JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Sampat Singh was charged and tried under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of his wife Smt. Santa. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri vide judgment dated May 22, 2002 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:- On May 8, 2001 the informant Hazari Rawat, father of victim Santa, submitted a written report (Ex.P-10) at police station Bhinai, stating therein that he came to know through one Om Prakash that his daughter Santa, who was married to appellant only one year ago, had died in her husband's house because of pain in abdomen. The informant along with Bhanwar Singh, Ram Singh, Viram Singh, Mahesh and 7-8 others rushed to the village Govalia and saw injuries on the dead body of Santa. There were marks of strangulation on her neck. Police Station Bhinai, on the basis of this report registered a case under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Post mortem on the dead body was performed. Necessary memos were drawn, statement of witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kekri. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. Four witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Death of Santa was homicidal in nature. As per postmortem report (Ex.P-14) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. There was ligature mark around neck and face at back of occipital region. Ligature mark ranging from 1/4th cm 50 1/2 cm at places. In front of neck the abrasion was deep at cricoid cartilage area. 2. Three rounded interpulted abrasion at chest in 3cm reduus. 3. Another rounded interpulted abrasion was at (L) forearm about 3 cm diameter. 4. There was ligature mark around neck and face at back of occipital region. Ligature mark ranging from 1/4th cm 50 1/2 cm at places. In front of neck the abrasion was deep at cricoid cartilage area. 2. Three rounded interpulted abrasion at chest in 3cm reduus. 3. Another rounded interpulted abrasion was at (L) forearm about 3 cm diameter. 4. Multiple abrasions were at the both thighs and genital region about 7 x 7 cm ob. 5. Bleeding and lacerated wound was found present at lateral aspect of thigh. 6. Produce of conception present about 3 x 3 cm size in uterus about 6 to 8 weeks size. Dr. S.N. Dargad ( PW.14), who conducted autopsy on the dead body deposed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. 4. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking are as under (i) On fateful day Santa was last seen with the appellant and they were alone in the house. (ii) Cause of death of Santa was asphyxia due to strangulation. (iii) The appellant raised false plea that Santa died because of stomach pain. (iv) Rope (Article 1) allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered at the instance of the appellant. 5. Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant canvasses that the relations of the appellant and deceased were cordial from the very beginning and there was no reason or motive for the appellant to kill his wife. The prosecution has utterly failed to link up circumstantial evidence. There is no cogent evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his wife Santa. So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there is nothing unusual about seeing a wife in the company of her husband. The evidence created through alleged information and consequent recovery of rope is per-se fake and fabricated. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who committed murder of his wife Santa. 7. We proceed to analyse the evidence adduced at the trial, with the statement of appellant, who himself appeared as a defence witness. Appellant (DW.1) in his deposition stated that he got married with Santa one year prior to her death. 7. We proceed to analyse the evidence adduced at the trial, with the statement of appellant, who himself appeared as a defence witness. Appellant (DW.1) in his deposition stated that he got married with Santa one year prior to her death. During the period of one year, she resided with the appellant only for five months. On May 7, 2000 Norat, Sita Ram and Vijay Singh came to attend Mausar ceremony of one Ratan. They also visited the house of appellant. Finding them in his house the appellant enquired about them from his wife Santa, who informed him that they were her brothers. The appellant thereafter went to Pratappura and came back to his house around 10 PM. He then found Norat, Sita Ram and Vijay Singh sleeping in his house. He also proceeded to sleep. In the morning when he got up he found that those three persons had already left and Santa was lying dead. He was arrested by the police on eighteen and got his signatures on blank papers. The rope also got recovered on the same day. In his opinion those three persons committed murder of his wife. In the cross examination the appellant deposed that except him and Santa, no other person was residing in the house. He had made an enquiry and found that Norat. Sita Ram and Vijay Singh were not the brothers of Santa. 8. Factual situation appears from the prosecution evidence may be summarised thus : (i) Ram Kishan ( PW.1) who drew inquest report (Ex.P-1) under Section 176 Cr.P.C., deposed that dead body of Santa was lying in a hut, height of which was four feet whereas height of Santa was five feet. The incident did not occur in the hut. The bangles on both the hands were intact. It appears that incident had occurred at some other place and afterwards the dead body was carried to the hut. There were injuries on the bodies and blood was seen on the private parts. Marks of strangulation were also seen on the neck. (ii) Bhanwar Singh ( PW.2), the uncle of deceased, deposed that about fifteen days prior to the incident, deceased told her that the appellant in a drunken state quite often used to torture her. The witness in the cross examination denied this suggestion that deceased had friendship with other persons and she wanted to reside with them. (ii) Bhanwar Singh ( PW.2), the uncle of deceased, deposed that about fifteen days prior to the incident, deceased told her that the appellant in a drunken state quite often used to torture her. The witness in the cross examination denied this suggestion that deceased had friendship with other persons and she wanted to reside with them. (iii) Naurat ( PW.8) stated that Om Prakash came to his village Rampura to inform that his (Naurat) sister Santa died because of pain in the stomach. Thereafter he along with his family members went to the house of appellant and saw the deceased lying in a hut having injuries on her body. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that statement of Naurat was correct but he was in the house of the appellant on the preceding night. (iv) Biram ( PW.22), uncle of the deceased, in the cross examination stated that at the time of death the deceased was pregnant. Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-14) also reveals that conception about 6 to 8 weeks size was present in the uterus of dead body. (v) Murlidhar, the Investigating Officer ( PW.20), deposed that he got recovered rope (Article-1) allegedly used in commission of offence at the instance of the appellant. 9. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, 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 definitely tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused; (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. 10. In the light of the legal position about the circumstantial evidence, we have to examine whether the circumstantial evidence in the instant case satisfied the requirements of law. 11. From the testimony of the appellant, it is established that the appellant and his wife Santa slept together in their house and in the morning when the appellant woke up he found his wife Santa dead. The appellant also stated that three persons viz., Norat, Vijay Singh and Sita Ram slept in his house and left early before the appellant woke up. The appellant also stated that three persons viz., Norat, Vijay Singh and Sita Ram slept in his house and left early before the appellant woke up. In his deposition, although the appellant stated that Norat was not the brother of Santa, in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC, he however, admitted that Norat was brother of Santa. 12. Section 106 Evidence Act refers to cases where the defence of the accused depends on his proving a fact especially within his knowledge and of nobody else. Where the incident of murder had taken place inside the house of the accused at a time when the accused alone was present, he alone knew what exactly had happened. The accused is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place. The only other person who can speak about the occurrence will be the deceased and now that she is dead, if at all, the accused alone can offer an explanation. Section 106 Evidence Act states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is true that this section cannot be used, so as to shift the onus of proving the offence, from the prosecution to the accused. However, in the instant case, there is satisfactory evidence which conclusively fixed the liability, for the death of Santa, on her husband, the appellant present therein in the house at the relevant time. The appellant made attempt to discharge the burden by stating that Norat, Vijay Singh and Sita Ram, who slept in his house committed murder of Santa, but we find this explanation false. Why Norat, being real brother of Santa, would kill her ? The appellant gave a false statement that he made inquiry and found that Norat was not the brother of Santa. Norat was examined as PW.8 but no suggestion was made to him that at the time of incident he was sleeping in the house of the appellant or he committed murder of Santa. The defence theory introduced by the appellant appears to be afterthought. 13. The prosecution has established that Santa was married to appellant a year ago of the incident and she used to be tortured by the appellant. The death of Santa was homicidal. At the time of her death she was pregnant. The defence theory introduced by the appellant appears to be afterthought. 13. The prosecution has established that Santa was married to appellant a year ago of the incident and she used to be tortured by the appellant. The death of Santa was homicidal. At the time of her death she was pregnant. Initial defence of appellant, as introduced to Bhanwar Singh ( PW.2), was that Santa has friendship with other persons and she wanted to reside with them. Smt. Sita ( PW.6), the mother of Santa, was also asked in the cross examination that Santa had friendship with Sita Ram and Norat. Sita Ram and Vijay Singh wanted to abduct her. The initial defence adopted by the appellant indicate that the appellant had a suspicion that his wife Santa had physical relations with some other persons and she became pregnant because of such physical relations. This suspicion as appeared in the conscious portion of his psychic apparatus came into light when the prosecution witnesses Bhanwar Singh ( PW.2) and Smt. Sita ( PW.6) were asked in the cross examination that Santa had friendship with other persons and she wanted to reside with them. It may therefore safely be inferred that believing that his wife Santa conceived through some other person, the appellant killed her in order to get rid of her and her unborn child. This inference gets corroboration from the post mortein report which disclosed that blood was oozing from the private parts of Santa and multiple abrasions were found on her both thighs and genital region. 14. It is well settled that false explanation offered by the accused offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. In the instant case the explanation given by the appellant that Norat, Sita Ram and Vijay Singh slept in his house and they committed murder of Santa, is found to be untrue and it thus offers an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances. 15. The evidence of Murlidhar, I.O., in regard to recovery of rope allegedly used in tying the neck of Santa, at the instance of appellant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is a statement of police officer. 15. The evidence of Murlidhar, I.O., in regard to recovery of rope allegedly used in tying the neck of Santa, at the instance of appellant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it is a statement of police officer. In NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (2000) 1 SCC 652 , Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct, if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. Having closely scanned the testimony of Murlidhar, we find that even after searching cross examination his testimony could not be shattered. 16. The case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. All the authorities on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel relate to the circumstances, which did not satisfy three required tests necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to incorporate them. 17. Upshot of the discussion is that the evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that appellant is guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is complete and incapable of any other hypothesis than of the guilt of the appellant. We find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellant. Learned trial Judge in our opinion, has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The charge under Section 302 IPC is established against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******