the appellan t never tortured his wife and/or that the appellant never beat his wife.

#25. Though PW5 has deposed, in the Court, that she does not know how Ayesha died, her previous statement, made to the police, shows that she was informed by PW1 (younger brother of the accused), that on that day, at about 11.30 am, the accused had killed his wife and hanged her by a rope and this was seen by PW1 hi mself.

#26. Thus, apart from the fact that the previous statement of PW5 clearly sho ws that PW1 reported to her (PW5) that it was the accused, who had killed his wi fe and PW1 was a witness to the said occurrence, now, the fact remains that in t he light of the previous statement, which PW5 had so made to the police, her evi dence, now given in the Court, cannot be believed and she cannot be treated as a reliable evidence. At any rate, even her evidence does not show that Ayesha was seen alive on the day of the occurrence before or after the accused-appellant l eft his house.

#27. It is in the evidence of PW5 that on hearing hullah, she went to the hou se of the accused and found that she had committed suicide by hanging herself to death and her feet were touching on the ground. In her cross-examination, howev er, she claimed that she had not noticed if Ayesha’s legs were touching the grou nd or in what condition, her feet were. Thus, with every passing moment, PW5 is found to be a more and more unreliable as a witness.

#28. So far as PW6, a co-villager of the appellant, is concerned, her evidenc e is that the relation of the accused with his wife was cordial. This witness wa s also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. The investigating officer has proved that even this witness (PW6) stated, in her previous stateme nt, that on the day of the occurrence, she had been reported by PW1 that on that day, at about 11 am, the accused had killed his wife and hanged her in the kitc hen, which PW1 had himself seen.

#29. In the light of the previous statement of PW6, no credence can at all be given to the evidence of PW6, now, given in the Court. We, therefore, find that her evidence is wholly unreliable and his claim that the accused maintained cor dial relation with his wife can be given no credence at all. This apart, even th e evidence of PW6 does not show that Ayesha was seen alive at any time of the da y of the occurrence, particularly, after the accused left his house for Dhula Mo sque.

#30. Reverting to the evidence of PW4 (a co-villager of the appellant), as re gards the occurrence, we notice that according to PW4, on receiving information that Ayesha had hanged herself, he rushed to the place of occurrence and, on rea ching there, he found that the accused was not at home and Ayesha was on the flo or of the kitchen of the accused in a kneeling position and a jute or plastic ro pe was tied around her neck and the other end of the rope was tied to the maroli (bamboo or wooden beam of the roof of the house), many people came and, on the next day, she was buried. It is in the evidence of PW4 that the incident took place at about 12 no 31. on, which was a Friday, and he did not see the accused at his house till he was present there, but the accused was present at the time of janaja (burial ceremon y) and that the father of Ayesha (PW7) was also present there. It is also in the evidence of PW4 that Ayesha’s mother also came and both her parents stayed at h is (PW4’s) house.

#32. In his cross-examination, PW4 has clarified that maroli was at a height of 7 feet from the ground, the distance between the maroli and the head of Ayesh a was about three feet, the height of Ayesha was about five feet and, on reachin g the house of the accused, he sent the brother of the accused as well as his un cle to the police station to inform them. Police came and they took photographs.

#33. As far as PW7 is concerned, his evidence, with regard to the occurrence, is that on receiving information, he went to the house of the appellant and, on his arrival, the appellant’s co-villagers told him that the appellant had hange d his wife and, on arriving at the house of the appellant, he did not see his da ughter’s dead body nor did he find the accused there and, on enquiry, the parent s of the accused expressed their ignorance. It is in the evidence of PW7 that he was present at the time of burial of his daughter and he stayed at the house of a neighbour of the accused and, on the next day, he lodged a First Information Report with the police, which was written by a Mohori (i.e., Advocate’s clerk), Ext.2 being the Ejahar. We may pause here to point out that according to the evidence of the inv 34. estigating officer (PW12), on 19.04.2002, on receiving an FIR from Kamruz Zaman, (i.e., the appellant) at about 4.30 pm, U/D Case No.3/2002 was registered, the information given by the accused being that his wife had committed suicide durin g his absence. PW12 has also deposed that on being entrusted with the responsibi lity to make enquiry, he made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, to depute an Executive Magistrate and arrived at the residence of the accused, Ext. 7 being the information lodged by the accused. It is in the evidence of PW12 that he got the dead body guarded by his s 35. taff on 19.04.2002 and, on the following day, i.e., on 20.04.2002, an Executive Magistrate arrived and held inquest over the said dead body, the dead body havin g been found at the verandah of the house covered by a bamboo wall, which was be ing used as kitchen, and the deceased was found hanging from a maroli by a jute rope with a noose at the bar and another noose at the neck of the dead body, hal f portion of the body (i.e., from waist to toes) was lying over the katcha floor of the house and only the upper half of her body was in hanging position. PW12 has proved Ext.8 as inquest report prepared by the Magistrate. It is also in the evidence of PW12 that on 21.04.2012, the Officer-in-Charge received Ejahar from PW7 and registered Dhula Police Station Case No.26/2002 under Sections 498/304B IPC and entrusted him with the investigation of the case and on 21.04.2012, at about 11.30 am, he visited the house of the accused and recorded the statements of the witnesses and though he looked for the accused, he did not find him. Ext.8, being the inquest report, and of great relevance, the relevant po

#36. rtion of the inquest report is reproduced herein below: (cid:28)On information of Dhula P.S. self alongwith the C.I. Kharupetia and S.E. N.R. R oy visited all Bagd at 02:15 pm and discovered the dead body of Ayesha Begum, ho use wife in the Kitchen, We found the dead body hanging from the ceiling bamboo by a rope. The dead body was found hanging touching however the Hoar in a Kneel- down posture, photos were taken as necessary. Then the dead was remove from ceil ing bamboo and taken out to the Court yard. On examination of the dead body furt her the following were noticed: = Height Dress Injuries approx. 4’feet. = = Wearing a brownish saree, a blouse (i) a swelled area noticear just above the left d from eyes on the head (ii) Slight swelling seen on the left cheek. (iii) Deep rope cut mark in the front neck seen. (iv) Ractum clean/vagina clean. I found his eyes closed, tongue tied between the upper and lining of teeth. Except these I found no other injuries as notice outside. Dead body may be forwarded to the Mangaldai C/H [Emphasis is supplied] to confirm the exact cause of death. (cid:29)

#37. From the evidence on record, it becomes clear that though Ayesha was fo und hanging by her neck, she was in kneel-down position, i.e., both her feet wer e touching the ground from her knees. Even PW13, a co-villager of the appellant, has deposed that though Ayesh 38. a had hanged herself by neck, she was in kneel-down position. To the same effect is the evidence of PW14 and PW15 meaning thereby, as can be seen from the inque st report (Ext-8), that there was a rope around the neck of Ayesha and one side of the rope was tied from the Marula (i.e., bamboo bar on the roof of the house) , there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to how Ayesha could tie the r ope on the bamboo bar, when nothing was found in the room, which could show that Ayesha stood up on any chair or table or stool and tied the knot of the rope at the Maruli and hanged herself.

#39. In the face of the evidence, which has come on record, whether the accus ed-appellant could have been held guilty of having committed murder of his wife, is, now, the question for determination by this Court.

#40. With regard to the above, Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae, has ref erred to Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Fifth Editio n), to show that suicide by hanging is possible even by a person, whose feet or knees are touching the ground. Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and To xicology deals with hanging as under: (cid:28)Hanging is defined as that form of death which is caused by suspension of the b ody by a ligature round the neck, the constructing force being the weight of the body. When feet do not touch the ground and the weight of the whole body acts a s a constricting force, it is called complete hanging. When the weight of the he ad only and not the whole body acts as a constricting force, it is known as part ial hanging. The weight of the head is sufficient to produce a fatal result as s hown by the fact that in numerous cases of hanging, the feet of the victim are f ound resting on the ground and in many other cases, the whole body is found in a reclining position. (cid:29) is added). (Emphasis What is, however, of immense importance to note is that the inquest repo 41. rt (Ext.8) reveals swelling on the left tear of the head and slight swelling on the left cheek. These injuries are unexplained and are proof of violence before Ayesha was found hanging. There can be no doubt that even when a person’s both feet are resting t 42. he ground or he is in a kneel-down position, it can still be a case of suicide a nd not a case of homicidal hanging. This fact is recognized by Modi’s Medical Ju risprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-Third Edition). A case of present kind is com monly called ’partial hanging’ inasmuch as in the case of ’partial hanging’ the body is partially suspended, but the body is in a sitting, kneeling, reclining, prone, or any other posture. In all such cases, death is inevitable from slow as phyxia if there is enough force upon the ligature to constrict the neck. The rel evant portion, contained in Chapter 18 in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxic ology (Twenty-Third Edition), in this regard, read as under: (cid:28)Hanging is a form of death, produced by suspending the body with a ligature rou nd the neck, the constricting force being the weight of the body (or a part of t he body weight). Hanging can be defined as the ligature compression of the neck by the weight of one’s own body due to suspension. In hanging from a high point of suspension, the victim is either fully suspended , with his feet clear off the ground or he is suspended in a standing posture wi th his knees slightly flexed. In hanging from a low point of suspension (partial hanging), a comparatively lit tle force, about 4.5 kg is enough to occlude blood vessels of the neck. The term ’partial hanging’, is used for such cases in which the bodies are partially sus pended, or for those in which bodies are in a sitting, kneeling, reclining, pron e, or any other posture. In all such cases, death is inevitable from slow asphyx ia, if there is enough force upon the ligature to constrict the neck. (cid:29) (Emphasis is added).

#43. In the light of what have been pointed out above, we, now, turn to the e vidence of the doctor (PW8), who, admittedly, performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Ayesha on 20-04-2002 and, according to his evidence, he foun d as follows: (cid:28)(A) Physical Examination Built - average, Rigormortis - Nil, An irregular non-continuous ligature mark is seen high up in the neck obliquely, perchmanutisation seen on the cut section on the ligature marks. (B) Dissection of neck Perchmanutisation was seen on the cut section of ligature mark. (C) Examination of the other organs (i) Scalp and vertebra - Normal (ii) Brain membrane congested (vascularity seen prominent) (iii) Heart - Right side full (iv) Abdomen - Abdominal walls intact (v) Paritonium and esophagus - Healthy (vi) Stomach - Healthy (vii) Chest - Chest wall intact Pleura and lungs - Healthy Pericardium - Healthy (ix) Heart - right side full (x) Lever - Healthy (xi) Spleen - Healthy. (xii) Kidney - Healthy (xiii) Uranary bladder - Healthy (xiv) Uterus - Normal (D) Finding - I found the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. Han ging is ante mortem hanging. (cid:29)

#44. Thus, the cause of death, as determined by the doctor, was asphyxia as a result of hanging, which was ante mortem in nature, meaning thereby that Ayesha died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Though the doctor has not recorded the injuries, which were noted at the time of inquest, the findings, recorded i n the inquest report, cannot be ignored and lend credence to the opinion of the doctor that the present one is a case of ante mortem hanging.

#45. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the decision of Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2006 Cri. L.J. 303, wherein the Supreme Court held as under: (cid:28)22. In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey & Anr., reported in (1992) 3 SCC 204, this Court has considered a similar question and pointed out in para graph 34 at page SCC 221 as under: 34. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witnes s of fact and the evidence given by the Medical Officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of symptoms found on examination. The expert witne ss is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although , not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due re gard to the expert’s opinion because once the expert’s opinion is accepted, it i s not the opinion of Medical Officer but of the Court. (cid:29)

#46. While reproducing the above position of law, in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. N aval Dubey & Anr., reported in (1992) 3 SCC 204, the Court did not disagree with the observations made as regards the value of the evidence given by a doctor. I t is, eventually, for the Court to decide an issue on the basis of the evidence of the medical officer, the opinion of the medical officer being advisory in nat ure.

#47. What is, now, important to note is that the accused has taken the plea, while responding to his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, that his wife had hanged herself and committed suicide.

#48. With regard to the above, it is worth recalling that we have already poi nted out above, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the re is no evidence, trustworthy and reliable, for the reasons, which we have alre ady discussed above, to show that Ayesha was alive at the time, when the accused -appellant left his house on the day of the occurrence or after he left his hous e. Situated thus, one has no option, but to conclude, unless shown otherwis 49. e, that the accused-appellant was the one, who had killed his wife, his relation with his wife being, according to the overwhelming evidence on record, far from cordial so much so that he used to beat his wife.

#50. Yet another factor, which goes against the accused, is that his wife was found hanging in kneeling position. Though, as the discussion, held above shows , that it is not necessary that in every case of suicide, the feet must be hangi ng in the air, the accused has endeavoured, with the help of the defence evidenc e, to show two things, namely, (i) that his wife was seen alive after he had lef t his house and (ii) that both the feet of his wife were found hanging in the ai r.

#51. Because of the fact that the evidence on record, as adduced by the prose cution, show otherwise and there is no challenge to the findings, recorded in th e inquest report (Ext.8), if any witness, in the defence of the accused gives, n ow, evidence that his wife’s feet were found hanging in the air, it would be suf ficient to discard his/her evidence as unreliable inasmuch as such evidence woul d be given by a witness would be interested to prove that Ayesha had committed s uicide.

#52. In the backdrop of what have been indicated above, we, now, turn our att ention to the evidence adduced by the defence. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that according to the evidence of DW1, on the day of the occurrence, when she w ent to the house of Ayesha to call her, Ayesha was sitting, under a tree, with h er child and though she invited her to have food, Ayesha did not respond and at that time, the accused was not at his home. It is also in the evidence of DW1 th at when people were returning from mosque, she heard hullah and, on reaching the house of the accused, she found Ayesha hanging. While the prosecution witnesses were being examined, it was not contended, on behalf of the defence, that Ayesh a was alive after the accused-appellant had left his house. In this regard, the evidence was that of PW1, who is younger brother of the accused-appellant and wh ose evidence, for the reasons, assigned above, we have already discarded.

#53. On coming to the evidence of DW2, we notice that this lady has also depo sed that she had seen Ayesha moving with her daughter and when people were retur ning from mosque, she heard hullah, went to the house of the accused and found t hat Ayesha had died by hanging and that her body was 4/6 fingers above the groun d.

#54. Thus, the description of the body, given by DW2, is in the light of the inquest report, and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, wholly incorrect an d no foundation, it deserves to be noted, was laid, in this regard, by the defen ce while cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses that Ayesha’s feet were han ging in the air at the time, when she was found dead. The evidence, given by DW2 , run contrary to the neutral pieces of evidence, such as, inquest report prepar ed by an Executive Magistrate. In such a situation, one can have no option, but to hold DW2 as a unreliable witness. Same is the position of DW3, whose evidence is also that when she went to the house of the accused, she found that Ayesha’s feet were not touching the ground and that she was hanging. For the same reason , as we have already assigned hereinbefore, the evidence of DW3 also does not in spire our confidence.

#55. Since the accused has also given his evidence, as DW5, we may point out that his evidence is that he left his house at about 10.30/11.00 am on 19-04-200 2, for Dhula mosque for prayer and it was at the said mosque that he had been in formed about the fact that his wife had died by hanging and when he came home, h e found his wife hanging with about four fingers above the ground. This very des cription as to how he found his wife, Ayesha, when he returned home, is sufficie nt to hold that the evidence of the accused-appellant is nothing, but a bundle o f lies and we can, therefore, give no credence to his evidence at all.

#56. What emerges from the above discussion is that the accused-appellant use d to torture and beat his wife, Ayesha, and though his co-villagers and even his father tried to persuade the accused-appellant not to subject his wife to cruel ty in the manner as he had been doing, the accused-appellant did not listen to t hem. There is no evidence, convincing, trustworthy and reliable, showing that be fore the accused left his house, on the day of the occurrence, or at the time, w hen he was leaving his house or at any point of time thereafter, Ayesha was aliv e. There is, in such a situation, no difficulty in concluding that Ayesha was al ready dead before the accused-appellant left his house. This silence of the accu sed-appellant is eloquent testimony of the fact that the accused-appellant knew that his wife was dead. There is nothing at all to show that Ayesha could have t ied the rope to the Maroli (i.e., bamboo bar on the roof of the house), for, she was found to be hanging in a kneeling down position, both her knees resting on the ground, and there was no chair, table, etc., showing that Ayesha stood up on such table, chair or stool to tie the rope and then recognized the chair, table , etc., before typing the knot around her neck. This apart, the injuries of viol ence, as noted in the inquest report (Ext.1), is yet another pointer that Ayesha had been subjected to violence before she was put to death by hanging her. No w onder, therefore, that the post mortem report described the hanging as ante mort em hanging. In the circumstances as indicated above, one can have no hesitation in c 57. oncluding, and we do conclude that the learned trial Court was wholly justified in arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused-appellant and in convicting h im under Section 302 IPC. We do not notice that the finding of guilt, which the learned trial Court had reached, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. N either the conviction of the accused-appellant nor his sentence, in the face of the proven facts, calls for any interference by this Court.

#58. smissed. We hold the appeal as wholly without merit. The appeal is, therefore, di

#59. tand disposed of. With the above observations and directions, this criminal appeal shall s

#60. aluable assistance. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for rendering his v

#61. Send back the LCR.