JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by the 1st ASJ, Satna in S.T. No. 45/97 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for causing murder of his wife Madhu Vishwakarma. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that marriage of accused Sanjay Vishwakarma was performed with Madhu in the year 1985, accused used to drink liquor and beat the deceased. He used to spend whatever money he was earning in drinking. Accused often used to threaten the deceased to kill her. This fact was informed to in-laws by Madhu number of times. On 9-10-96 accused committed murder of his wife. There was ligature marks found around the neck of deceased. The in-laws suspected that Madhu was done away with as such brother of Madhu, Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma (P.W. 1) lodged a Merg intimation at Police Station, Kotwali at about 12.15 P.M. Merg intimation (P-1) was recorded at Crime No. 80/96. Inquest (P-2) was prepared, post-mortem was performed by a team of four doctors. Doctors opined that death was due to asphyxia, case was referred to Medico Legal Expert, Bhopal. Ligature marks and abrasions on the neck of deceased were found to be ante-mortem. Sons of deceased informed that accused had beaten the deceased on the date of incident also in the night due to that she was unable to speak. When preparation was being made for cremation of the body, a report was lodged by brother of deceased. As per the opinion of Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, death was caused due to asphyxia because of strangulation as there were ligature marks on the neck, death was homicidal in nature. The death was caused in the room situated at 1st floor and body was placed, in order to remove the evidence, on the ground floor. Blood stained pillow from the cot of deceased was seized as per seizure memo (P-3), presence of human blood was found by FSL, Sagar. No poison was found in the viscera. Accused was charged for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He was in his shop and was informed by Gulab Tiwari at about 3.30 a.m. that his wife was not well, he called Dr. Accused was charged for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He was in his shop and was informed by Gulab Tiwari at about 3.30 a.m. that his wife was not well, he called Dr. Safi who declared that his wife has died. Rajesh Namdeo was in the house on the day of incident. His mother was sleeping alongwith both the children in the room on the ground floor. Rajesh Namdeo came in the night at about 1 o'clock to sleep in the house, at about 2 o'clock in the night on hearing his mother's hue and cry, he found that deceased was lying near the stair-case in the ground floor. Thereafter his mother summoned the accused through Gulab Tiwari. Thereafter in-laws were informed. Deceased used to consume Supari and Tobacco, deceased must have inhaled Tobacco/Supari, that was the cause of death due to asphyxia, he was not responsible for committing murder of his wife. 4. Shri S.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Siddharth Datt, for appellant has submitted that in the post-mortem report no definite opinion was given by team of four doctors that death was due to strangulation. Thus, it could not be said that death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. No poison was found in the viscera, thus, it has not been established that death was homicidal in nature. Learned Counsel has further submitted that statement of son of accused Sandeep (P.W. 11) cannot be said to be sufficient so as to fasten the guilt. There was yet another person Rajesh (P.W. 5) in the house, the accused was not in the house, he was summoned from the shop by his mother, doctor was also informed by the accused which fact points out to his innocence. Consequently, accused should have been acquitted by the Court below, the commission of offence has not been established beyond periphery of doubt. 5. Shri R.S. Patel, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for State has supported the conviction. He has submitted that presence of accused in the house is established by statement of his son Sandeep (P.W. 11). On the neck of deceased ligature marks and abrasions were found, accused gave beating to the deceased is also the statement made by Sandeep (P. W. 11). Shri R.S. Patel, learned Addl. A.G. appearing for State has supported the conviction. He has submitted that presence of accused in the house is established by statement of his son Sandeep (P.W. 11). On the neck of deceased ligature marks and abrasions were found, accused gave beating to the deceased is also the statement made by Sandeep (P. W. 11). Asphyxia was caused due to strangulation. The accused has removed the body from the first floor and put it on the ground floor in order to remove the evidence of commission of offence. From the first floor, from the bed blood-stained pillow was seized on which human blood was found. In case accused was not responsible, he ought to have explained how the death of wife was caused. He has failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the Court below calls for no interference in the appeal. 6. In the instant case, we find that death was clearly homicidal in nature. It is apparent from post-mortem report that there were ante-mortem ligature marks and abrasions on the neck of deceased. Death was caused due to asphyxia is the opinion recorded in the post-mortem report as there were ligature marks around the neck of deceased. When abrasions were also found as noticed in the post-mortem report itself, it passes comprehension how the panel of four doctors in spite of opining that death was caused due to asphyxia could not opine that it was due to strangulation. Dr. B.L. Gupta (P.W. 12) who was member of the team which performed autopsy has stated in Para 18 that all the signs of strangulation were found on the dead body. Report of Junior Forensic Specialist of Medico Legal Institute, dated 18th March, 97 of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal indicates that deceased has died as a result of asphyxia caused by strangulation which is homicidal in nature. He has given the opinion on the basis of various facts. The deceased was having multiple abrasions over the neck and ligature marks and symptoms of asphyxia. The ligature marks were due to strangulation. Further reason mentioned by the expert was that deceased was never seen in hanging condition by any one. The neck muscles were congested (Ecchymosis) which is one of the important finding of strangulation rather than of hanging. The deceased was having multiple abrasions over the neck and ligature marks and symptoms of asphyxia. The ligature marks were due to strangulation. Further reason mentioned by the expert was that deceased was never seen in hanging condition by any one. The neck muscles were congested (Ecchymosis) which is one of the important finding of strangulation rather than of hanging. There was presence of multiple abrasions on neck indicating sign of struggle. He has further mentioned patchy haemorrhages is a positive finding of slow asphyxia means strangulation rather than hanging in this particular case. Observation of saliva trickling mark over cheek transversely was against the gravity of hanging. There was absence of ligature material. Thus, it is apparent that asphyxia was caused due to strangulation. It was not a case of hanging. If it was a case of hanging, it was for the accused to explain the circumstances as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 7. We find on record statement of son of deceased Sandeep (P.W. 11). He has clearly stated that in the night his father was in the house and had beaten deceased Madhu with kicks and fists. When he went to save the mother, he was pushed and threatened by his father, mother was unable to speak, thereafter his father sent him to the house of Anis. Saurav was also present when his father, i. e., accused was beating the deceased. There is absolutely nothing to doubt the version of Sandeep (P.W. 11) son of accused and deceased. Though he is a child witness, but appears to be truthful and not a tutored one. He had no enmity with the accused. He could not be said to be an interested witness. Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 5) who was also in the house has stated that at about 2.30-3-3.30 o'clock in the night mother of accused came to him and stated that Madhu was unable to speak. Accused Sanjay and his mother took him to the room on the first floor. He found that Madhu was lying dead on the cot. Thus, from the statement of Rajesh Kumar also presence of accused Sanjay when Madhu was done away with stands established. Accused Sanjay and his mother took him to the room on the first floor. He found that Madhu was lying dead on the cot. Thus, from the statement of Rajesh Kumar also presence of accused Sanjay when Madhu was done away with stands established. Ramkali (D.W. 4), mother of deceased, has stated that deceased used to be beaten by the accused, she had seen the marks of beating on the body of deceased prior to 7-8 days of her dedth also. Accused used to often beat the deceased. 8. It is apparent that accused was in the house at the time of commission of offence and was in the room and gave beating to deceased as stated by Sandeep (P.W. 11) and his presence is also stated by Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 5). He was responsible to strangulate the deceased to death. Body was removed from the first floor, blood was coming out from the mouth as stated by Ramkishore (P.W. 3). No report was lodged by the accused or any of his family members, they wanted to screen the offence. It was only when parents of deceased and brother came, they suspected foul play as there were ligature marks and abrasions on the neck of deceased, at that time report was lodged at the police station. The conduct of the accused also indicates that he tried to screen the offence by not informing the police. Death was obviously homicidal in nature. Spot inspection report indicates that blood staines on the pillow were found from the bed of deceased. The circumstances unerringly point out that deceased was subjected to physical violence by the accused. Photographs of deceased also speaks as to presence of ligature marks and the abrasions on the neck. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the conduct of the accused, it is apparent that he was culprit and commission of offence by him has been established beyond periphery of doubt. 9. When death has taken place in the house, it is necessary for the husband to explain the circumstances how the death took place as observed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal 1992CriLJ3693 and in Shri Kishan v. State of Haryana 1994CriLJ2190 . 9. When death has taken place in the house, it is necessary for the husband to explain the circumstances how the death took place as observed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal 1992CriLJ3693 and in Shri Kishan v. State of Haryana 1994CriLJ2190 . In the instant case, there was no possibility of any outsider having committed the offence, that also is a circumstance which militates against the accused as observed by the Apex Court in Sheikh Abdul Hamid and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1998]1SCR546 . When the offence takes place in the house, 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. In view of Section 106 of 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 as observed by the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra JT 2006 (sic) SC 50, Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. v. D. Bhoormull 1975CriLJ545 and State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. 2000CriLJ4047 . In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran 1999CriLJ4552 , State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal 1992CriLJ3693 , State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000)1SCC471 , Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2002CriLJ967 and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [1995]3SCR27 , the Apex Court has also observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the 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. When relations were strained, the accused husband must offer explanation as held in Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1972CriLJ1317 . Explanation should be given by accused in statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC as held in Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra 1992CriLJ1545 . 10. In the instant case, when we test the evidence in the light of aforesaid decisions it is clear that accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation. Explanation offered by the accused that he was not in the house is found to be incorrect. 10. In the instant case, when we test the evidence in the light of aforesaid decisions it is clear that accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation. Explanation offered by the accused that he was not in the house is found to be incorrect. Statement of mother of accused that accused was not in the house is just to save her son from punishment of offence under Section 302, IPC. Consequently, we find the appeal to be devoid of merit, same deserves dismissal, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Court below under Sections 302 and 201, IPC is hereby upheld.