Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18. 08. 1998 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in sessions Trial No. 156/1997, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. In short, the prosecution case is that on 01. 05. 1997, complainant dhaniram lodged a report at Police Outpost, Dhuwara that at about 7 O"clock in the evening, when he was going after attending a feast in village Dhuwara, her niece Parwati met him weeping at the stand. On being asked the reason for weeping, she informed that her father (accused) assaulted her mother and threw her down from the "attari". She was lying in the courtyard. When he reached at the house, he found his brother"s wife Lakhanbai lying dead there. There were wounds on her head and neck. On the aforesaid report, Police registered an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and at the same time, also registered a "marg". ( 2. ) PW-13 Virendra Chaturvedi, Sub Inspector, reached at the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body of Lakhanbai for post mortem examination to P. H. C. , Bada Malhara. PW-10 Dr. P. K. Agrawal, Assistant surgeon, performed the post mortem examination of the dead body and found following injuries on it: (i)Incised wound, size 12 x 2. 5 cm and deep up to the cranial cavity cutting the bone and brain matter. (ii)Incised wound transversely present on the nape of the neck, on the left side region, at the level of second cervical vertebra, size 8 x 2 cm and deep up to the cervical vertebra. (iii)Incised wound transversely present on the left side of neck, at the level of second cervical vertebra, size 8 x 2 cm and deep up to the soft tissue. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by some sharp cutting heavy weapon. ( 3. ) IN the opinion of doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was coma and shock due to the injuries over the scalp and neck region. ( 4. ) AFTER requisite investigation, Police filed the charge sheet before the Court of Magistrate. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Trial Judge framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4. ) AFTER requisite investigation, Police filed the charge sheet before the Court of Magistrate. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Trial Judge framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. No specific defence was put forth by him. ( 5. ) TRIAL Judge relying mainly on the evidence of PW-11 Sukhwati and medical evidence convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of pw-11 Sukhwati who is child witness of about 10-11 years of age, is not reliable. She has exaggerated that she had witnessed the incident. He submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant was present in the house at or before the time of death of his wife. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there is enough evidence on record to establish that at the time of incident the deceased was in the house with her husband (appellant ). The evidence of PW11 sukhwati alone is sufficient to hold that the appellant had killed his wife. He submits that the appellant offered no explanation as to how his wife met with homicidal death inside his house. ( 8. ) IT is not disputed that the deceased died a homicidal death inside the house of appellant who was her husband and that the injuries found on her body were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause her death. ( 9. ) PW-9 Parwati, daughter of appellant, who was examined by the prosecution as an eye-witness of the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case during the trial. According to her, she had gone to take her meals in another house, and when she came back to her house, she found her mother lying dead. Blood was oozing out from her neck. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-8 Dhaniram, brother of accused, who had lodged the First Information Report of the incident, also did not support the prosecution case and even disowned the lodging of First information Report. Blood was oozing out from her neck. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-8 Dhaniram, brother of accused, who had lodged the First Information Report of the incident, also did not support the prosecution case and even disowned the lodging of First information Report. However, in paragraph No. 9 of his statement, he said that he and appellant had gone to the Police Outpost for lodging the report and that police had made appellant to sit at the Police Chowki. This witness was duly confronted with the First Information Report (Exhibit P/6) and Marg report (Exhibit P/7) wherein he admitted his signatures. Thus it can reasonably be inferred that the witnesses Parwati and Dhaniram did not state the truth, as they happened to be the daughter and real brother of the appellant, respectively. ( 10. ) ON perusal of the statement of PW-11 Sukhwati, it is seen that lakhanbai (deceased) was her elder sister. She and Lakhanbai had gone to village Dhuwara with the appellant, where he lived. On the same day, there occurred a quarrel between Lakhanbai and the appellant. Appellant slapped lakhanbai and then brought an axe from "attari" and assaulted her by it and pushed her down from "attari". According to her, accused again inflicted a blow to her. She, out of fear ran away from the house. In the cross-examination, however, it was revealed that infact she did not witness the actual assault by the axe. In her Police statement (Exhibit D/1), she only mentioned about the altercation between Lakhanbai and the appellant and that the appellant pushed her down from "attari". It was also mentioned that when accused rushed for getting an axe, she ran out from the house. On a careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, we find a ring of truth in it. Her testimony cannot be discarded on the ground of her being the sister of the deceased. From her evidence, it has been amply established that just before the death of Lakhanbai there had been a quarrel between her and the appellant inside their house and the appellant had rushed to pick up an axe. Thus, the appellant and deceased were last seen together inside their house and soon thereafter, the deceased was found dead due to serious injuries found on her body. ( 11. Thus, the appellant and deceased were last seen together inside their house and soon thereafter, the deceased was found dead due to serious injuries found on her body. ( 11. ) EVIDENCE of PW-11 Sukhwati finds support from the evidence of pw-14 Bare Lal who is uncle of Lakhanbai. He categorically stated that lakhanbai was at his house in the village Ramtoriya. On the day of incident, accused had come to his house to fetch Lakhanbai. He had sent Lakhanbai and her sister Sukhwati along with the appellant. He was later on informed by sukhwati that the appellant had killed Lakhanbai. ( 12. ) FROM the evidence of PW-1 Jagdish Singh, PW-6 Kashi Prasad pateriya, PW-7 Bal Kishan, PW-12 Mahesh and PW-13 Virendra Chaturvedi (Police Sub Inspector); it has been established that the dead body of the deceased was found inside the house of accused. ( 13. ) IN the above circumstances, the burden was on the appellant to offer a reasonable explanation as to how his wife met with homicidal death inside his dwelling house. ( 14. ) IN case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006)10 SCC 681 , the Apex Court observed, "in a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [see State of t. N. v. Rajendran (SCC para 6); State of U. P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (SCC para 27); ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of m. P. (SCC para 4 ). ]. [see State of t. N. v. Rajendran (SCC para 6); State of U. P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (SCC para 27); ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of m. P. (SCC para 4 ). ]. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H. P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Crpc. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. " ( 15. ) ON examining the factual aspects of the present case in the light of the above legal propositions, we find that the appellant did not offer any explanation about the homicidal death of his wife inside his dwelling house. His presence soon before the occurrence with his wife has been established beyond doubt. It has also been established that there had been a quarrel between them and he had slapped and pushed his wife. His presence soon before the occurrence with his wife has been established beyond doubt. It has also been established that there had been a quarrel between them and he had slapped and pushed his wife. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not offer any explanation as to how the deceased received injuries which were found on her body. The circumstances enumerated above unerringly point out to the guilt of the appellant and of no one else. ( 16. ) IN view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was perfectly right in convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.