SANJIV KHANNA,J. - (1.)MOHD. Hanif by this appeal seeks quashing of his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2010 in Session Case No. 21/2008 arising out of FIR No. 199/2008, Police Station, Nand Nagri. The appellant has also questioned the order of sentence dated 30th October, 2010 by which the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(2.)THE appellant has been convicted for murder of his wife Rozina on the night of 19-20th April, 2008 at their residence A- 2/212, Gali No. 2, East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, Delhi.
Before we go on to the merits of the case, it may be appropriate to record and state that this appeal was preferred by Mohd. Hanif through Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate. On 17th July, 2012, the appellant-Mohd. Hanif had appeared on production warrant and had stated that Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate was to argue this appeal on merits. As Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate was not present, the appeal was not taken up for hearing on the said date and was adjourned to 6th August, 2012. On 6th August, 2012, Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate was heard at length but as arguments could not conclude, the appeal was adjourned to 7th August, 2012. On 7th August, 2012, Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate did not appear and in the interest of justice, the matter was renotified for 8th August, 2012. On the said date again, Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate did not appear. Mohd. Yaseen, father of the appellant was present in the Court and informed that the said Advocate had expressed his inability to appear as there was a dispute regarding payment of fee. He requested that a legal aid counsel may be appointed. In these circumstances, Mr. Siddhartha Aggarwal, Advocate, who is on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, was appointed as Amicus Curiae. We have heard Mr. Siddhartha Aggarwal, Advocate today.

It is an undisputed position that the deceased Rozina died a homicidal death. The post mortem report of Rozina has been proved and marked Exhibit PW-5/A. The said post mortem was conducted on 22nd April, 2008 by Dr. Arvind Kumar, who appeared as PW-5. Post mortem started at 11.35 a.m. and it was concluded at 12.20 p.m. on the same day. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had died about 48 hours before due to asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation by ligature The deceased also had the following injuries:

"1)Reddish hard grooved parchment like ligature mark present around the neck completely. Ligature mark is running almost horizontly. In midline front of neck, mark is 0.8 cm broad and 7 cm below on left side of neck mark is 1 cm broad and 5 cm below left ear and on right side of neck mark is 0.7 cm broad and 4 cm below right ear. On back of neck mark is below hairline running horizontally, mark is 8 cm below occipital protuberance and 0.7 cm broad. At places skin folds are present on the marks. On fine dissection of mark, subectomy tissue is pale with margins are hyper. On further dissection hemorrhage present in soft tissue and neck muscles below the mark. Hyoid, cricoids and thyroid cartilage are present. 2) Reddish linear abrasion of size 2.1 cm x 0.2 cm present over closum of hand below little finger. 3) Reddish linear abrasion of size 1.8 cm x 0.2 cm present over right side of forehead 4.5 cm above right eyebrow and 3 cm from midline. 4) Reddish linear abrasion of size 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm present to right eyebrow."

(3.)THE next question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant is responsible and had caused the death of Rozina. It is accepted position that the appellant was husband of Rozina and they were residing at the room mentioned above. The prosecution case relies upon the testimony of PW-1, Shabnam. She is the sister-in-law of the accused and the deceased, being the wife of the appellant's brother. PW-1 in her statement had stated that Rozina died on 20th April, 2008. PW-1 had woken up in the morning at 4/4.30 a.m., as she was not feeling well. The appellant was standing in the gallery, holding his son. The appellant looked sad and the son was crying. On being questioned why he was sad, the appellant asked PW-1 to go inside his room and see what had happened. When PW-1 went inside the room of the appellant, she found that Rozina was lying dead. She cried and shouted and thereafter persons from the neighbourhood gathered there. Somebody made a call to the police and the police reached the spot.
Mr. Siddhartha Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted and drawn our attention to the statement made by PW-1 in the examination-in-chief that the police did not interrogate her. He also drew our attention to the statement made by PW-2, Kalsum, mother of the deceased that they suspected, and Rozina had also told them, that PW-1 had illicit relations with the appellant. Similar allegations were made by PW-7, Shamsher.