JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 10th January, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 25/1996, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I., for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that along with the appellant two other accused persons viz. Vikas Karande and Sanjay Karande, the brother and uncle of the appellant, respectively, were also prosecuted but they have been acquitted vide the impugned judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not preferred an appeal under section 378(1) Cri.P.C., against their acquittal. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The deceased Suvarna was the daughter of Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1. She was married to the appellant about 2 years prior to the incident. The appellant was serving as a peon in a school at village Sanbur, within taluka Patan, district Satara. After the marriage the appellant took Suvarna to village Sanbur. About 6 months prior to the incident Suvarna visited the house of her father Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 and complained to him that the appellant was doubting her chastity and saying that since she was good looking and he was hump how did she marry him. She also told her father that when the appellant went to attend duty he used to confine her in a room. Consequently, Vishnu Bhongale asked the appellant to treat Suvarna well. Suvarna also conveyed the said things to her brother Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 and her sister Balabai P.W. 4. On the date of the incident i.e. 26-11-96 at about 11 a.m. Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2, a neighbour of the appellant and Suvarna, heard cries to save, coming from the house of Suvarna. Consequently she and her mother-in-law Vithabai immediately went to the house of Suvarna. They saw that the appellant was holding Suvarna in his arms with the help of his legs. On Vithabai's asking the appellant as to what happened, the latter told her that he was bringing Suvarna on the ground because she had hanged herself. However, Kalpana and Vithabai did not find any circumstances suggesting hanging, like rope etc. The same day at about 12.30 p.m. the appellant came to the house of Dr. On Vithabai's asking the appellant as to what happened, the latter told her that he was bringing Suvarna on the ground because she had hanged herself. However, Kalpana and Vithabai did not find any circumstances suggesting hanging, like rope etc. The same day at about 12.30 p.m. the appellant came to the house of Dr. Mahesh Patil P.W. 5, which was situated in the same village viz. Sanbur. He asked him to see whether Suvarna was dead or alive and told him that she had committed suicide by hanging. Dr. Mahesh Patil proceeded to the house of Suvarna and on examining her found that she was dead. He did not see any signs of hanging in the room. He informed the Police Patil of the village. The same day at about 9 p.m. Shankar Krishna and his brother in law came on a jeep and informed Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 and his son Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 that Suvarna was admitted in a hospital and asked them to accompany them. When they questioned them as to why she had been admitted in the hospital they replied that Suvarna had died due to heart failure. Consequently on the same jeep they left. On the way Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 took his daughter Balabai P.W. 4 and lodged a report at Dhebewadi Police Station, about the unnatural death of Suvarna. They then proceeded to village Sanbur, which they reached at about 1 a.m. When they asked the appellant and the acquitted accused as to how Suvarna died they asked them to leave the house and to take appropriate legal action. Thereafter, Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 and Balabai P.W. 4 waited near the house of a neighbour of the appellant. In the meantime Dhebewadi Police informed Vishnu Bhongale that they would come to village Sanbur at about 8 a.m. for performing the inquest on the corpse of Suvarna. Hence they waited. After the inquest on the corpse of Suvarna was performed her dead body was sent for autopsy. 3. The evidence of Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 shows that after the corpse of Suvarna had been sent for autopsy he was taken by the police to Dhebewati Police Station where he lodged his F.I.R., Exhibit 25. 4. The post-mortem examination on the corpose of Suvarna was conducted on 27-11-1995 between 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. by Dr. Mrs. 3. The evidence of Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 shows that after the corpse of Suvarna had been sent for autopsy he was taken by the police to Dhebewati Police Station where he lodged his F.I.R., Exhibit 25. 4. The post-mortem examination on the corpose of Suvarna was conducted on 27-11-1995 between 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. by Dr. Mrs. Leela Madhukar Salunke, P.W. 6, who found on it the following external injuries: 1. Bruise at right side of neck and on antero lateral part, oblique, size 2" x 1" bluish in colour; 2. Small abrasion over left side at medial end of left lower eyelid size ½" x 1/8th", reddish in colour. In Dr. Mrs. Leela Madhukar Salunke's opinion the said injuries might have been caused within 24 hours, by a hard and blunt object. On internal examination Dr. Mrs. Leela Salunke found larynx to be congested and bilateral heamotoma on both sides of neck measuring 2" x 1" and blood oozing from mouth and blood clots in right nostril. In the opinion of Dr. Mrs. Leela Salunke, the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to throttling. In her statement in the trial Court she stated that the external injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She also stated therein that in case of hanging with rope, the ligature marks around the neck would be seen and she did not find any ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. She also stated that the external injuries suffered by the deceased were possible by pressing the neck with a finger. 5. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Kashinath Katt P.W. 7. On 28-11-1995 he arrested the appellant. During the course of investigation he recorded the statements of various witnesses. On 11-1-1996 after completing the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and the acquitted accused. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant and the acquitted were charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.; in the alternative for the offence under section 302 I.P.C., to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. During trial in all the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. We may straight away mention that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is a matter of profound regret that the learned trial Judge has not categoried the circumstances in the impugned judgment. We make no bones in observing that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence the circumstances and the witnesses examined to prove them should be enumerated. After going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we find that the following circumstances connecting the appellant with the crime were established, viz. : a) Motive, deposed to by Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 and Balabai P.W. 4. b) On the date of the incident at about 11 a.m. Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2 a neighbour of the appellant heard the cries coming from the house of Suvarna to save and when she immediately went to Suvarna's house along with her mother-in-law Vithabai she saw the appellant taking Suvarna in his arm with the support of his legs. c) False defence of the appellant in terms that Suvarna had committed suicide by tying a rope around her neck. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1. As mentioned in the said paragraph he acquitted co-accused persons viz. Vikas Karande and Sanjay Karande, the brother and uncle of the appellant, respectively, and the State of Maharashtra has not preferred an appeal against their acquittal. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for the appellant and Mr. A.M. Sringarpur A.P.P. for respondent. We have gone through the entire evidence on record and the impugned judgment. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal and in our view, it deserves to be dismissed. As mentioned earlier the case rest on circumstantial evidence and from a perusal of the evidence of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution the following circumstances appear against the appellant a) Motive, deposed to by Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale, P.W. 3, and Balabai P.W. 4. As mentioned earlier the case rest on circumstantial evidence and from a perusal of the evidence of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution the following circumstances appear against the appellant a) Motive, deposed to by Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale, P.W. 3, and Balabai P.W. 4. b) On the date of the incident at about 11 a.m. Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2 a neighbour of the appellant heard the cries coming from the house of Suvarna to save and when she immediately went to Suvarna's house along with her mother-in-law Vithabai, she saw the appellant taking Suvarna in his arm with the support of his leg. c) False defence of the appellant in terms that Suvarna had committed suicide by tying a rope around her neck. 8. We now propose examining each of the said circumstances. 9. We come to the first circumstances viz.:--- a) Motive, deposed to by Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 and Balabai P.W. 4. As mentioned earlier to prove motive the prosecution has examined three witnesses viz. Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1, Mohan Bhongale P.W. 3 and Balabai P.W. 4, the father, brother and sister of the deceased, respectively. The evidence of Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 shows that two years prior to the incident Suvarna had been married to the appellant. Since the appellant was employed as a peon in a school in village Sanbur she started staying with him there. His evidence and that of Mohan and Balabai shows that some times before the incident (according to Vishnu Bhongale six months before the incident) Suvarna came and informed them that the appellant was doubting her chastity and was saying that since she was beautiful and he was hump why did she marry him. The evidence shows that Suvarna also told them that when the appellant used to go to school he used to confine her in a room. The evidence of Vishnu Bhongale P.W. 1 further shows that he tried to convince the appellant to treat Suvarna well. We have gone through the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses and find it to be trustworthy. Although they were extensively cross-examined but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could even create an iota of doubt in our minds regarding the truthfulness of the motive, deposed to by them. We have gone through the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses and find it to be trustworthy. Although they were extensively cross-examined but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could even create an iota of doubt in our minds regarding the truthfulness of the motive, deposed to by them. It is common knowledge that a newly married girl who is tortured and harassed by her husband discloses her discomfiture to her near relations and we find it to be perfectly natural that Suvarna made the said disclosure to her father, brother and sister. We believe the evidence of these three witnesses. In our view, the circumstances of motive has been firmly established. 10. We now come to the second circumstances, viz. :--- b) On the date of the incident at about 11 a.m. Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2 a neighbour of the appellant heard the cries coming from the house of Suvarna to save and when she immediately went to Suvarna's house along with her mother-in-law Vithabai she saw the appellant taking Suvarna in his arm with the support of his legs. To prove this circumstance the prosecution has examined Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2, a neighbour of the deceased Suvarna. Since Kalpana Lohakare was a neighbour of Suvarna it was only natural that hearing cries coming from the house of Suvarna to the effect 'save' she and her mother-in-law Vithabai rushed to the place of the incident. We may mention that there was no enmity between Kalpana and the appellant which could have prompted her to falsely depose against him. In our view the said circumstance has also been established. 11. We now come to the third circumstance viz.:--- c) False defence of the appellant in terms that Suvarna had committed suicide by tying a rope around her neck. It is pertinent to mention that the said defence has been pleaded by the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. in reply to question No. 42. We say that this defence is false for the reasons enumerated hereinafter : i) A perusal of the spot panchanama, Exhibit 19, the genuineness of which has been admitted by the defence under section 294 Cri.P.C. shows that the corpse of Suvarna was found on a bed on which there was a blood stained blanket near the bed. We say that this defence is false for the reasons enumerated hereinafter : i) A perusal of the spot panchanama, Exhibit 19, the genuineness of which has been admitted by the defence under section 294 Cri.P.C. shows that the corpse of Suvarna was found on a bed on which there was a blood stained blanket near the bed. There was a bucket inside which was a blood stained vest and in the loft of the bed room there was a white full sleeve shirt, the pocket of which and the button holes were torn. In our view, had the deceased committed suicide there was no question of blood being on the blanket and on the banian and the pocket of the shirt and the button holes in the shirt, being torn. We feel that the pocket of the shirt and button holes were torn when the deceased resisted the endeavour of the appellant to strangulate her. ii) Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2, a neighbour of Suvarna, to whose evidence we have referred to earlier and Dr. Mahesh Patil P.W. 5, who within 1 ½ hours of the incident (at about 12.30 p.m.) examined Suvarna on the request of the appellant to ascertain whether she was alive, candidly stated that they did not see any signs suggesting hanging in the room. iii) Dr. Mrs. Leela Salunke P.W. 6, who performed the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased categorically stated that in case of hanging with a rope ligature mark around the neck would be seen and she found no ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. On the other hand she stated that the injuries of Suvarna were possible by pressing of the neck with the finger and Suvarna died on account of suffocation due to throttling. (iv) Kalpana Lohakare P.W. 2 has categorically stated that she found no signs of hanging like rope and in her cross-examination has stated that she found a sari around the neck of Suvarna and there was no rope on the sari. She also stated therein that she did not see the appellant removing the rope. We may also mention that a perusal of spot panchanama Exhibit 19 does not show that any rope was found. For the said reasons we also believe this circumstance. 12. In our view, the aforesaid three circumstances conclusively establish that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. We may also mention that a perusal of spot panchanama Exhibit 19 does not show that any rope was found. For the said reasons we also believe this circumstance. 12. In our view, the aforesaid three circumstances conclusively establish that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. We may also mention that the appellant has failed to discharge the mandatory statutory burden cast on him by section 106 of the Evidence Act which provides that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 13. We have earlier furnished reasons as to why we have rejected the defence of the appellant. Since the corpse of the deceased was found inside the house of the appellant and since the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C., as is evident by the answers given by him to question Nos. 16 and 17, admitted that he was inside the house and was taking Suvarna in his arms with the support of his legs it was incumbent for the appellant to have furnished a plausible explanation regarding the manner in which Suvarna died. In our view, the failure of the appellant to discharge the statutory burden cast on him by section 106 of the Evidence Act is a final nail in his coffin. 14. For the said reasons we confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. -----