Judgment Bankim.N. Mehta, J.—By filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant-convict has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 8.6.2000 in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1997, wherein the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. According to the prosecution, deceased Nainaba was married to the appellant before about six months of the incident. On 30.09.1997, first informant Madhubha Gagjibha, father of the deceased, received information that his daughter Nainaba was strangulated and was bleeding from her ears and was taken to Keshod Hospital. Therefore, the informant and his family members went to Keshod Hospital and found that dead body of his daughter Nainaba was lying in the postmortem room and, therefore, lodged a first information report before Keshod Police Station alleging that as the appellant did not like Nainaba, on the night of the incident, when Nainaba and the appellant were sleeping in the room, the appellant strangulated Nainaba. On the basis of the report, an offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offences were triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Junagadh and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 203 of 1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge Exhibit 6 for the aforesaid offences. The appellant and other accused denied having committed the offence and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence to prove the charge. On completion of recording of evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused, were explained to them. The appellant in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed a written statement explaining the circumstances stating that on 30.09.1997, in the morning, Nainaba was found sick and, therefore, she was taken to Keshod Government Hospital and all efforts were made to save her. The appellant in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed a written statement explaining the circumstances stating that on 30.09.1997, in the morning, Nainaba was found sick and, therefore, she was taken to Keshod Government Hospital and all efforts were made to save her. It is also stated that there is a possibility that the deceased committed suicide for personal reason. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the accused, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court acquitted the other accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant-convict has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani. We have also perused the judgment and record and proceedings of the trial Court. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Amin has mainly submitted that the medical evidence does not conclusively prove the cause of death and, therefore, the Court committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. He has also submitted that, on the night of the incident, the appellant and his father were at the field and presence of the accused is not proved at the house at the relevant time and the deceased committed suicide and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence of murder. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has submitted that looking to the medical evidence, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the death was unnatural and considering the period of marriage, the appellant has not explained the circumstances of unnatural death and, therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. It appears from the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that at the time of incident, the appellant was not in the house but was in the field with his father and other family members and the deceased committed suicide. In further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this fact is not stated, moreover there is no evidence in that regard. In further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this fact is not stated, moreover there is no evidence in that regard. It was a fact especially within the knowledge of the appellant that at the relevant time, he was not present in the house but was in the field with his other family members. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving the fact is upon him. The burden to prove that the appellant was not in the house at the relevant time was especially within the knowledge of the appellant. But, that burden has not been discharged by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the appellant was not present when the incident occurred. 7. Mr. Amin has also submitted that there is no medical evidence to indicate that death of Nainaba was homicidal. In our considered view, this submission cannot be accepted as the prosecution has adduced cogent and reliable evidence to prove that death of Nainaba was homicidal. P.W. 1 Vinodrai Thakarsi Vachhani Exhibit 20 performed the postmortem of dead body of Nainaba. According to him, the injuries found on the neck were ante-mortem and the dead body was sent to Jamnagar Medical College for obtaining expert’s opinion with external examination form Exhibit 21. The prosecution examined P.W. 2 Satish Dinkarbhai Kalele Exhibit 25, who gave his expert’s opinion with regard to cause of death. According to this witness, cause of death was strangulation. The prosecution produced the postmortem report at Exhibit 31. The report indicates the details of examination carried out. It also indicates that cause of death was ‘Asphyxia on account of Strangulation’. In view of this clinching evidence, it becomes absolutely clear that the deceased died on account of strangulation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no medical evidence to indicate that the death was homicidal. As observed earlier, the marriage period was four to five months, therefore, it would be difficult to accept that a husband would keep himself away as there is no cogent positive evidence in that regard. Even there is no evidence to indicate that there were reasons for the deceased to commit suicide. As observed earlier, the marriage period was four to five months, therefore, it would be difficult to accept that a husband would keep himself away as there is no cogent positive evidence in that regard. Even there is no evidence to indicate that there were reasons for the deceased to commit suicide. In view of this evidence, it would be difficult to accept that the deceased committed suicide and, therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. 8. Evidence of P.W. 4 Madhubha Gagjibha Exhibit 37, father of the deceased, indicates that he lodged the first information report Exhibit 77. The first information report implicates the appellant. There is no unnecessary delay in lodging the first information report. Therefore, considering the marriage period between the appellant and the deceased and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, it is difficult to believe that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, on re-appreciation of evidence adduced before the trial Court and the reasons assigned by it, in our considered view, the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1997 is confirmed.