R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 614 of 2004 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2001, arising out of F.. R. No. 363 of 1999, registered at Police Station Narela industrial Area, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 24. 11. 2003 has held the appellant, Mukesh Kumar, guilty for offence under Sections 498-A/302 ipc. Further vide his separate order dated 28. 11. 2003, has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC together with a fine of rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three years. He also sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Benefit of Section 428 of Code of Criminal procedure was awarded to the appellant. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as have been narrated by the learned additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows :- '. . . . that on 11. 11. 99 on receiving of DD No. 18/b that some foul smell was coming from inside of house No. 122, Shafiabad Road, Gautam Colony, Delh. On this information, Inspector S. V. Singh along with SI K. P. Singh, SI Parveen kumar, const. Nirdesh Kumar and driver const. Suresh Kumar reached at house no. 122, Gali No. 6, Gautam Colony, Narela, Delh. There they found the house was locked and met Smt. Sharbati Devi and her statement was recorded which is as under:- 'stated that she was residing at the given address along with her son and was working as labourer. She has married her daughter Usha @ Puja prior to one and a half year ago to Mukesh R/o Village Bisara, P. S. Dawti, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP) and she was residing in her laws till then. Usha came to her occasionally at the time of festivals. From the last three months here son-in-law and her daughter Usha @ Puja were living in the house of Raj Singh Dahiya in House no. 122, Gali No. 6, Gautam Colony, Narela at the rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Mukesh demanded Rs. Usha came to her occasionally at the time of festivals. From the last three months here son-in-law and her daughter Usha @ Puja were living in the house of Raj Singh Dahiya in House no. 122, Gali No. 6, Gautam Colony, Narela at the rent of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Mukesh demanded Rs. 10,000/- for opening the Kiryana shop from her 20 days prior to the incident but she refused to give as she was having no money and told him to fetch from his house. Thereafter, he started harassing her daughter Usha @ puja. On 05. 11. 99, it was Friday when the brother-in-law of Usha along with two persons came and asked her to send Mukesh and Usha in their village. On this, her daughter get ready for going to the village but her son-in-law refused to go there. Thereafter, on 06. 11. 99 her son-in-law had gone to his work and in the evening at 8. 00 PM, Mukesh and Usha both came to her house and without taking dinner left for their room. There Usha demanded money from Mukesh for making expenses but Mukesh asked him that he will give money at his house. Thereafter, on the next day,. e. , 7. 11. 99 at 7. 30 PM she has gone to meet her daughter at her house but she found that house was locked from outside. She thought that both of them have left for their village. Thereafter, she noticed the door was locked. On 11. 11. 99 when she was sleeping in her house, the landlady Kita Devi came to her house and asked her that foul smell was coming from the room. On this she along with her son Rajesh reach there in the meantime somebody called the police on telephone and police came there. The lock was broken after taking the photograph and it was found that the dead body of Usha @ Puja was lying on the cot and there were also insects around the dead body. She suspected that her son-in-law had murdered her daughter and after committing the murder he escaped from the spot. Action be taken against him. ' Thereafter, the said Inspector inspected the site and after considering the statement called the SDM, Narela by making a telephone call, got the dead body photographed, prepared a rukka and got the case registered through const. Action be taken against him. ' Thereafter, the said Inspector inspected the site and after considering the statement called the SDM, Narela by making a telephone call, got the dead body photographed, prepared a rukka and got the case registered through const. Nidesh kumar and frutehr investigation was taken over by Inspector Sohan Veer Singh. During the investigation, the spot was inspected and site plan was prepared. In the meanwhile, SDM, Narela came at the spot and inspected the site and conducted the proceedings. Thereafter, on his instruction, the dead body was sent through const. Nidesh Kumar to mortuary Sabzi Mandi for postmortem. The exhibits were taken from the spot and recorded the statements of the witness and search was conducted for the suspected accused Mukesh. On 12. 11. 99 after conducting the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives who identified the dead body thereafter on 14. 11. 99 accused Mukesh Kumar was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded in which he disclosed that the had caused the death of his wife by putting angocha around her another. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the accused the angocha used in committing the offence along with the key of the lock was got recovered, collected the exhibits from the spot and send them to FSL, Malviya Nagar. Scaled site was got prepared through SI manohar Lal, Draftsman. Obtained the result of the postmortem and after recording the statements and after completing the investigation, the challan was filed. ' ( 3 ) PROSECUTION in order to establish its case examined as many as 22 witnesses. PW-2 is Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased, Usha @ Puja, who states that Usha was her daughter. She was married to the accused Mukesh 1 years prior to her death. At the time of death of her daughter, the accused and her daughter resided at Gautam Colony, a rented accommodation at a distance of 10-15 houses from the house of the witness. The accused was a halwai kaarigar. Twenty days prior to death of her daughter, accused came to her and demanded rs. 10,000/- to open a shop at Piao Maniyari but the witness refused since she had no money and asked him to bring the same from his village. Thereafter, the accused began ill-treating her daughter and committing cruelty. On 6. 11. Twenty days prior to death of her daughter, accused came to her and demanded rs. 10,000/- to open a shop at Piao Maniyari but the witness refused since she had no money and asked him to bring the same from his village. Thereafter, the accused began ill-treating her daughter and committing cruelty. On 6. 11. 1999, her daughter was present at her house when in the evening Mukesh came and took her to the rented house where the couple was staying. On 7. 11. 1999, at about 7 a. m. , her son, Rajesh, went to the house of the accused to bring back Usha as it was a Diwali day but Rajesh found the tenanted room of the accused locked and came back. On inquiry from the landlady, the witness was informed that the accused and her daughter had left the house the previous night. On 11. 11. 1999, the landlady informed this witness that a foul smell was emanating from the room of the accused and that the door should be broken open. The witness along with her son went to the room with a hammer but before they could broke open the lock, someone had already intimated the police and they had arrived. The police broke open the lock of the room and found her daughter lying dead in the room on the cot with her tongue protruding. The accused was not present there. Statement of this witness was recorded. She identified the body of her daughter. In cross-examination, she states that her husband, who was a driver by profession, had died 10 years ago and that she was working as a labourer. Usha was a student when her husband was alive. There was no dowry demand in the marriage from the side of the accused. Except for Rs. 10,000/-, which the accused demanded, he never raised any other demand for dowry. It was also elicited from her that the accused and her daughter left their house at 8 p. m. on the night prior to Diwali in 1999. ( 4 ) PW-3 is Rajesh, who is the brother of the deceased. He deposes that Usha was his sister and married to the accused 1 years prior to her death. It was also elicited from her that the accused and her daughter left their house at 8 p. m. on the night prior to Diwali in 1999. ( 4 ) PW-3 is Rajesh, who is the brother of the deceased. He deposes that Usha was his sister and married to the accused 1 years prior to her death. On Diwali day in the morning at about 7 a. m. , he went to the house of the accused to bring her sister back so that they could purchase crackers but he found room of the accused locked so he came back. On 11. 11. 1999, he went to the room of the accused and identified dead body of his sister lying on the cot. His statement was recorded. This witness was not cross-examined. PW-7, Azab singh, deposes to the effect that the accused made a phone call to his residence at about 1 a. m. in the night and requested him to call Harbir. Harbir then had a talk with the accused that night. This witness was declared hostile. ( 5 ) PW-17, Mohan Lal, deposes that the accused is his nephew and that he was instrumental in bringing about the marriage between the deceased and the accused. After marriage, the accused initially lived at the native place in village Visada, District Ghaziabad, U. P. but they began living in Gautam Nagar, narela as tenants about one year after the marriage. On the night of 6/7. 11. 1999 at about 1:30 a. m. , the accused came to him and told him that he had murdered his wife. The witness goes on to say that he did not intimate the police of this fact due to fear. PW-18, Parvati, wife of PW-17, Mohan Lal, corroborates the testimony of Mohan Lal to the effect that the accused came to their house on the night intervening 6/7. 11. 1999 at about 1:30 a. m. He seemed to be perplexed and informed that he had killed his wife. It is elicited from her that she had informed her neighbours on the next morning about the fact disclosed by the accused. ( 6 ) IN his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal procedure, the accused took up a stand that on 6. 11. It is elicited from her that she had informed her neighbours on the next morning about the fact disclosed by the accused. ( 6 ) IN his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal procedure, the accused took up a stand that on 6. 11. 1999 he had left his wife at the rented premises and gone to his village and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced recorded a finding of guilt. He held the appellant guilty of treating the deceased with cruelty as also held him guilty under Section 302 IPC for murder of his wife, Usha @ Puja. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended before us that it is not possible to convict the appellant on the sole presumption that he must have killed his wife since the appellant is not able to explain his alib. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4383; desari Siva Prasad Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He draws upon the observation of the Supreme Court that 'a strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the appellant but such suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. ' He contends that in the present case, prosecution has not been able to establish that there is no possibility of anyone else killing Usha and circumstantial evidence is far too weak to hold the appellant guilty of the offence charged. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that there is evidence on record to show that Usha was with the accused on the night intervening 6/7. 11. 1999; that at about 7 a. m. in the morning of 7. 11. 1999, door of the room was found locked and that on 11. 11. 1999, Usha's body was recovered from the same room. She contends that the medical evidence indicated to the effect that Usha could have been done to death on 6. 11. 1999. She also relies upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW-17, Mohan Lal which is corroborated by PW-18, Parvat. 11. 1999, Usha's body was recovered from the same room. She contends that the medical evidence indicated to the effect that Usha could have been done to death on 6. 11. 1999. She also relies upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW-17, Mohan Lal which is corroborated by PW-18, Parvat. ( 9 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record of the case. We find that there is clinching evidence on record by way of the statement of PW-2, Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased, that the deceased and the accused went to their rented apartment on the night of 6. 11. 1999 at about 8:30 p. m. We also have the evidence on record of PW-2 and PW-3, Rajesh, to the effect that by 7:30 a. m. on 7. 11. 1999, the room was found locked. We also have on record the fact that Usha's decomposed body was recovered on 11. 11. 1999 from the rented room. It is also available from evidence that Usha could have died on 6/7. 11. 1999. With this factual position emerging from the record, we can safely rely upon Section 14 of the Evidence Act to raise a presumption against the accused which presumption is, however, rebuttable. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the accused has taken a categoric stand that on 6. 11. 1999, he had left his wife at the tenanted apartment and gone to his village. But this fact could not be proved by the accused and there is nothing on record to show that the accused left for his village on 6. 11. 1999. He was, however, arrested on 14. 11. 1999 at Delh. The alibi put up by the accused is not only bereft evidence but points to his guilt since he has absconded from the evening of 6. 11. 1999 till his arrest on 14. 11. 1999. There is no doubt in criminal law, principles are well settled and strong suspicion cannot take place of proof. However, in the present case, the mysteries of the bedroom are best known to the couple itself. The peculiarity of the secrecy of the bedroom is required to be answered by the accused who cannot wish away the same by not discharging the burden of facts specially in his knowledge. However, in the present case, the mysteries of the bedroom are best known to the couple itself. The peculiarity of the secrecy of the bedroom is required to be answered by the accused who cannot wish away the same by not discharging the burden of facts specially in his knowledge. ( 11 ) THE trial court has elaborately discussed the material on record and has based its judgment thereon. We see no infirmity in the same. The reasoning of the trial court is neither perverse nor can it be said that such a deduction is not possible from the evidence on record. There is no quarrel with the principles laid down by the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. However, the facts in that case are not parametric with those under consideration. We, therefore, affirm the judgment dated 24. 11. 2003 and order on sentence dated 28. 11. 2003. In that view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 2004 is dismissed.