G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court. Adilabad, preferred this appeal. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'ipc'), convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, leading to the conviction of the appellant/accused, is briefly as follows: The accused is the husband of the deceased. P. W. 3 is the mother and P. W. 4 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. After the marriage, the accused was living with the deceased at Siddur Village as illetem son-in-law. Their marriage took place about 10 years prior to the date of occurrence, but they have no issues. The accused was suspecting that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with p. W. 6 of the same village and warned her not to continue the said illicit intimacy. She reported the matter to her mother and relatives. They abused him and warned him, But, the deceased did not discontinue the illicit intimacy with p. W. 6. On 17-2-2004 at about 9 p. m. P. W. 6 came to the house of the deceased while the accused in the kirana shop. on noticing the same, the accused came into the house and found both of them together and became angry and beat P. W. 6 with hands. But, P. W. 6 escaped from the accused. Therefore, the accused decided to do away with the deceased. Later, the accused went to the shop, closed the same, returned to the house, took meals and slept with the deceased as usual. The deceased believed that the accused slept. After the deceased slept, the accused woke up in the midnight, pressed on the face of the deceased with a pillow by siting on her chest and pressing the neck, due to which she died due to smothering. On 18-2-2004 in the morning hours there was a commotion that the deceased died. P. W. 4 rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased died. P. W. 1 informed P. W. 4thattheaccused made an extra judicial confession before him and he was handed over to the police. On the same day at about 10. On 18-2-2004 in the morning hours there was a commotion that the deceased died. P. W. 4 rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased died. P. W. 1 informed P. W. 4thattheaccused made an extra judicial confession before him and he was handed over to the police. On the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. on receiving information from the sub-inspector of Police and after receiving F.. R. , the Inspector of Police took up investigation. He arrested the accused who was produced along with Ex. P-1 report. Then, he visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report, held inquest overthe dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The Doctor opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to smothering. During the course of investigation, the police examined witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. ( 3 ) WHEN the charge was framed, the accused denied the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P-1 to 9 and M0. 1 pillow. On defence side, D. W. 1 was examined, but no exhibits were marked. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted him for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer S.. for six months. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned sessions Judge, date 9-6-2005, preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial and pleaded that he was not in the house and was at Bhainsa village on the date of offence. Therefore, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on himbythe trial Court are liable to be set aside or modified? Therefore, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s. 302 IPC and whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on himbythe trial Court are liable to be set aside or modified? ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that when the deceased developed illicit intimacy with p. W. 6, the accused warned herto discontinue the same, but when she did not head the words, the accused decided to kill the deceased and in pursuance of that he pressed the face of the decease with a pillow preventing the deceased from breathing, thereby the deceased died due to asphyxia on account of smothering. ( 6 ) EX. P-1 is the report given by P. W. 1, who is the sarpanch of the village. In Ex. P-1 he mentioned that on 18-2-2004 morning at about 9 a. m. while he was talking to P. W. 6 of their village, the accused came running and informed as follows: "sarpanch Sab, mistake is committed by me and help me at any cost. " When he questioned as to what happened, the accused told that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with P. W. 6 and despite several warnings, she did not listen to him and on the other hand her mother and relatives abused him. On 17-2-2004 at about 8. 30 or 9 p. m. when he was at his Kirana shop he heard some notice. He went into the house and found his wife together with P. W. 6. On seeing him, P. W. 6 tried to run away. He caught hold of P. W. 6 and while he was beating, P. W. 6 escaped from him. Thereafter, he closed his shop, went to the house and did not quarrel with the wife, took meals, and slept with his wife deciding to kill her. After his wife slept, at midnight he woke up, sat on her chest, pressed a pillow on her face with one hand and throat with other hand. She died after passing urine and stool. In the morning, he woke up and was doing his work as usual. His mother-in-law by going near the deceased found her dead and raised cries. The neighbours came on hearing the cries. Due to fear, the accused came to him and requested to help him. She died after passing urine and stool. In the morning, he woke up and was doing his work as usual. His mother-in-law by going near the deceased found her dead and raised cries. The neighbours came on hearing the cries. Due to fear, the accused came to him and requested to help him. After getting the news confirmed through P. W. 2, he brought the accused to the police station and requested the police to take action against him. Basing on the said compliant, the police registered a crime and investigated the case. ( 7 ) P. W. 8 is an panch for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that on observing the dead body, it came to light that the face of the deceased was pressed with a pillow, which resulted in her death. ( 8 ) P. W. 9 the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries: (i) Contusion 3 x 2 cm overthe bridge of nose. (ii) Fracture of septum of nose. (iii) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over the inner aspect of upper lip. He observed that on cut section, the underlying tissues found congested. These injuries are ante-mortem in nature. On internal examination, he did not find any other injuries except corresponding injury to external injury no. 2. He also observed that nose flattened, eyes prominent, fingernails and toe nails cyanosed. From the above observations, the doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to smothering about 10 to 12 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. ( 9 ) FROM the opinion of the Doctor and the opinion of the inquest panch witnesses, it is established by the prosecution that the deceased died due to asphyxia on account of smothering. The offence took place in the midnight in the house of the accused. Therefore, there is no possibility of anybody observing the offence. Therefore, the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence leading to the death of the deceased. ( 10 ) P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 to 7, who are supposed to speak about the circumstances, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 is Sarpanch of the village, who gave Ex. P-1 compliant to the police by producing the accused before the police. ( 10 ) P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 to 7, who are supposed to speak about the circumstances, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 is Sarpanch of the village, who gave Ex. P-1 compliant to the police by producing the accused before the police. Though he turned hostile, he deposed that the accused is the husband of the deceased. The people told him that the deceased was killed by the accused. He went to the house of the accused and found the deceased died. The accused used to live in the house of the deceased as illetem son-in-law. He gave Ex. P-1 report and it was written by him. But in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that the police came to the village and took the accused to the police station. Ex. P-1 is in the handwriting only. The accused did not give him any confessional statement that he killed his wife suspecting her character and he did not hand over the accused to the police. He denied a suggestion that in order to save the accused he is speaking falsehood. This witness conceded that he prepared Ex. P-1 and the police took him to the police station from the scene of offence. ( 12 ) P. W. 2 to whom the accused alleged to have made an extra judicial confession also turned hostile and stated that no statement was recorded by the police previously and he denied a suggestion that in order to help the accused he is speaking falsehood. ( 13 ) P. W. 3 is a deaf witness, therefore, he could not be examined. ( 14 ) P. W. 4, whole is paternal uncle of the deceased and a resident of the same village, deposed that the deceased died in her house only. On the next day morning, on hearing some commotion he went to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body and he did not find the accused there. P. W. 1 informed him that the accused confessed before him that he was responsible for the death. He denied a suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. This witness did not speak any role played by the accused in the commission of offence. P. W. 1 informed him that the accused confessed before him that he was responsible for the death. He denied a suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. This witness did not speak any role played by the accused in the commission of offence. ( 15 ) P. W. 5 also did not give any incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the offence. ( 16 ) P. Ws. 6 and 7 also turned hostile and not support the prosecution case. ( 17 ) P. W. 10, the Inspector of Police deposed that he received a telephone message from the sub-inspector of Police, Bhainsa Rual on 18-2-2004 at about 10. 30 a. m. about receipt of ex. P-1 compliant. Immediately, he rushed to the police station. The sub-inspectorof Police registered a crime and issued a copy of the f.. R. to him. He affected the arrest of the accused who was produced along with Ex. P-1 compliant. He interrogated the accused and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed. He visited the scene of offence along with p. W. 1 and others, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized MO. 1 pillow, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and recorded the statements of witnesses and aftercompletion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet. ( 18 ) FROM the evidence, the prosecution made out the following circumstances: (i) The dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. (ii) The house was in the exclusive possession of the accused and the deceased. (iii) The inquest panch and Doctor opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to smothering. ( 19 ) P. W. 1 admitted that he gave Ex. P-1 compliant and the accused was arrested by the police. The evidence of P. W. 10 is that he affected the arrest of the accused when he was brought to the police station along with ex. P-1 complaint. The evidence of P. W. 10 regarding the arrest of the accused is corroborated with the earlier version mentioned in Ex. P-1 compliant. But, the accused took a defence that he was passing through the village and he was at Bhainsa village on the date of offence. P-1 complaint. The evidence of P. W. 10 regarding the arrest of the accused is corroborated with the earlier version mentioned in Ex. P-1 compliant. But, the accused took a defence that he was passing through the village and he was at Bhainsa village on the date of offence. In support of the said version, the accused examined D. W. 1, a resident of linga village of Bhaihsa Mandal. ( 20 ) D. W. 1 deposed that he is resident of linga village and Bhainsa Mandal. He is working as a watchman in the Ginning Factory, which situated at Bhainsa. He is staying at bhainsa in a room. He knows the accused who is resident of Siddur village for the last 10 years. He played cards with the accused occasionally, on 17-2-2004 the accused came to Bhainsa at about 9. 30 p. m. along with coconuts and other pooja saman to his brother-in-law sainath's house. He went to the house of the brother-in-law Sainath's house. He went to the house of the brother-in-law of the accused, on the day, which happens to be the day prior to the day of Sivaratri festival to play cards along with one Laxman. Sainth, Laxman, accused and himself played cards till 5 a. m. Later, Laxman and himself went away. The accused remained in his brother-in-law's house. He denied a suggestion that he does not know the accused and is speaking falsehood to save the accused. ( 21 ) AS per the version of D. W. 1, the accused came to the house of Sainath, the brother-in-law of the accused. Theaccused in 313 Cr. P. C. examination stated that on 17-2-2004 he was at the Kirana shop at 6 p. m. and later he went to Bhainsa to purchase provisions for Sivaratri festival. By taking the provisions he went to the room of his brother-in-law and stayed for the night. On the next day he went to the police station. In 313 cr. P. C. examination he did not say the name of his brother-in-law, whether D. W. 1 and one laxman came to the room of his brother-in-law, whether they played cards for the whole night, whether he was sleepless during that night and he also did not mention the mode of coneyance to reach Bhainsa and what were the provisions purchased by him. He also did not explain when it was Sivaratri and prior day to Sivaratr. There will be lot of demand in the village for the provisions. Therefore, what made him to remain at Bhainsa at the cost of the business? The accused also did not prefer to examine Sainath to say whether he had any acquaintance with D. W. 1, whether they were in the habit of meeting frequently to play cards, whether the accused is related to him etc. in the absence of any explanation from the accused and non-examination of Sainath and in the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 that the accused was arrested by the police in the next morning, there is any amount of doubt about the defence pleading alibi on the date of offence. The accused also fails to mention from which shop he purchased the provisions and he failed to examine the shop owner to prove that he came to Bhainsa during that night and what were the provisions purchased by the accused. When once the alibi is proved to be false, it can safely be concluded that the accused was present in the house during the night of the date of offence. When once his presence is proved, and when the dead body was found in the house, which was in his exclusive possession, it is for him to explain under what circumstances the deceased died. The accused did not offer any explanation as to the cause of death. Therefore, the only inference that has to be drawn is that the accused was responsible for the commission of offence. ( 22 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel representing the appellant submitted that P. Ws. 1 and 2, before whom the extra judicial confession is said to be made, turned hostile and did not judicial confession is said to be made, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The production of the accused before the police is also denied by P. W. 1. Motive for the offence is also not established by the prosecution as p. W. 6 also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. There is no evidence that the accused was present in the house and the accused pleaded that he was at Bhainsa. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was at the house at the time of occurrence. There is no evidence that the accused was present in the house and the accused pleaded that he was at Bhainsa. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was at the house at the time of occurrence. However, strong the suspicion may be it cannot be a proof and it is not sufficient to convict him. Therefore, he requested to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of doubt. In support of his contention, the learned counsel forthe appellant relied on a decision in Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy v. The public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh wherein the Supreme Court held at paragraph 22 as follows: "the High Court then observed that since the plea of alibi is found to false, it can be inferred that the accused was present in the house in the night of 19-4-1996. The High Court after adverting to the observations in Prabhakar v. State of maharashtra [ (1982) (1) SCC 426] drew the further inference that only the accused and the deceased were in the house at the relevant time and there was no possibility for others to enter into the house. These observations were primarily based on the unreliable evidence of P. W. 4. The High Court's approach in seeking support from the decision in prabhakar's case is clearly unsustainable. The facts and circumstances in that case unerringly pointed to the presence of the accused at the crucial time and there was no possibility of third person being there. The inference drawn in that case cannot therefore be pressed into service here. If we exclude P. W. 4's evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish the presence of the accused in the house on the crucial night. The fact that the appellant could not establish by cogent evidence that on the night of 19th April, 1996 he remained at the house of his parents in another villages does not lead to the necessary inference that the appellant must have remained at his house on the night of 19th April 1996. " ( 23 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. But, the facts the circumstances of the present case are different from the case covered by the above decision. Therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts the case. " ( 23 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. But, the facts the circumstances of the present case are different from the case covered by the above decision. Therefore, the decision is not applicable to the facts the case. ( 24 ) IN respect of cases where the offence took place in privacy and if the accused alone was in the house, the burden is on him to explain under what circumstances the dead body was in his house. The following observation of the Supreme Court in Trimukh maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra is relevant in this regard. "if an offences takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to place and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of S. 106 of the evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the immates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The immates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and off ering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer long explanation. In case of no explanation. In case if no explanation or false explanation form the accused, it would cause an additional link in chain of circumstances. In case of no explanation. In case if no explanation or false explanation form the accused, it would cause an additional link in chain of circumstances. " ( 25 ) IN view of the above, judgment, when the offence took place in the house, which is in exclusive possession of the accused, the burden is on him to explain under what circumstances, the offence took place. In the absence of any explanation, it can be safely concluded that the accused was responsible for the commission of offence. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Rightly came to a conclusion that the accused was found guilty of the offence u/s. 302 IPC. ( 26 ) AFTER going through the oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the trial Court, we are convinced that the trial court rightly came to a conclusion in finding the accused guilty if the offence and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. ( 27 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all respects. .