K. Sujana, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 26.11.2018 passed in S.C.No.283 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant is the wife of the deceased-Komuraiah. The deceased was allegedly habituated to consuming alcohol and was frequently harassing the appellant by beating her. According to the prosecution, on 18.01.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased came home in an intoxicated condition and, while he was sleeping, the appellant allegedly strangulated him with a nylon rope till his death. It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter the appellant informed her relatives and neighbours that her husband had died due to heavy consumption of liquor. On the next day morning, while the last rites of bathing the dead body were being conducted, P.W.1 noticed a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. When the relatives questioned the appellant, she allegedly disclosed that, due to the harassment caused by the deceased, she strangulated him with a nylon rope while he was sleeping and thereafter informed the relatives that he had died due to consumption of liquor.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.12 of 2016 of Adilabad Rural Police Station was registered initially for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, observed the dead body, got the scene photographed, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and her alleged confession was recorded. Pursuant thereto, MO.1-nylon rope was seized. P.W.9-Dr. Y. Ramu, Medical Officer, conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He found a dark pressure abrasion measuring 30 cms. x 0.5 cm., completely encircling the neck, above the level of thyroid cartilage. On opening the skin underneath the ligature mark, the tissues were found contused and fracture of the hyoid bone was noticed at the junction of the body and left greater horn. After receipt of the FSL report, he issued his final opinion stating that the deceased died due to strangulation.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, whereupon it was numbered as S.C.No.283 of 2016. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P19 and produced MO.1-nylon rope. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her. She denied the same and did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in her defence.

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The trial Court principally relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 regarding the ligature mark and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding confession and seizure of MO.1 nylon rope, the medical evidence of P.W.9 and the surrounding circumstances. The trial Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra.

7. Heard Sri Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant as there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not proved conclusively. He submitted that the alleged extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and that MO.1 was planted by the prosecution. He further submitted that the medical evidence and ocular evidence are inconsistent with each other and that the prosecution failed to examine the minor child of the appellant and deceased, who was allegedly present with them at the relevant time and that P.Ws.7 and 8, the inquest and confession-cumseizure panchayatdars, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, if the hyoid bone is fractured, there is a possibility of injury to the larynx, pharynx and/or cervical spine and that the medical evidence does not conclusively establish the prosecution version and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to her. He further contended that the appellant has minor children aged about 9 years and 3 years and also a one-year-old son of her deceased sister, all of whom are dependent upon her. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the trial Court and that though there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant through a complete chain of circumstances. He further submitted that P.Ws.1 to 4 categorically deposed regarding the disclosure made by the appellant that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope, and P.W.6 corroborated the prosecution case regarding the frequent quarrels between the appellant and deceased and the quarrel on the night of the occurrence.

11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that P.W.8, though initially turned hostile, admitted that the appellant disclosed before him that she had killed her husband by strangulation with a nylon rope and that she produced the nylon rope, which was seized in his presence. He further contended that the medical evidence of P.W.9 clearly establishes that the deceased died due to strangulation and that the fracture of the hyoid bone and the ligature mark completely corroborate the prosecution case. He therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

12 The following points arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal:

               i. Whether the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was homicidal?

               ii. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by strangulating him with MO.1-nylon rope?

               iii. Whether the prosecution has established the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against the appellant?

               iv. Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court warrants interference by this Court?

13. To prove the allegations against the appellant, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P19 and produced MO.1. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and nephew of the deceased. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are neighbours/circumstantial witnesses. P.W.5 is the photographer. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for the crime details form, inquest and confessioncum- seizure proceedings. P.W.9 is the Medical Officer and P.Ws.10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers.

14. The first aspect that requires consideration is the nature of death of the deceased. P.W.9, the Medical Officer, categorically deposed that he conducted post-mortem examination on 19.01.2016 and found a dark pressure abrasion completely encircling the neck, with contusion of tissues underneath the ligature mark and fracture of the hyoid bone. After receipt of the FSL report, he issued the final opinion stating that the deceased died due to strangulation. The medical evidence therefore establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the medical evidence and ocular evidence contradict each other. The prosecution case regarding the cause of death does not rest upon the deceased having consumed alcohol. The evidence of P.W.9 clearly establishes strangulation as the cause of death. The fact that the FSL report did not disclose consumption of alcohol does not create any contradiction with regard to the actual cause of death. The trial Court has also considered this aspect and found that the presence or absence of alcohol in the viscera has no bearing upon the cause of death, which was established as strangulation.

16. Coming to the involvement of the appellant, it is true that there is no direct eyewitness to the actual act of strangulation. However, the absence of an eyewitness by itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case when the circumstances proved on record form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

17. P.W.1 deposed that the appellant informed him over phone that her husband had died due to heavy consumption of liquor. On the next morning, when the customary bathing of the dead body was being conducted, P.W.1 noticed a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. On enquiry, the appellant disclosed that the deceased had been harassing her by beating her in an intoxicated condition and, due to such harassment, she strangulated him with a nylon rope while he was sleeping. P.W.1 thereafter lodged the complaint. Though certain admissions were elicited in his cross-examination with regard to the recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the scribing of the complaint, the material part of his evidence remained intact.

18. P.W.2, the sister of the deceased, also spoke on similar lines. She stated that, after being informed about the death, she went to the house of the appellant and deceased and, during the customary bathing of the dead body, P.W.1 noticed the ligature mark. According to her, when the appellant was questioned, she disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope because of the harassment caused by him. Her evidence substantially corroborates the testimony of P.W.1.

19. P.W.3, a neighbour, also deposed that the appellant initially informed the persons gathered at the house that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor. On the next morning, after the ligature mark was noticed, the appellant disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope. P.W.3 further deposed that the appellant and deceased used to quarrel frequently. His evidence therefore corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 both with regard to the disclosure made by the appellant and the motive.

20. P.W.4 also supported the prosecution case. He deposed that the appellant initially informed the neighbours that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor and, on the next morning, after the ligature mark was noticed, she disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope while he was sleeping. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 is consistent with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

21. P.W.6, another neighbour, deposed that on the night of the occurrence he heard quarrels emanating from the house of the appellant and deceased. On the next morning, he came to know about the death and noticed the ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. His evidence is relevant as it establishes that there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased on the night of the occurrence and also corroborates the evidence relating to the ligature mark.

22. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, when considered cumulatively, establishes that the appellant initially represented that the deceased died due to consumption of liquor, but after the ligature mark was noticed, she disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope due to the harassment caused by him. The evidence further establishes that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and deceased and that a quarrel had taken place on the night of the occurrence.

23. The next circumstance is the recovery of MO.1-nylon rope. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and that MO.1 was a planted object. It is true that an extrajudicial confession has to be scrutinised with care and caution. However, in the present case, the alleged confession is not standing alone. It receives corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, the medical evidence and the subsequent seizure of MO.1.

24. P.Ws.7 and 8 were examined as panch witnesses for the crime details form, inquest and confession-cum-seizure proceedings. Both the witnesses initially did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile. However, the fact that a witness has been declared hostile does not render his entire evidence liable to be discarded. The admissible portion of his testimony can still be considered if it receives support from the other evidence on record.

25. In the present case, P.W.8, during his crossexamination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, categorically admitted that the appellant disclosed before him that she had killed her husband by strangulating him with a nylon rope due to the harassment caused by him. He further admitted that the appellant brought the nylon rope from her house and handed it over to the police in his presence and that the police seized the same. He identified the said rope as MO.1.

26. Therefore, the contention that P.Ws.7 and 8 turned hostile and, consequently, the entire recovery has to be discarded, cannot be accepted. In particular, the substantive admissions made by P.W.8 support the prosecution version regarding the disclosure and seizure of MO.1. His evidence also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 regarding the ligature mark and the disclosure made by the appellant.

27. The contention that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence also does not assist the appellant in the facts of the present case. The conviction is not based solely upon the extra-judicial confession. The confession is corroborated by the fact that the deceased died of strangulation, the ligature mark was noticed by several witnesses, the appellant herself initially gave a false explanation that the deceased died due to consumption of liquor, the appellant and deceased had quarrels immediately prior to the occurrence, and MO.1-nylon rope was recovered at her instance.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the minor child of the appellant and deceased was not examined by the prosecution. The said contention also cannot be accepted as a ground to discard the prosecution case. The non-examination of a particular witness is not necessarily fatal when the evidence of the witnesses actually examined is found to be cogent and corroborative and the material circumstances have otherwise been established.

29. In the present case, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 consistently speak about the circumstances immediately preceding and following the death of the deceased, while P.W.9 establishes the cause of death. The evidence of P.W.8 further supports the recovery of MO.1. Therefore, non-examination of the minor child, by itself, does not create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The trial Court also considered this contention and held that, in view of the evidence already available on record, non-examination of the son of the appellant and deceased was not fatal to the prosecution.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the fact that P.Ws.7 and 8, the inquest panchayatdars, did not support the prosecution case. As noticed above, though both witnesses turned hostile with regard to certain proceedings, P.W.8 made material admissions regarding the confession and seizure. Further, the inquest and other documents are not the sole basis for the conviction. The oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 and the medical evidence independently establish the material circumstances.

31. The contention that the fracture of the hyoid bone ought to have been accompanied by injuries to the larynx, pharynx or cervical spine also does not create a reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death. The medical evidence on record is that there was a ligature mark completely encircling the neck, the underlying tissues were contused, the hyoid bone was fractured and the final opinion was that the deceased died due to strangulation. The medical evidence has to be considered as a whole and not by isolating one possible medical circumstance from the proved findings.

32. It is also relevant that the prosecution has established that the deceased died inside the house occupied by the appellant and the deceased. The prosecution evidence further establishes the presence of the appellant in the house around the relevant time. In such circumstances, the appellant was in a position to explain the circumstances in which her husband died. However, in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she merely denied the incriminating circumstances and did not furnish any satisfactory explanation for the homicidal death of her husband.

33. The principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not shift the initial burden of the prosecution. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts. In the present case, the prosecution has established the homicidal nature of death, the presence of the appellant in the house, the quarrel between the appellant and deceased, the ligature mark, the disclosure made by the appellant, the medical evidence of strangulation and the recovery of MO.1. Once such foundational circumstances are established, the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the appellant assumes significance as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

34. The conduct of the appellant in initially informing the relatives and neighbours that the deceased had died due to heavy consumption of liquor is also relevant. The ligature mark was noticed only during the customary bathing of the dead body. Thereafter, on being questioned, the appellant disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased. The prosecution case regarding the subsequent disclosure is consistently spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4.

35. The contention that there was delay in lodging the complaint also does not create any reasonable doubt. The evidence on record shows that the appellant initially informed the relatives and neighbours that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor. The suspicion arose only when the ligature mark was noticed during the last rites on the following morning. Immediately thereafter, the relatives questioned the appellant and P.W.1 lodged the complaint. The trial Court has considered this aspect and found that the time taken in lodging the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances in which the death was initially represented as a natural death.

36. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the principle that where two views are possible on the circumstances, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. There can be no quarrel with the said general principle. However, the same would apply only when the evidence on record gives rise to two reasonably possible views. In the present case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, the medical evidence of P.W.9, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding confession and seizure and the surrounding circumstances, when considered cumulatively, establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

37. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the material available on record. It is true that the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence and that there is no direct eyewitness to the actual act of strangulation. However, the law does not require direct evidence in every case. What is required is that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be firmly established and should form a complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused.

38. In the present case, the following circumstances have been established:

               i. the deceased died an unnatural and homicidal death due to strangulation;

               ii. the deceased and appellant were residing together in the same house;

               iii. there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and deceased and a quarrel was heard on the night of the occurrence;

               iv. the appellant initially informed the relatives and neighbours that the deceased died due to consumption of liquor;

               v. a ligature mark was noticed around the neck of the deceased during the customary bathing of the dead body;

               vi. on being questioned, the appellant disclosed that she had strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope;

               vii. P.W.8 admitted that the appellant disclosed the commission of the offence and produced the nylon rope, which was seized as MO.1;

               viii. the medical evidence independently establishes strangulation; and

               ix. the appellant has not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding the homicidal death of her husband.

39. These circumstances are mutually corroborative and form a continuous chain connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence. The prosecution has therefore discharged its burden of establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

40. Coming to the offence under Section 201 IPC, the evidence establishes that, after the death of her husband by strangulation, the appellant initially informed the relatives and neighbours that he had died due to consumption of liquor. The said false information was intended to represent the death as a natural death and thereby screen the actual offence. The ligature mark was subsequently noticed and the actual circumstances came to light. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 201 IPC are also established.

41. We find no material contradiction between the medical evidence and the other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. On the contrary, the medical evidence substantially corroborates the prosecution case that the deceased died due to strangulation. The fracture of the hyoid bone and the ligature mark are consistent with the cause of death recorded by P.W.9.

42. The fact that P.Ws.7 and 8 did not fully support the prosecution case does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when P.W.8 admitted the material circumstances relating to the disclosure and seizure and the remaining evidence independently establishes the involvement of the appellant.

43. The contention that MO.1 was planted also cannot be accepted. The recovery of MO.1 is not being considered in isolation. It is an additional circumstance which receives support from the oral testimony of P.W.8 and the medical evidence as well as the disclosure made by the appellant to P.Ws.1 to 4.

44. On a cumulative consideration of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the death of her husband by strangulation and thereafter attempted to screen herself by giving false information regarding the cause of his death. We have also considered the contention regarding the children of the appellant and the plea for taking a lenient view. The trial Court, at the stage of sentencing, had considered the fact that the appellant was having minor children aged about 9 years and 3 years and also a oneyear- old son of her deceased sister, all of whom were stated to be dependent upon her. However, the trial Court, considering the nature and manner of commission of the offence, declined to take a lenient view and imposed the sentence as stated supra.

45. Having regard to the overall circumstances, we find no illegality, perversity or material misappreciation of evidence in the judgment of the learned trial Court warranting interference by this Court. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is therefore liable to be confirmed.

46. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.283 of 2016, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, is hereby confirmed. However, in view of the remission granted to the appellant vide G.O.Ms.No.54, Home (SERVICES - V) Department dated 01.06.2026, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.