JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Aniruddha s/o Joshiram Pantaware came to be convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for a charge of having committed murder of his wife Panchfulla, by judgment and order dated 7-11-1995 in Sessions Trial No. 49/1993, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia which is a matter of challenge before us. 3. In nutshell, it is the prosecution case that the appellant Aniruddha is a resident of Bhihiriya which falls within the jurisdiction of Dawaniwada Police Station in Tirora taluka, District Bhandara. He owns agricultural land and was residing at the village with his wife Panchfulla and one son. His two sons were residing at Bombay. The third son left for Bombay on 5-12-1992. 4. It is the prosecution case that between the night of 5-12-1992 and 6-12-1992 the appellant Aniruddha committed murder of his wife by severely assaulting her with knife. This fact came to the notice when Nimonabai (P.W. 4), who is adjoining neighbour of Panchfulla, in the morning of 6-12-1992 gave a call to Panchfulla, the deceased, but as nobody opened the door, she went to the house of Mahesh (P.W. 2), who is nephew of accused, thinking that Panchfulla might have gone to his place. As Panchfulla was not there, Mahesh (P.W. 2) accompanied Nimonabai and came to the house of the appellant and found that both the doors of the house i.e. front and back door, of the appellant/accused were closed and nobody responded to their call. So, he peeped into the house through the gap of the door and saw Panchfulla lying dead. In the meantime, people gathered in front of the house of the appellant/accused and they told Mahesh (P.W. 2) to call the Police Patil. Therefore, Mahesh (P.W. 2) went to call the Police Patil of the village. Biharilal Gedam (P.W. 3), the Police Patil of the village told Mahesh to call the Sarpanch and went to the house of the appellant/accused. The Police Patil also gave call to the accused, but as there was no reply, he also peeped through the gap of the door and saw Panchfulla lying in prostrate position. Therefore he chained the door from outside. By this time, Raghunath Sitaram Shukla (P.W. 1), Sarpanch of the village had also arrived. The Police Patil also gave call to the accused, but as there was no reply, he also peeped through the gap of the door and saw Panchfulla lying in prostrate position. Therefore he chained the door from outside. By this time, Raghunath Sitaram Shukla (P.W. 1), Sarpanch of the village had also arrived. The Police Patil left to report the matter to Dawaniwada Police Station. At about 9.30 a.m. he returned to the scene of offence i.e. the house of the appellant/accused along with A.P.I. Sevakram Modkuji Thavkar (P.W. 5) A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) on reaching the spot in the presence of two panchas i.e. Raghunath (P.W. 1) and one Babaldas, gave call to the appellant/accused from both the sides i.e. front and rear door of the house as both the doors were closed from inside, therefore, in presence of panchas, he removed the latch of the back door and re-opened the door. It opened in the kitchen room and on giving further calls to the appellant/accused, he opened the inner door because of which the police entered the room. They saw the appellant/accused standing near the door and dead body of his wife was lying in a pool of blood A.P.I. Thavkar also noticed that the hands of the appellant/accused as well as his legs were stained with blood. He then prepared the panchanama of opening of the door (Exhibit 15) and panchanama of the scene of offence (Exhibit 16). He thereafter conducted the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 17) and also seized certain articles from the spot under the seizure memos (Exhibits 18 and 19). A.P.I. Thavkar seized the clothes of the accused which were found kept in a bag and prepared a report (Exhibit 20) and sent it for registering at the Police Station. He arrested the appellant/accused on the spot and sent him for medical examination. The dead body of Panchfulla was sent to Medical Officer for collecting blood sample and post mortem examination. In the course of investigation A.P.I. Thavkar recorded statements of witnesses. Clothes of the deceased and her necklace as well as other things which were brought from the hospital, were seized. The Investigating Officer also collected the nail clippings of the accused and the appellant/accused was sent for medical examination. On completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia. 5. Clothes of the deceased and her necklace as well as other things which were brought from the hospital, were seized. The Investigating Officer also collected the nail clippings of the accused and the appellant/accused was sent for medical examination. On completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia. 5. The trial of the appellant/accused was taken up by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia and on 28-6-1994, charge vide Exhibit 6 came to be framed against the accused that he, in the night of 5-12-1992 committed murder intentionally or knowingly caused the death of his wife Panchfulla, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in all examined 5 witnesses in support of their case. The appellant/accused took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned as to leading evidence in defence. He stated that on the night he was in his farm and when he was wondering on boundary of his farm, he fell and received bleeding injuries. When he came home, he saw public around his house. He went inside his house and saw his wife dead. Thereafter police came there and said that he committed the murder and arrested him and involved him in this case. In order to explain the blood stains on his clothes, he says that on seeing the dead body of his wife, he cried and fell on it, that is how his clothes got stained with blood. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved that Panchfulla died a homicidal death and it was the accused who has committed her murder. Therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. 7. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant/accused committed the murder of his wife. It is submitted that in order to establish that it is the appellant/accused who has committed murder of his wife, the prosecution has not laid any evidence that deceased Panchfulla, wife of the appellant/accused was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. It is submitted that in order to establish that it is the appellant/accused who has committed murder of his wife, the prosecution has not laid any evidence that deceased Panchfulla, wife of the appellant/accused was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has taken a specific plea of alibi that in the night of 5-12-1992 he had gone to his field as it was harvesting time and it is only when he returned, he saw that his wife was lying dead in the house and, therefore, it was all the more necessary for the prosecution to establish that he was seen in the company of his wife and was with her in the house when she was alive. 8. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of witnesses who have stated that when they gathered in the morning in front of the house of the appellant/accused, they only gave him call to which there was no response. According to Mr. Daga, the prosecution's case that the doors i.e. front and back door of the house of the appellant/accused were latched from inside cannot be accepted as none of the witnesses have stated that they made attempt to push open the door and found it to be locked and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant/accused had locked himself in the house and committed murder of his wife. 9. Mr. Daga has also tried to draw our attention to the fact that the prosecution witnesses have accepted that the appellant was having a past history of unsoundness of mind and that he was suspecting the character of his wife. 10. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the exact motive because of which the appellant/accused could have committed such a heinous offence of murder and, therefore, this raises suspicion in one's mind as to under what circumstances Panchfulla came to be murdered. Mr. Daga submits that merely because the appellant/accused was found present near the dead body of his wife by the Police, A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) by itself would not be sufficient to fasten him with the charge of murder. 11. Mr. Daga submitted that prosecution has also failed to establish the exact time of death of Panchfulla. Mr. Daga submits that merely because the appellant/accused was found present near the dead body of his wife by the Police, A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) by itself would not be sufficient to fasten him with the charge of murder. 11. Mr. Daga submitted that prosecution has also failed to establish the exact time of death of Panchfulla. According to him, if Panchfulla had died in the early hours of 6-12-1992, then the appellant/accused cannot be held responsible for her death as that is the time the accused had returned from his agricultural field. Similarly, if Panchfulla had died in the late hours of 5-12-1992, then also the appellant/accused cannot be blamed as he had already left his house for going to the field. It is submitted that the third son of the appellant/accused was very much present with his mother when the appellant/accused left his house and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant/accused had an opportunity to commit murder of his wife and did so. 12. Mr. Daga therefore submitted that the circumstances tried to be established by the prosecution do not point out at the guilt of the accused. Therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. 13. Mr. Dhote, learned A.P.P. submitted that this is an open and shut case though it is based on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Dhote submitted that the appellant/accused was found in the house locked from both the sides where his wife was brutally murdered with the help of knife and that all the prosecution witnesses namely the Sarpanch (P.W. 1), his own brother Mahesh (P.W. 2), Police Patil (P.W. 3), Nimonabai (P.W. 4) and A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) are witnesses to this fact that when the A.P.I. Thavkar opened the door and entered the house, all saw the accused standing near the door and his wife lying dead in the pool of blood and, therefore, a necessary inference can be drawn that except the accused, no one has committed the murder. Mr. Dhote submitted that the prosecution having established this fact, the onus has shifted on accused to have offered an explanation as to how his wife was assaulted with knife and murdered as it was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant/accused. Having failed to do so, this establishes the missing link in the chain of circumstances. Mr. Mr. Dhote submitted that the prosecution having established this fact, the onus has shifted on accused to have offered an explanation as to how his wife was assaulted with knife and murdered as it was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant/accused. Having failed to do so, this establishes the missing link in the chain of circumstances. Mr. Dhote submitted that the appellant has taken a plea of alibi without discharging his burden to establish that he was alone in the house. It is submitted that the case of the accused that when he left the house, his wife was along with his son cannot be accepted because all the witnesses had stated that the son had already left for Bombay on 5-12-1992 itself. Mr. Dhote submitted that the appellant has tried to take a different stand in order to escape the liability like plea of alibi and insanity. But this by itself does not exonerate the appellant from the charge of murder. Mr. Dhote has placed reliance on the case of (Namdeo Satyagonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1994(4) Bom.C.R. 64 : 1994 Cri.L.J. 3493 in order to substantiate his contention that in the given facts and circumstances, the burden was on the accused under section 106 to explain as to how all this happened and this has not been discharged by him, the circumstances unmistakably completed the entire chain of circumstantial evidence enough to fasten the guilt on the accused. Mr. Dhote therefore submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. It is not disputed that Panchfulla died homicidal death. The post mortem examination report (Exhibit 32) has been admitted by the accused. It clearly discloses that the victim suffered in all 15 injuries on the upper part of her body and the cause of her death was due to injury to vital organs. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant has taken up the issue as to the time of death of the victim being not established by the prosecution. We do not think it to be so as in the post mortem examination report, in the column of additional remarks with where possible, Medical Officer's deduction from the state of the contents of the stomach as to time of death and last meal, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination has clearly mentioned, "After 4-6 hours after last major meals". According to the prosecution, Panchfulla has been murdered by the appellant between the night of 5-12-1992 and 6-12-1992. Even accepting the plea taken by the accused, i.e. he left his house in the evening to go to his agricultural field to show that in all probability Panchfulla died after taking her dinner on 5-12-1992 and if that is so, her time of death can be fixed somewhere around midnight. 15. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has laid evidence of 5 witnesses. First of them to have reached the house of the appellant/accused is Nimonabai w/o Raghunath Waghmare (P.W. 4) who is the adjoining neighbour and friend of Panchfulla, the deceased. On 6-12-1992 in the early hours of the day, Nimonabai called Panchfulla but as she did not get any response, she thought that Panchfulla might have gone to the house of Mahesh and that is how Nimonabai went to the house of Mahesh on the search of Panchfulla. According to Nimonabai, Panchfulla used to do her routine work in the early morning before her and then she would start preparing bidis, and having not found her, in that anxiety, she went to search for her and that is now Mahesh s/o Pralhad Pantaware (P.W. 2) came over to the house of the appellant/accused along with Nimonabai and he also gave a call to the accused, but did not get response, so he peeped through the gap in the door and saw the dead body of Panchfulla. By this time people had gathered there and he was told to get the Police Patil. On this, Mahesh (P.W. 2) went to the house of Police Patil, Biharilal Gedam (P.W. 3). Biharilal Gedam (P.W. 3) advised him to call Raghunath Sitaram Shukla (P.W. 1) the Sarpanch of the village. After all of them gathered, they were shown that Panchfulla is lying dead in the house and the accused was not responding as the witnesses and the villagers have peeped into the house and saw her lying in rested position. Biharilal Gedam (P.W. 3) advised him to call Raghunath Sitaram Shukla (P.W. 1) the Sarpanch of the village. After all of them gathered, they were shown that Panchfulla is lying dead in the house and the accused was not responding as the witnesses and the villagers have peeped into the house and saw her lying in rested position. That is how Biharilal Atmaram Gedam went to Police Station, Dawaniwada and reported the matter and returned with A.P.I. Thavkar at about 9.30 p.m. It is after A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) reached the scene of offence, that they again called the accused but as there was no response, A.P.I. Thavkar went to the back side of the house and opened the rear door and then they entered the house of the appellant where the witnesses found the appellant/accused standing in the door and his wife lying dead with injuries over her body. After the police reached the scene of offence, they started their investigation and arrested the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused has not disputed the various panchanamas and seizure panchanamas conducted by the police and the same has been also proved by examining Raghunath (P.W. 1), the Sarpanch of the village who was witness to these panchanamas. The important aspect which can be taken note of is that A.P.I. Thavkar found the appellant/accused having blood on his person and clothes (under garments) which he was wearing and they also seized the bag containing the clothes of the accused which were having blood stains. Chemical Analyser's report shows that articles collected from the spot were stained with blood out of which the knife (Exhibit 6) in the Chemical Analyser's Report and Article 6 was found to be stained with blood of Group 'B' which was the blood Group of the deceased. Similarly, the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased as well that of the accused were also found stained with blood of Group 'B'. The blood sample of the accused was examined and it was found to be of Group 'O'. The knife (Article 6) was sent for opinion of doctor and the medical certificates (Exhibits 35 and 36) which have been admitted by the defence records that injuries No. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 may be caused by this weapon. The knife (Article 6) was sent for opinion of doctor and the medical certificates (Exhibits 35 and 36) which have been admitted by the defence records that injuries No. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 may be caused by this weapon. Similarly, the medical certificate of the accused who was sent for medical examination after his arrest, also records that the accused had contusion right hand closed aspect and abrasion over right hand palmar aspect and both knees showing that the appellant/accused had injuries on his person which in all probability might have been caused in this scuffle though the accused has given explanation that these injuries were caused to him while he was passing through the fencing of his agricultural field. 16. There is no direct evidence laid by the prosecution on the point of murderous assault on Panchfulla and, therefore, the prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled law that such evidence must satisfy three tests, (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The prosecution by placing the evidence on record, has been able to establish that the accused was alone with the deceased, as Raghunath Sitaram Shukla (P.W. 1) specifically has given evidence to the effect that the accused had three sons. Two of them were permanently settled at Bombay and the youngest one had gone to Bombay one day before the incident i.e. 5-12-1992. On the night of 5-12-1992 and 6-12-1992, only the accused and his wife were at home and nobody else was there. Secondly, both the front and back doors of the house of the accused were found to be closed from inside and they were not opened in spite of the witnesses and the villagers giving call to the accused to open the doors and even when the police party laid by A.P.I. Thavkar arrived at the scene and called the accused to open the door, still there was no response. Thirdly, A.P.I. Thavkar was required to unlock the door and enter the house accompanied by witnesses when they saw dead body of Panchfulla lying in a pool of blood and the accused standing near her. They also noticed the knife (Article 6) lying by the side of the dead body. Fourthly, the prosecution has established that Panchfulla died homicidal death which could be caused by the knife (Article 6) and fifthly that the clothes of the accused were stained with blood which, according to the results of analysis received from the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the blood was of Group 'B' which was that of the deceased Panchfulla. The last circumstance being the plea of alibi taken in defence by the appellant which, according to us, concluded the case of the prosecution. 17. Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon us that the plea of alibi put forth by the appellant/accused is quite reasonable and probable considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the witnesses, in cross-examination, were put questions to this effect that the appellant/accused entered his own house along with the witnesses and after the police reached the scene of offence, they falsely implicated him in the case. Well, all these suggestions have been denied by the prosecution witnesses and mere suggestions by itself would not make out a case for the appellant accused. In the case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the plea of alibi and held that : "It is basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the Court would be slow to believe any counter evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi." In the present case, the prosecution, by leading evidence of the witnesses, who had gathered at the house of the accused and in whose presence A.P.I. Thavkar (P.W. 5) opened the rear door of the house and entered the house of the accused, have stated that they found the accused present in the house near the dead body of Panchfulla and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has established presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and therefore, in absence of any evidence on record to dislodge the case of the prosecution, the plea of alibi put forth by the appellant cannot be accepted. 18. In his defence, the appellant/accused has tried to put forth various theories in addition to claiming alibi. It has also been tried to be brought on record that the appellant/accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind and this has been accepted by prosecution witnesses. But that was in past that the accused did act as lunatic. But there is no material on record to show that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind. Mr. But that was in past that the accused did act as lunatic. But there is no material on record to show that at the relevant time when the offence was committed, the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind. Mr. Daga has tried to urge before us that without sufficient motive, the accused would not commit murder of his own wife and that the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to show that the accused had motive to commit such a heinous offence. It is true that the prosecution did not make any efforts to probe into the motive aspect of the accused, but then, in cross-examination, the witnesses have stated that the appellant/accused was suspecting the character of his wife Panchfulla. This indicates that the accused has done away with his wife because he suspected her character. 19. To conclude, we do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in arriving at a finding that the appellant/accused is guilty of having committed murder of his wife Panchfulla and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----