JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The appellant was tried for murder of Jamuna d/o Baliram Fulbel under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also destroying evidence, under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide detailed judgment dated 23-7-1997 found the appellant guilty of both the charges and sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to suffer rigours imprisonment for month for offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is a Girls Hostel at Deolapar known as Adivasi Girls Hostel. In this hostel, there are three blocks, two of which were occupied by about 25 girls and one room was occupied by the appellant who was staying there. On the previous day of the incident, deceased jamuna had come to the hostel in the evening and she was called by the appellant in his room, the deceased remained in his room through the night. In the morning at about 7.00 a.m., the appellant asked oil bottle and one of the inmates of the said hostel gave bottle to him which he returned to her. At about 10.00 a.m. when all the girls had left except Anandabai (P.W. 10), the appellant called Chandrakala (P.W. 5) who prepared food in the hostel. She went to the room of appellant and found Jamuna hanging and there was a rope around her neck and the other end of the rope was tied to an iron rod in the roof. Feet of Jamuna were touching the floor of the room. The appellant asked Chandrakala (P.W. 9) to remove the rope which was around her neck and when she refused, the appellant throatened and forced her to remove the rope on account of which she removed the same. The other inmate Anandabai who had stayed back, sprinkled water on her face, but she was found dead. The appellant told Chandrakala (P.W. 9) that the body of Jamuna should be taken to hostel. The appellant and Chandrakala removed the body of Jamuna to the hostel room. The other inmate Anandabai who had stayed back, sprinkled water on her face, but she was found dead. The appellant told Chandrakala (P.W. 9) that the body of Jamuna should be taken to hostel. The appellant and Chandrakala removed the body of Jamuna to the hostel room. The appellant left the hostel saying that he would call doctor, but he did not return thereafter. Subsequently, Chandrakala (P.W. 9) raised shouts due to which some ladies gathered who told her that the body should be placed at the same place where it was earlier. Accordingly, one boy was called and with his help the body of Jamuna was taken back to the room of the appellant. The matter was reported to the police. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The trial Court relied upon certain circumstances for coming to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charge and the circumstances are:- "1. Accused was having love affair with the deceased. 2. She was called by the accused at his room at 8.00 p.m. 3. She had stayed with the accused in his room for whole night. 4. She was seen in the company of the accused by the girl inmates in the night. 5. She was found alive in the morning by witness Anandabai-girl inmate of the hostel. 6. She was found hanging in the room of the accused. 7. She was lastly seen in the company of the accused. 8. The ligature i.e. rope was found around her neck, was removed by Chandrakala at the instance of the accused. 9. Water was sprinkled on the face of the victim in the room of the accused by Anandabai. 10. Body was removed to the hostel room by the accused and Chandrakala at the instance of the accused. 11. The accused had left to call the Dr. but had not returned nor he called the Dr. 12. The accused was absconding from village for two days. 13. No report was made by the accused to police about death of victim in his room or finding of the body in his room. 14. The photographs suggesting happenings on the cot in the room of the accused. 15. Feet of the dead body of victim were found touching the ground. 16. Medical evidence." 4. The appellant has denied the incident and his involvement in the death of deceased Jamuna. 14. The photographs suggesting happenings on the cot in the room of the accused. 15. Feet of the dead body of victim were found touching the ground. 16. Medical evidence." 4. The appellant has denied the incident and his involvement in the death of deceased Jamuna. The theory that has been advanced is that the deceased had committed suicide. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant took us through the evidence of the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and has firstly urged before us that as per medical opinion of the doctor who had conducted post-mortem, the death was due to hanging; that though the doctor has not given definite opinion as to whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, yet he has stated that it was on account of hanging; that the nature of injuries found by the doctor on the person of the deceased rule out the possibility of strangulation; that the injuries are clearly pointer towards suicidal death by hanging. According to him, the ligature marks found on the neck of the deceased totally rule out the possibility of strangulation; the possibility of hanging after death or after administering any intoxicating material is also ruled out and the injuries negative the theory of throttling or garroting. It is thus submitted by him that the possibility of suicide by hanging cannot be ruled out in the light of the medical evidence on record. 6. The next submission made by learned Advocate for appellant is that the presence of the appellant in the room in the morning is not established as there is evidence on record that the appellant had come to the hostel in the morning and found the door closed and after calling Chandrakala (P.W. 9), the said door was opened. These facts also, according to the learned Advocate for appellant, rule out any involvement of the appellant in the crime. He also stated that some of the prosecution witnesses who are inmates of the hostel have stated that they did not know where Jamuna was on the night of the incident; that the material witnesses Ravi Motiram Vaidya and Sevakshin have not been examined. He also stated that some of the prosecution witnesses who are inmates of the hostel have stated that they did not know where Jamuna was on the night of the incident; that the material witnesses Ravi Motiram Vaidya and Sevakshin have not been examined. It is not urged that motive has not been established and that in this set of facts the circumstance of absconding alleged by the prosecution is not significant and in fact, the appellant was available in the village after the commission of crime and prior to his arrest. Learned Advocate for appellant has placed reliance on rulings of the Apex Court in relation to motive; last-seen-together theory and effect of alibi as also abscondence and has urged that the prosecution case which rests upon circumstantial evidence has not been established and the chain in the circumstantial evidence is not complete on account of which the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand urged before us that the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased throughout the night was in the room of the appellant and she was found dead in the room of the appellant at about 10.00 a.m.; that the appellant with the help of cook Chandrakala (P.W. 9) removed the body from his room and shifted it to the Hostel in order to show that the deceased had committed suicide in the hostel room; that the appellant went away saying that he is going to call doctor, but never returned and absconded and was arrested by the police while roaming at Nagpur. Learned A.P.P. has further pointed out that not only false defence has been raised in this case, but false suggestions have been given to witnesses which are contrary to the material on record. Learned A.P.P. has further pointed out that not only false defence has been raised in this case, but false suggestions have been given to witnesses which are contrary to the material on record. Learned A.P.P. also relied upon section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to bring his point that the facts which happened in the room, where only the deceased and appellant were, are exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant and the prosecution having established not only their presence in the said room but also that the deceased had died in the same room, the burden is on the appellant to explain as to how she died, but the appellant has not given explanation in that respect and on the contrary has come out with false defence and suggestions to the witnesses. Learned A.P.P. has also relied upon a number of rulings on last-seen-together and the effect of false defence. We shall refer to the said rulings while dealing with the case on merits. 8. In this case a total number of 22 witnesses were examined out of which some of the witnesses are not material and some witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the witnesses who are not material are-P.W. 1 Sau Yashoda, P.W. 2 Ramratan, P.W. 13 Baliram, P.W. 14 Shankar and P.W. 15 Vithal, P.W. 5 Virochan, pancha witness to recovery of clothes of the appellant, did not support the case of prosecution as also pancha witness Jawaharlal (P.W. 6). Three of the inmates of the hostel, viz. Anandabai (P.W. 10), Ku. Babita (P.W. 11) and Kalpana (P.W. 3) did not support the prosecution case fully, but have spoken of other incriminating circumstances. Another inmate of the hostel, viz. Ku. Sunita has not deposed anything material. Two witnesses, viz. P.W. 21 Gupta and P.W. 22 Prakash are photographers who have taken photographs and P.W. 20 Ashish Wankhede is doctor in whose presence photographs of the deceased taken in the hospital. 9. The prosecution case is that from evening of the previous day of the death of deceased Jamuna till she was found dead, she was in the room of the appellant. We shall, therefore, examine the evidence on record in support of this fact. P.W. 3 Kalpana has stated that there are three rooms in the Girls Hostel where she was staying. We shall, therefore, examine the evidence on record in support of this fact. P.W. 3 Kalpana has stated that there are three rooms in the Girls Hostel where she was staying. Jamuna was staying in a middle room whereas she was staying. Jamuna was staying in a middle room whereas she was staying in the last room. On the previous day of the incident, she returned to the hostel at about 5.00 p.m. and found that at that time Jamuna was in the hostel. According to her, nobody had called Jamuna in her presence. She had taken meals at the hostel in the middle room at about 8.00 p.m., but Jamuna was not with them. She also states that Jamuna was not in the hostel at that time, but she did not know where Jamuna had gone at that time. She also did not know whether Jamuna was in the hostel at that night or not. She has further stated that appellant was residing in one room of the hostel building. She also stated that she did not know whether appellant visited hostel on that day in the evening or night. On the next day she left at about 10.00 a.m. and did not know as to what happened to Jamuna. She also stated that Jamuna was not seen in the hostel on that day till she left for school in the morning. This witness was cross-examined by the P.P. From her evidence it is established that in one of the rooms of the hostel, appellant was staying; that though Jamuna was present in the hostel at about 5.00 p.m. on the day prior to her death, yet she was not present at the time of taking meals at 8.00 p.m. The meals, according to her, were taken in the middle room where Jamuna was staying. 10. The star witness of the prosecution is Chandrakala (P.W. 9) who was working as cook in the said hostel. She has stated that the appellant was staying in one room of the hostel adjoining to the kitchen room. The deceased Jamuna who was inmate of the said hostel had returned to the hostel in the evening. Jamuna was given call by the appellant and Jamuna had gone in the room of appellant. She had questioned Jamuna whether she had not to study. The deceased Jamuna who was inmate of the said hostel had returned to the hostel in the evening. Jamuna was given call by the appellant and Jamuna had gone in the room of appellant. She had questioned Jamuna whether she had not to study. On account of this questioning, the appellant abused her saying that when Jamuna was coming to him why she was objecting. Thereafter Chandrakala (P.W. 9) prepared food. Jamuna was still in the room of appellant. After preparation of food, she gave call to all girls to take food. She also called Jamuna, but Jamuna reported that she was not hungry and they may take food. After taking food, the girls as also Chandrakala (P.W. 9) slept in their rooms. She has further stated that Jamuna was in the room of appellant on that night. She further stated that she got up at 7.00 a.m. and provided food to the inmates of the hostel at about 9.00 a.m. Except Anandabai all other girls had left for school. After the girls had left for school, she took bath. Thereafter appellant gave call to her and she went to his room where she found Jamuna hanging. She has further stated that there was rope around her neck and the other end of the rope was tied to the iron rod in the room. Her feet were found touching to the floor of the room and the nylon rope was of yellow colour. The appellant asked her to remove the rope from around the neck of Jamuna. When she refused, the appellant threatened and forced her to remove the rope and thereafter she had to remove it. Anandabai (P.W. 10) also came to the room of the appellant and sprinkled water on her face, but Jamuna was found to be dead. The appellant told Chandrakala (P.W. 9) that body of Jamuna should be taken to hostel upon which she and the appellant removed the body of Jamuna to hostel room. The appellant left the hostel saying that he would call doctor, but he did not return thereafter. Subsequently, Chandrakala (P.W. 9) shouted upon which some ladies gathered who advised her to keep the body of Jamuna where it was. Therefore, one boy was called and with his help, dead body of Jamuna was taken to the room of the appellant where it originally was. Subsequently, Chandrakala (P.W. 9) shouted upon which some ladies gathered who advised her to keep the body of Jamuna where it was. Therefore, one boy was called and with his help, dead body of Jamuna was taken to the room of the appellant where it originally was. The police had attached the nylon rope, iron rod and wooden rod. She identified the same as the article in the room of the appellant. According to her, the wooden rod was tied with the rope at the other end. She was cross-examined at great length. It was suggested to Chandrakala (P.W. 9) that the appellant was not in his room in the evening and he had not given a call to Jamuna which suggestion was denied by her. This suggestion is contrary to the stand of the appellant in answer to question No. 3 of his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. wherein he has stated that Jamuna had come to his room in the evening, but was not in the room during night. He has also stated that lady peon had come there and scolded her after which she had left. The fact that Chandrakala (P.W. 9) had questioned Jamuna is spoken of by her and according to her, on account of this questioning, the appellant had abused her. There is no challenge to the statement of Chandrakala (P.W. 9) that Jamuna was at the room of appellant in the night. It was suggested to her that she had requested the appellant to assist him to get down the dead body of Jamuna which suggestion was of course denied by this witness. However, the suggestion itself goes to show the presence of the appellant in the hostel when the dead body was found. She has categorically stated that Jamuna was found hanging in the room of the appellant. It was suggested to her that Jamuna was not found hanging in the room of appellant which was denied by her. It was also suggested to her that Jamuna was found hanging in the hostel room in which she was residing with the other girls which was denied by her. It was suggested to her that Jamuna was not found hanging in the room of appellant which was denied by her. It was also suggested to her that Jamuna was found hanging in the hostel room in which she was residing with the other girls which was denied by her. This suggestion is contrary to the facts on record since the evidence on record discloses that the inmates of the two rooms had left the hostel at about 10.00 a.m. Therefore, there could not be any question of the dead body of Jamuna being found hanging in the hostel room. This shows that a false suggestion contrary to the material on record has been given to Chandrakala (P.W. 9). She admitted the suggestion given to her in cross-examination that Hansraj Kumre had assisted her to take the dead body of Jamuna from the room of appellant to the hostel room where girls were residing. It was also suggested to her that rope, iron rod and wooden rod were in the hostel room. This again is contrary to the established facts which prove that the rope, iron rod and wooden rod were in the room of the appellant. This witness stated in cross-examination that the dead body of Jamuna was removed by her and the appellant from the back side door of his block. She also reiterated during cross-examination that the appellant had told that nothing had happened to Jamuna and she was unconscious and he would call the doctor. From the evidence of Chandrakala (P.W. 9) it stands proved that Jamuna was called by the deceased to his room in the evening; she did not come for food and continued in the room of the appellant; that Jamuna continued in the room of the appellant throughout the night and on the next morning was found dead in the room of the appellant. We have already observed that false suggestions contrary to the established facts were given by the defence to this witness. Learned Advocate for the appellant had urged before us that the evidence of Chandrakala (P.W. 9) shows that when the appellant gave call to Chandrakala (P.W. 9), front door of the room of appellant was found closed. However, she also stated that appellant had opened the door and thereafter she was called. Learned Advocate for the appellant had urged before us that the evidence of Chandrakala (P.W. 9) shows that when the appellant gave call to Chandrakala (P.W. 9), front door of the room of appellant was found closed. However, she also stated that appellant had opened the door and thereafter she was called. The presence of the appellant in the morning till the deceased was found, is also established through the evidence of this witness as also Babita (P.W. 11) and Anandabai (P.W. 10) who have otherwise not supported the prosecution case fully. 11. P.W. 11 Babita has stated that the day on which Jamuna had died, in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. the appellant had demanded oil bottle from her. She has further stated that she had been to the room of appellant and had handed over bottle to appellant. Of course she states that she does not know where Jamuna was at that time as she had not entered the room of appellant and she did not know where Jamuna was on the earlier night. However, from her evidence it is established that the appellant was in his room at 7.00 a.m. and he had demanded oil which was given by Babita (P.W. 11) to him and the appellant had returned the oil bottle to Babita. P.W. 16 Charnawati who is another inmate of the hostel who has not supported the prosecution case, admitted during her cross-examination by learned P.P. that it is true that on the next day morning, Babita was standing with them outside the room and the appellant had asked Babita to bring oil bottle. She also admitted that Babita had taken oil bottle to the room of the appellant. She further states that on return from the room of the appellant after delivering the oil bottle, Babita informed them that Jamuna was sleeping on a cot in the room of the appellant and when she had awakened her, she asked her to allow her to sleep. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that she was questioned in cross-examination by the defence as to whether Jamuna was taking bath at the bathing place at the back side of the room on account of which she was not seen in the morning. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that she was questioned in cross-examination by the defence as to whether Jamuna was taking bath at the bathing place at the back side of the room on account of which she was not seen in the morning. This again is a false suggestion since there is no material on record to suggest that in the morning Jamuna was taking bath at the bathing place whereas the evidence on record is that Jamuna was in the room of the appellant in the morning as also on the previous night till she was found dead in the said room. 12. P.W. 10 Anandabai has stated that on the previous day, Jamuna had come to the hostel at about 05.00 p.m. There are three blocks in the hostel building. In two blocks, there is hostel and in the third block appellant was residing. When Jamuna came to the hostel, appellant was in his room. After sometime when all girls were studying, appellant called Jamuna and thereafter appellant and Jamuna left for the room of the appellant. Chandrakala had given call to Jamuna to have the meals after preparing the meals, but Jamuna did not come and told Chandrakala that she would come later on and then take her food. She further states that at about 09.00 p.m. she along with two girls were peeping inside from the slit of the doors of the appellants room and they found that the appellant was holding the braid of Jamuna and he was questioning her as to why she was not coming to him. P.W. 16 Charnawati also supports Anandabai (P.W. 10) when she had stated that she along with two other girls were peeping inside the room of the appellant from the gap of plank of the door in the night. She admitted that Jamuna was sitting in chair and the appellant was standing by her side. Of course, during cross-examination by defence, she has stated that she had not personally seen, but was told by another girl about it. 13. P.W. 10 Anandabai has categorically stated that Jamuna was in the room of appellant at night and she had not returned to hostel. She also stated that Jamuna used to sleep in the room in which she used to stay in the hostel. 13. P.W. 10 Anandabai has categorically stated that Jamuna was in the room of appellant at night and she had not returned to hostel. She also stated that Jamuna used to sleep in the room in which she used to stay in the hostel. At this stage, we would like to refer to the submission made by learned Advocate for appellant on the evidence of Anandabai (P.W. 10) who stated that in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. all the girls had left the hostel for school, but she had not gone to the school. Thereafter the appellant had come to the hostel and entered his room. Learned Advocate for the appellant also pointed out that the appellant was asking Jamuna to open door and thereafter he called Chandrakala. Thereafter Chandrakala gave call to Jamuna to open the door and she did not know who opened the door, but the door was opened. The case put forward by the appellant is that Jamuna had committed suicide. She was found in the said room from where her body was shifted to the hostel room, as stated by Chandrakala, at the instance of the appellant. If Jamuna had already committed suicide and the room was closed, how the room could be opened or was opened, is not known. However, it appears that this witness had been won over and her statement that appellant had come to hostel after 10.00 a.m. cannot be accepted in the light of other categorical evidence on record which shows that the appellant was in the room at 7.00 a.m. and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had left the room so as to come again to the room as stated by this witness P.W. 10 Anandabai. 14. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clinchingly established that the deceased Jamuna was called by appellant at night on the previous day and she remained in his room through the night as also during the morning period till she was found dead. Thus, the circumstances under which Jamuna died are within the personal knowledge of the appellant and we shall deal with this aspect while dealing with the arguments advanced by learned A.P.P. on the scope and ambit of section 106 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the circumstances under which Jamuna died are within the personal knowledge of the appellant and we shall deal with this aspect while dealing with the arguments advanced by learned A.P.P. on the scope and ambit of section 106 of the Evidence Act. There is no reason to disbelieve Chandrakala (P.W. 9) in respect of the appellant asking her to shift Jamuna from the room of the appellant to the hostel room where girls were staying. This was apparently done to show that Jamuna had not died in the room of the appellant. Said Chandrakala was working as cook in the hostel run in a building owned by the father of appellant and she had obviously no choice but to obey the command of the appellant. P.W. 10 Anandabai has stated that she had been to the room of appellant because P.W. 9 Chandrakala had stated her to bring water. She found that P.W. 9 was frightened. She also found deceased Jamuna in the chair in a semi-conscious state and having balance on one side of the body. Thereafter appellant sprinkled water. P.W. 10 became frightened on seeing appellant but he told her that nothing had happened. Thereafter Jamuna was removed to room of hostel and appellant left saying that he would bring doctor, but he did not return. Thus, at the initial stage, there was a clear attempt on the part of the appellant to do away with the evidence by shifting the dead body from his room to the girls hostel. It also appears that initially show of hanging was made before Chandrakala was called by the appellant who speaks of removing rope from the neck at the instance of appellant. 15. At this stage, we will deal with the medical evidence on record and the other circumstances shall be referred to at later stage. The post-mortem on the dead body of Jamuna was carried out by Dr. Anil Batra (P.W. 18). He conducted post-mortem on 22-2-1995 between 12.15 to 01.20 p.m. According to him, the death had occurred at least 24 hours before post-mortem. As per the prosecution case, the death of the deceased occurred during intervening night of 21st-22nd February, 1995 till her dead body was found in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. Dr. Batra (P.W. 10) found that the lower button of the blouse of Jamuna was missing. As per the prosecution case, the death of the deceased occurred during intervening night of 21st-22nd February, 1995 till her dead body was found in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. Dr. Batra (P.W. 10) found that the lower button of the blouse of Jamuna was missing. He found three hair, 1 long each from left side of face, chest and left thigh of the deceased which were sent for comparison. He also found lacerated wound on the vagina of the deceased at 06.00 oclock position at junction of both majora 2 c.m. long pink in colour and skin deep. He also found linear abrasion over right angle of mandible, oblique 7 c.m. symphisismenti directed medially and downward in pink colour. He also found:--- "Ligature mark over neck above thyroid cartilege directing upwards and backwards towards left mastoid, hard parchment like brown and prominent on right side of neck and faint on left side running 8 c.m. below right mastoid, total 28 c.m. x 1½ c.m. with evidence of slipping of ligature over right side of neck, on cut section extravasation and infiltration of blood present in soft tissue and muscles below the ligature marks. The hyoid bone intact. The injuries noticed by me were ante mortem." He stated that there were no signs of de-composition; tongue was found inside; there were black grease like stains on fingers of left palm and whole of right palm and on the left palm of the deceased, "PRIYA DOST KHUDA HAFEEZ" was written in blue ink. On examination of thorax, both lungs were found voluminous, oedamaous and congested, and there was small amount of fluid blood in heart. He deposed that during post-mortem the preicardium was found congested; the uterus was found non-gravid and the stomach contained 40 cc yellowish juice with offensive odour. According to him, the probable cause of death was hanging. He further opined that considering the injuries mentioned in column No. 17, he had opined that the injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also stated that in case of sexual intercourse, the 6 oclock position lacerated wound described by him in post-mortem report is possible. He also opined that injury No. 2 mentioned in column No. 17 of post-mortem report was possible with ligature material i.e. nylon rope. He also stated that in case of sexual intercourse, the 6 oclock position lacerated wound described by him in post-mortem report is possible. He also opined that injury No. 2 mentioned in column No. 17 of post-mortem report was possible with ligature material i.e. nylon rope. He also found black grease stains on the rope which was examined by him. He further opined that so far as mode of death of deceased was concerned, whether it was suicidal or homicidal could not be ascertained from post-mortem examination and it is necessary to look to the circumstantial evidence for that purpose. (Emphasis supplied). 16. During cross-examination Dr. Batra (P.W. 18) stated that as revealed during post-mortem, vagina was roomy. However, he denied the suggestion that because vagina was roomy it would mean that the deceased was accustomed to sexual course, because in case of a living woman vagina is found roomy such presumption could be raised, but in case of a dead body the vagina could be found roomy because of relaxation of muscles. However, he stated that hymen was not found intact, but he did not remember the exact shape of torn hymen. According to him, injury No. 15 noted in his post-mortem report is possible because of rough and vigorous sexual intercourse. 17. The evidence of Dr. Batra (P.W. 18) shows that injury No. 2 in column No. 17 which is reproduced above, was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The said injury is ligature mark over neck above thyroid cartilage and on cut section extravasation and infiltration of blood was present in soft tissue and muscles below the ligature marks. The presence of ligature mark alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that it is a case of hanging. The case in hand appears to be strangulation by ligature material by adopting garrotting method. When a victim is attacked from the back without warning and strangled by grasping his throat or throwing a ligature over the neck and tightening it quickly, it is known as garrotting. It can overpower and kill even a healthy robust male without any struggle. Loss of consciousness is so rapid that the assailant is able single handed to tie the ligature with one or more turns. This view is expressed in Parikhs Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Fifth Edition) under the heading "Garrotting". Dr. It can overpower and kill even a healthy robust male without any struggle. Loss of consciousness is so rapid that the assailant is able single handed to tie the ligature with one or more turns. This view is expressed in Parikhs Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Fifth Edition) under the heading "Garrotting". Dr. Batta (P.W. 18) had in his deposition stated that on the basis of post-mortem findings, it could not be ascertained as to whether death was suicidal or homicidal and it is necessary for that purpose to see the circumstantial evidence. We have already discussed about the circumstance that the deceased was called by the appellant in his room in the evening on the previous day and she was with him throughout the night till next day upto 10.00 a.m. when she was found dead in the said room. The other additional circumstances which are required to be looked into are: (a) sexual assault on the deceased; (b) presence of three hair of 1" long on the face, chest and thigh; (c) blood stains on the matress; (d) shifting of the dead body from the room of the appellant to the room of girls hostel; (e) the accused absconding by saying that he will bring the doctor; (f) non-furnishing of any explanation of facts within the knowledge of appellant; and (g) coming out with false case and giving false suggestions to witnesses. We have already referred to the evidence of the witnesses who have stated that after the deceased was called, the appellant was questioning her by holding her braid as to why she was not coming to him. When Chandrakala (P.W. 9) had made enquiries with the deceased after the appellant had called her, the appellant not only questioned Chandrakala (P.W. 9) but also abused her. The medical evidence of Dr. Anil Batra (P.W. 18) shows that in case of sexual intercourse of 6 oclock position, lacerated wound described by him in his post-mortem report is possible. He also stated that the said injury is possible because of rough and vigorous sexual intercourse. In the morning at about 7.00 a.m. appellant had asked for oil bottle and Babita (P.W. 11) gave him oil bottle. For what purpose the oil bottle was called by appellant, is within his personal knowledge, but he totally denies this fact. He also stated that the said injury is possible because of rough and vigorous sexual intercourse. In the morning at about 7.00 a.m. appellant had asked for oil bottle and Babita (P.W. 11) gave him oil bottle. For what purpose the oil bottle was called by appellant, is within his personal knowledge, but he totally denies this fact. The medical officer also found three hair of 1" on the body of deceased on the left side of face, chest and left thigh. Of course, the result of comparison was inconclusive but the same were human hair and the length of the hair shows that hose hair are of male. There was also blood stains on the matress. No explanation is coming forth from the appellant is respect of all these facts which are within his personal knowledge since he was along with the deceased throughout till she died. 18. We have already referred to the evidence relating to shifting of the body from the room of the appellant to the room of girls hostel by the appellant and Chandrakala (P.W. 9) which was done with a view to screen the appellant and to destroy the evidence. In case of suicide the dead body was required to be left in a position in which it was found so that it could be ascertained whether the death was on account of suicidal hanging, but this evidence was made to disappear by the appellant by pressurising Chandrakala (P.W. 9) by shifting the dead body. The appellant continued assuring Chandrakala (P.W. 9) as also Anandabai that nothing had happened and that he would go and call doctor. This fact is spoken of by both-P.W. 9 Chandrakala and P.W. 10 Anandabai. The appellant left and never returned. The evidence on record shows that ultimately the appellant was caught roaming about in Nagpur after two days of the incident. P.W. 8 Pancham, Police Patil has categorically stated that the appellant was not in the village for two days. 19. The position of rope also does not support the suicide theory put up before us. Panchanama (Exhibit 31) shows that at the height of 5 feet and 20 inches (figure of inches is wrong) from the floor, an iron bar was tied tightly with an iron string to the wooden rafter. 19. The position of rope also does not support the suicide theory put up before us. Panchanama (Exhibit 31) shows that at the height of 5 feet and 20 inches (figure of inches is wrong) from the floor, an iron bar was tied tightly with an iron string to the wooden rafter. On it a yellow coloured, twisted nylon rope having a 3 feet long bamboo stick on its one end, was tied. There are number of photographs on record showing the position of the rope, iron rod and the wooden rod. Two photographs (which are same) have been marked as articles 11 and 15 wherein one rod is seen hanging with a bamboo stick and another rope is seen hanging which is yellow in colour. There is another photograph which shows that the wooden stick is tied to iron rod on the top and the yellow rope is hanging and the hanging edges of the said yellow rope are curled as if it was tied to a bamboo stick downward. This photograph is marked as "X". This position of the rope would rule out the possibility of suicide or that part of the body was hanging with rope around neck. P.W. 10 Anandabai who had also gone to the room of appellant when dead body of Jamuna was found, has stated that she found Jamuna in the chair in semi-unconscious state and having balance of one side of the body. This would also rule out the possibility of suicide and in fact, this supports the fact that the death was on account of garrotting method. 20. A number of authorities had been cited before us on either side and at this stage, we will refer to the said authorities. Learned Advocate for the appellant had relied upon (Sakharam v. State of M.P.)1, 1992 Cri.L.J. 861 and (Tarseem Kumar v. The Delhi Administration)2, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2585, and submitted before us that the prosecution has failed to prove motive. It is no doubt true that in the cases of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role, but the absence of proof of motive is not fatal since the motive always remains locked in the heart of the accused and in this particular case, we find that the accused/appellant has not given any explanation whatsoever of the facts which were within his knowledge and has withheld the same from the Court. 21. On last-seen together, learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon (Arjun Marik others v. State of Bihar)3, 1994(II) C.C.R. 445(S.C.), and (Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan)4, 2002(1) S.C.C. 706. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, had relied upon (State of A.P. v. Shaik Muzhar)5, 2001 Cri.L.J. 3287; (Rajan v. State of Kerala)6, 2000 Cri.L.J. 3531 and (Damodar v. State of Karnataka)7, 2000 S.C.C.(Cri.) 90. It is now well-settled that when two persons are in a room and one of them dies and the other is alive, it is a circumstance against the person who is alive and such person has to explain facts which are within his knowledge. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the said rulings since there can be no dispute about the proposition laid down in the said rulings. 22. We shall now come to the scope and applicability of section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in (Gurucharan Singh another v. State of Punjab)8, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 460, has with reference to plea of alibi which is within the special knowledge of the accused, has laid down that the burden of proving alibi undoubtedly lies on the accused setting up that defence. But even so, the burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a pleausible defence. 23. The Apex Court in (Sawal Das v. State of Bihar)9, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 778 has laid down as under:- "9. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be called in aid by the prosecution because that section applies only where a fact relating to the actual commission of the offence is within the special knowledge of the accused, such as the circumstances in which or the intention with which an accused did a particular act alleged to constitute an offence. The language of section 106 Evidence Act does not, in our opinion, warrant putting such a narrow construction upon it. This Court held in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 460 that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him. The language of section 106 Evidence Act does not, in our opinion, warrant putting such a narrow construction upon it. This Court held in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 460 that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him. It is a different matter that the quantum of evidence by which he may succeed in discharging his burden of creating a reasonable belief that circumstance absolving him from criminal liability may have existed, is lower than the burden resting upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Neither an application of section 103 nor of 106 of the Evidence Act could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction or, which makes out a prima facie case that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. The crucial question in the case before us is: Has the prosecution discharged its initial or general and primary burden of proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?" 24. In the case before us, the prosecution has discharged the burden that the deceased was in the room of appellant from the evening on the previous day till her death and the death of the deceased in the facts and circumstances of the case is not suicidal, but homicidal. The facts which are within the special knowledge of an accused, are required to be explained in terms of section 106 of the Evidence Act by the appellant. The appellant before us has not given any explanation, but has denied the prosecution case in toto and has given false suggestions contrary to the record to the witnesses. Besides this, he tampered with the evidence and shifted dead body from his room to the room of girls hostel. He also absconded thereafter. All these factors unequivocally point out to the guilt and involvement of the appellant in the crime and the same are not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 25. Besides this, he tampered with the evidence and shifted dead body from his room to the room of girls hostel. He also absconded thereafter. All these factors unequivocally point out to the guilt and involvement of the appellant in the crime and the same are not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 25. In (Rajammal others v. State by D.S.P., C.B., C.I.D., Madras and others)10, 1993 Cri.L.J. 3029, the victim had died due to mannual strangulation and at that time victims in laws and husbands brother were alone present in the house at the time of her death. There was absence of any explanation by the accused and, therefore, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the only possible inference is that all the three accused had participated in the act. It was also observed that burden to prove contrary fact lies on accused persons since it was within their knowledge. 26. In (Jagjit Singh v. State of H.P.)11, 1994 S.C.C.(Cri.) 176, the Apex Court was dealing with the case of circumstantial evidence wherein dead body with fatal injuries was found in the room of the accused and it was held that the accused was bound to give an explanation which should at least look probable. In that case it was found that explanation given by the accused was palpably false and accordingly, it was held that the circumstances are sufficient to establish guilt of the accused. 27. In (Namdeo Satyagonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra)12, 1994(4) Bom.C.R. 64 the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where the accused had committed murder of his wife and three children. The accused was found in injured condition in his house as also dead bodies of his wife and children. It has held that the burden was on the accused under section 106 to explain as to how all this happened and since it was not discharged by him, it was held that the circumstances unmistakably completed the entire chain of circumstantial evidence enough to fasten guilt on the accused. 28. It has held that the burden was on the accused under section 106 to explain as to how all this happened and since it was not discharged by him, it was held that the circumstances unmistakably completed the entire chain of circumstantial evidence enough to fasten guilt on the accused. 28. In (Ahluvaliya another v. State of Inspector of Police)13, 1995 Cri.L.J. 3511, the Madras High Court was dealing with a case where children were found dead and parents with serious injuries in their house; there was no proof of attack by outsider; house was locked from inside and as such, the facts being with the special knowledge of parents, it was held that the onus was on parents to give explanation. 29. In (Shunmugasundaram v. State by Dy. Supdt. of Police, Erode Town)14, 1997 Cri.L.J. 499, the Division Bench of Madras High Court was dealing with a case where the accused alone was present with the deceased in the house at the time and place of offence. The accused absconded and it was held that the accused was bound to explain as facts were within his special knowledge and in the absence of any explanation by him, the only possible inference would be that he participated in incident. 30. We have already mentioned that the appellant before us has not only not offered any explanation on the facts which were within his special knowledge, but he has gone to the extent of taking false plea and has denied the entire incident. Not only his, he has also gone to the extent of giving false suggestions to the witnesses which are contrary to the material on record. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, the circumstantial evidence on record as against the appellant is sufficient to hold him guilty. It is now well settled that falsity of defence is an additional link to complete the chain of events. The Apex Court in (State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan and others)15, 2000(8) S.C.C. 598 , has laid down that the false statement knowingly made by the accused in respect of very vital aspect concerning death of the deceased provides additional link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with crime. The Apex Court in (State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan and others)15, 2000(8) S.C.C. 598 , has laid down that the false statement knowingly made by the accused in respect of very vital aspect concerning death of the deceased provides additional link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with crime. It is further held that making of contradictory statement on a fact which the accused knew well that it is a wrong statement on a very vital aspect concerning the death of the deceased can also be counted, among other circumstances, as a link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. 32. In (Geetha v. State of Karnataka)16, 2000(10) S.C.C. 72 , the Apex Court has examined the effect of false answers given in statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. It was noticed that when all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused under section 313 Cri.P.C., the accused merely stated that they were false, but failed to give any other explanation. The prosecution evidence which was found to be reliable showed that the answers given by accused under section 313 Cri.P.C. were really false. It was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, this false denial assumes importance as it would supply missing link in the chain of circumstances. Similar conclusion was drawn in an earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar v. State of Karnataka, 2000 S.C.C. (Cri.) 90. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----