JUDGMENT :- The appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants aggrieved by judgment dated 29-7-93 delivered by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla in S. T. No. 47/90 thereby convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302/ 34, I. P. C. 2. As per the prosecution case the marriage of deceased Padma Bai was performed with Sunderlal prior to three years. Father of deceased Padma Bai had given one acre of agricultural land at the time of marriage. After death of Dulichand, father-in-law and Rikhiram the father of deceased, dispute arose with respect to the mutation of name of deceased Padma Bai over the agricultural land. The incident took place on 3-2-89. Deceased used to be harassed by the accused persons due to non-mutation of name over the agricultural land. Possession of the land was handed over to the in-laws by the brothers of deceased Padma Bai and they started cultivating the land on crop sharing basis. Brothers of Padma Bai wanted mutation of land in the name of Padma Bai whereas family members of the accused wanted the mutation of land in the name of accused Sunderlal. On 2-2-89 and 3-2-89 quarrel took place, Padma Bai was beaten by Sunderlal, next day also she was beaten. Boiled water was poured on Padma Bai, she succumbed to death, report (P/4) was reduced in writing. After due investigation an offence was registered under Section 302/ 34, I. P. C. by J. S. Jaggi (PW 18). Inquest (P/2) was prepared, autopsy was performed by Dr. P. C. Musraha (PW 5). Viscera of deceased was seized along with the clothes. On the basis of information furnished by accused Sunderlal and Ramswaroop two lathis were recovered as per memos P/13 and P/15 respectively. Body was excavated, thereafter it was examined by panel of doctors at Bhopal. On completion of investigation the accused persons were charge sheeted. 3. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased was suffering with fits, she used to work in the field and Khalihan, injuries found on her person were caused during bout of fits, in the postmortem report cause of death could not be opined with precision, 18% burn injuries were found on the person of deceased beside there were other injuries, definite opinion as to cause of death could be given after obtaining the report of examination of viscera. The prosecution in all has examined 18 witnesses. In defence none of the witness was examined. The trial Court has convicted the appellants Sunderlal and Ramswaroop relying upon the factum of seizure made from them and also the circumstances on record. The trial Court has found that death was homicidal. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants. 4. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that evidence on record falls short of proving that death was homicidal in nature there is no evidence to show who caused injuries to deceased. Ramswaroop was not residing along with Sunderlal, thus, Ramswaroop could not be said to be responsible for the death of Padma Bai, he was not involved in the case and has been falsely implicated. Even against Sunderlal the evidence falls short to prove his guilt, thus, he also ought to have been acquitted, particularly when on same set of evidence two other accused persons, namely, Summatlal and Mst. Chitra Bai, have been acquitted by the trial Court. 5. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned GA appearing for State has submitted that death has taken place in the house of accused persons, they have failed to explain the injuries on the person of deceased. There were contusions, abrasions and burn injuries to the extent of 18% found on the person of deceased which indicates that she was subjected to physical violence before her death was caused. Injuries have been found to be ante-mortem. In the viscera as per report (P/26) in small and big intestine, spleen, kidney, liver and lungs, presence of organo phosphorous was found. The death has taken place in the house, it was for the accused to explain how the death was caused. Recovery of weapon of offence has also been made from the accused persons. They have been rightly convicted by the trial Court. 6. The intimation report (Ex. P/21) was recorded at the instance of Sumatlal, brother of present accused persons. As per intimation, incident was taken place at about 2 O'clock in the noon. He went to the market leaving the deceased in fit condition, when he came back he found that child of Padma Bai was weeping, he asked Ramswaroop to find out what deceased was doing and why child was crying. As per intimation, incident was taken place at about 2 O'clock in the noon. He went to the market leaving the deceased in fit condition, when he came back he found that child of Padma Bai was weeping, he asked Ramswaroop to find out what deceased was doing and why child was crying. Accused Ramswaroop went inside the house, called the deceased, she did not respond, she was found dead, thereafter he was sent to lodge the report. Intimation report makes it clear that at the instance of accused Ramswaroop he lodged the report and has suppressed the material facts as to cause of death of Padma Bai. There was total black out made with respect to the injuries caused by Violence and burn injuries which were found on the person of deceased. Dead body was found in the room occupied by Sunderlal accused. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that dead body was found outside and it was placed in the room as deceased was suffering with epilepsy and had a bout of epileptic attack, thus, injuries were caused on the person of deceased due to friction caused in the frenzy of fits as she was lying by the side of bush. The aforesaid submission has no legs to stand. The intimation report itself points out that dead body was in the room occupied by Sunderlal. There was no whisper in the intimation that deceased suffered with epileptic attack and body was brought inside the room from outside by any of the family member which fact would have been mentioned in the report had it been a correct fact. There is no cogent material on record indicating that deceased suffered epileptic attack near the bush and injuries were caused during epileptic attack. 7. In the postmortem report following injuries were found on the person of deceased :- "(1) Abrasion 2 c.m. x1/2 c.m. over Rt. side of face. (2) Contusion 10 c.m. x 8 c.m. with blurred margins, bluish-black in colour over mid of the anterior part of the left thigh, on cut extra vasation of blood in skin and subcutaneous tissue. Following burn injuries were also found :- (1) 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. over Rt side of back of the chest. (2) Burn extending from posterio medial aspect of Lt. thigh up to the mid of the Lt. Leg. Following burn injuries were also found :- (1) 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. over Rt side of back of the chest. (2) Burn extending from posterio medial aspect of Lt. thigh up to the mid of the Lt. Leg. (3) Multiple burn areas are varying in size from 1 c.m. x1/2 c.m. to 12 c.m. x 5 c.m. extending from posterio lateral aspect of Rt. gluteal region to mid of the Rt. leg. Line of Redness in all above burns. Neck swelling on cut enlarged thyroid was seen. The injuries were certified to be antemortem, total burnt area was 18%. The injuries were caused within 24 to 72 hours before the time of performing of postmortem. Regarding cause of death, definite opinion was not given hence, viscera was preserved and sent for further examination. Dr. P. C. Musraha (PW 5) has proved the autopsy report. He has opined on being cross examined that in case of bout of fits other injuries except the burn injury could have caused to the deceased. He did not find any evidence by which of the means the deceased was set to fire, thus, was unable to ascertain the cause of burn injuries. He has stated that all the injuries were ante mortem. He was unable to opine that death was in ordinary course of nature or not. The statement of doctor that injuries could have been caused during fits has been rightly discarded by the Court below, Padma Bai was obviously subjected to physical violence, she was also having 18% burn injuries which have not been explained by the accused persons. Beside that when death has taken place in the house when aforesaid injuries were there, it also assumes significance which circumstances ought to have been explained by the accused that how organo phosphorous was found in viscera i.e. small and big intestine, spleen, kidney, liver and lungs. Accused had tried to cover up the aforesaid aspect also. Death has taken place inside the house, thus, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which death was caused and poison was found in viscera. This Court has considered various decisions of Apex Court in Cr. A. No. 86/99 decided on 11-9-2007 laying down that it is the bounden duty of the accused persons to explain their conduct. This Court has considered various decisions of Apex Court in Cr. A. No. 86/99 decided on 11-9-2007 laying down that it is the bounden duty of the accused persons to explain their conduct. In case no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is found to be false, that provides additional link in the chain of circumstances against accused so as to fasten the guilt :- The Apex Court in State of U. P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : (1992 Cri LJ 3693) has held down in, the backdrop of the fact that death of wife took place in the house, circumstances required explanation from the husband. In the instant case husband was in the company of wife, thus it was necessary for him to explain the circumstances how homicidal death took place, it was not the case of death of drowning. In Shri Kishan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 1597 : (1994 Cri LJ 2190), the Apex Court has laid down in the backdrop of the fact that accused was present in the house on the fateful night, medical evidence assumes importance in the case to ascertain cause of death. Medical evidence indicated that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation around the neck. It was not the case of accused that he brought down the dead body and placed it on the cot, the Apex Court held, which corroborated the prosecution version that the death was due to strangulation and accused was responsible for that. In Sheikh Abdul Hamid and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 942 , it was considered whether there was possibility of an outsider to have committed the offence, there was no such possibility found as such accused was convicted. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2006 (9) SC 50, the Apex Court has considered that when an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house, in the instant case husband and wife were in the company, it is held that in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan 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 is insisted upon by the Courts. The law does not evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says:that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It has been further observed that 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 Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering 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 any explanation. It is apparent from the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court that in the instant case it is incumbent upon inmates of the house and also on the husband not only to explain their conduct, but also to indicate how the injuries were found on person of deceased and how poisoning took place, but in the instant case accused persons have not at all explained the aforesaid crucial aspect, they cooked a false story to cover up the offence. 8. We find on record statement of Battabai (PW 1); mother of deceased. She was obviously not present in the house at the time of incident, but she has stated that the dead body of Padma Bai was having several injuries. She has also stated that her husband Rikhiram had made oral gift of one acre of land to Padma Bai. Deceased was asked to got executed a registered document otherwise she would be harassed by the accused persons. She has also stated that her husband Rikhiram had made oral gift of one acre of land to Padma Bai. Deceased was asked to got executed a registered document otherwise she would be harassed by the accused persons. Her mother-in-law, husband and husband's brother used to quarrel with deceased Patma Bai on the aforesaid issue. In the cross-examination she has stated that she has disclosed the fact of the dispute to others but did not convene a Panchayat. She has denied that deceased was suffering with any kind of ailment. She had not seen the actual Marpeet, but was told about it. Tikaram (PW 2), neighbour, has turned hostile. He has stated that he was not in the house at the time of incident, he was not aware what transpired. Obviously he has not supported the prosecution case being a neighbour of accused. Suraj Prasad (PW 3), brother of deceased, has stated that he was informed as to the death of Padma Bai when he reached the house, he along with three-four other persons went to the house of accused and saw that the dead body was lying in the room. There were injuries on the person of deceased. He made enquiries from accused Sunderlal as to cause of death, he did not disclose anything to him. He entertained a doubt that she was murdered as injuries were there on the person of deceased. There was dispute as to one acre of land orally gifted by his father. Deceased used to narrate the facts to her mother in detail. He has denied the suggestion that deceased was suffering with epilepsy. Dhannulal (PW 4) has also seen the dead body in the house when police came to the village and signed the inquest (P/2) in the portion A to A. He has stated that there were injuries on the person of deceased. Lakhan Singh (PW 7) has not supported the prosecution case, he was declared hostile. Rameshwar Das (PW 10) has stated that after death of Padma Bai he reached to the house of accused, he made enquiry from the accused how she died, accused did not inform him as to cause death. He along with Bhupat went to the police station, he was informed that Sumatlal had already lodged intimation (P/21) as to death of Padma Bai. He was declared hostile and was cross examined. He along with Bhupat went to the police station, he was informed that Sumatlal had already lodged intimation (P/21) as to death of Padma Bai. He was declared hostile and was cross examined. He admitted that police had seized lathis at the Instance of Ramswaroop and Sunderlal in his presence. Bhupat Lal (PW 11), uncle of deceased, has stated that he was informed by his co-brother as to harassment of the deceased. Omprakash, brother of deceased, had informed him the factum of death of Padma Bai. He went to the house of accused and found several injuries on the person of deceased Padma Bai. Accused wanted to bury the deceased, he advised the villagers that it was an unusual incident, death has taken place in doubtful circumstances, he wanted to lodge the report but his report was not reduced in writing by the police on the ground that intimation was already recorded. There was dispute over the mutation of agricultural land. Deepchand (PW 12), brother of deceased, has stated that he came to know about the death of Padma Bai, there used to be dispute with respect to one acre of agricultural land orally gifted at the time of marriage, consequently, he had offered the accused persons to plough the land. It emerges from the evidence furnished by the aforesaid witnesses that there was serious dispute between the accused and the family of deceased over mutation of land gifted orally at the time of marriage by the father of deceased. There used to be quarrel on that issue of which complaints used to be made by the deceased to her family members. It is also apparent that when the witnesses reached to the spot after death of Padma Bai and made enquiry from the accused persons with respect to cause of death, they were not able to give any explanation as to cause of death. There were visual marks of various injuries on the body of deceased as stated by aforesaid witnesses corroborated by the postmortem report. It is apparent that deceased was subjected to violence, she was having 18% burn injuries, obviously caused by the accused persons. There were visual marks of various injuries on the body of deceased as stated by aforesaid witnesses corroborated by the postmortem report. It is apparent that deceased was subjected to violence, she was having 18% burn injuries, obviously caused by the accused persons. The body was found in the room occupied by accused Sunderlal, Ramaswaroop as per intimation report was also present in the house at the relevant time, and had asked Sumat Lal to lodge the report, he was instrumental in getting lodged the intimation report suppressing material facts. His presence in the house at the time of death is borne out from the intimation report itself. He has also failed to explain his conduct. No explanation has been offered in the statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. as to cause of death of deceased and how the burn and other injuries were caused to deceased and how poison was found in the viscera. When incident has taken place in the house, it was incumbent upon the accused persons to explain the material facts. They have miserably failed to give any explanation. Effort was made to screen the offence and false report was lodged. 9. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel appearing for appellants has relied upon decision of Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738). It was a case of death by poisoning exclusively. In that context the Apex Court has laid down that evidence should be conclusive and various aspects were examined. The factual situation in the instant case is entirely different. There were injuries caused due to physical violence including burn injuries on the person of deceased coupled with the fact that poison organo phosphorous was also found in the viscera. It appears that deceased was tortured before death. Accused have suppressed each and every aspect of the case. They have offered no explanation, thus, the irresistible conclusion is that they are responsible for causing death of deceased, it was a case of homicidal death. After torturing and beating, it appears that accused have administered organo phosphorous also which was found in the viscera. There is evidence of harassment given to deceased by accused Ramswaroop and Sunder Lal along with other family members as stated by Battabai (P. W. 1). After torturing and beating, it appears that accused have administered organo phosphorous also which was found in the viscera. There is evidence of harassment given to deceased by accused Ramswaroop and Sunder Lal along with other family members as stated by Battabai (P. W. 1). In the circumstances, it is apparent that accused/appellants were responsible for causing death of Padma Bai, thus, they have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Court below for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of I. P. C. 10. Resultantly, we find that appeal is devoid of merits, same deserves dismissal, it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is hereby confirmed. Accused are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender, failing which police to arrest them forthwith. Appeal dismissed.