JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J.The sole appellant -Hare Krishna Roy @ Bhairo Roy having been found guilty for committing murder of his wife-Soni Devi was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Soni Devi, daughter of the informant, Sita Ram Gupta, having married the appellant was living in his house happily. However, in the night of 21.10.1998, the informant, P.W. 7, received an information that something has happened in the house of his daughter as foul smell is coming out of his house. Upon which, the informant when in the next morning came to the house of his son-in-law, he found his son-in-law there who after locking the door was about to leave the house from where foul smell has been coming out. Thereupon, the informant asked the appellant about the whereabout of his daughter, but the appellant kept mum and then the informant asked the appellant to unlock the door. Upon which, the appellant disclosed that he has cut his wife to death by sword and has kept the dead-body in a gunny bag. Immediately thereafter, Baidya Nath Pathak Baidik, S.I. of Telaiya Police Station, P.W. 8, came over there along with other police officials and recorded the fard beyan (Ext. 2) of the informant, Sita Ram Gupta, on 22.10.1998 at about 5:30 a.m. which was sent before the Police Station for registration of a case. Meanwhile, said P.W. 8 took up the matter for investigation and in that course, the Investigating Officer recovered the dead-body, which had been wrapped in a gunny bag, from the room of the appellant. On holding inquest on the dead-body, the Investigating Officer prepared Inquest Report (Ext. 3). Thereafter, confession made by the appellant led to recovery of sword which was seized under Seizure List (Ext. 4). Thereupon, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh, P.W. 9 who found the head beheaded from the body. Accordingly, the doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 7). 3. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Accordingly, the doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 7). 3. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to prove the charge against the appellant, though examined nine witnesses but except the informant, Sita Ram Gupta, P.W. 7, Baidya Nath Pathak Baidik, Investigating Officer, P.W. 8, and Dr. Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh, P.W. 9, none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution, still learned trial court on the basis of the circumstances appearing against the appellant and also on the basis of the testimony of P.W. 7, the informant, did find the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and hence recorded the order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned trial court has based his finding mainly on the evidence of P.W. 7, the informant, disclosing therein that the appellant had disclosed about the offence being committed before him but not a single witness examined by the prosecution has corroborated the version of P.W. 7, the informant, and as such, learned trial court should not have recorded the order of conviction on the basis of sole testimony of P.W. 7, the informant. It was further submitted that according to the prosecution case, confession made by the appellant led to recovery of the weapon used in the crime but such confession recorded in writing leading to recovery has not been brought on record and as such, that circumstance cannot be used against the appellant. Moreover, the weapon used was also not produced in the court below and thereby the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circumstances appearing against the appellant are so strong that it only leads to conclusion that it was only the appellant who did commit murder of his wife and as such, learned trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circumstances appearing against the appellant are so strong that it only leads to conclusion that it was only the appellant who did commit murder of his wife and as such, learned trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that this case is based on the testimonies of P.W. 7, the informant, as well as the Investigating Officer. According to P.W. 7, the informant, the deceased was married to the appellant and was living with her husband, but the other day, on getting information that his daughter has been done to death, he, when reached to the house of his son-in-law, found his son-in-law over there who after locking the door was about to leave the house, when he inquired about the whereabout of his daughter, the appellant confessed that he after killing his wife has kept the dead-body in a gunny bag. Meanwhile, the police reached over there and when made inspection of the house after opening the lock, the dead body was found wrapped in a gunny bag. This witness in his cross-examination has also stated that the marriage has taken place with his consent but there used to be altercation in between the wife and husband. A criticism has been made to the effect that this witness has testified that he on getting information about the occurrence reached at the house of the appellant on 21.10.1998, whereas in his fard beyan (Ext. 2), he has stated that he had come to the place of occurrence on 22.10.1998 on which date, FIR seems to have been drawn and as such, contradiction on such vital point creates a great doubt over the statement made in the FIR. No doubt, it is true that there had been some discrepancy in between the testimony and the statement made in the fard beyan (Ext. 2) with respect to the date on which the informant reached to the house of his son-in-law but there appears to be apparent mistake on the part of P.W. 7, the informant, to say that he came to the house of his son-in-law on 21.10.1998, as the fard beyan (Ext. 2) with respect to the date on which the informant reached to the house of his son-in-law but there appears to be apparent mistake on the part of P.W. 7, the informant, to say that he came to the house of his son-in-law on 21.10.1998, as the fard beyan (Ext. 2) does disclose that the statement had been recorded on 22.10.1998 at about 5:30 a.m. when he had reached to the house of his son-in-law and, therefore, the testimony of P.W. 7, the informant, about reaching at the place of occurrence on 21.10.1998, simply appears to be a mistake which is quite possible, as P.W. 7 had given his evidence after more than a year and, therefore, any such statement does not affect the veracity of the testimony of P.W. 7 before whom the appellant confessed his guilt of committing murder of his wife and putting the dead-body in a gunny bag which was recovered by the Investigating Officer and the appellant was arrested at the spot, but in course of statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant took the plea that he was never in the house, rather he was at his village home and as such, he has not aware as to how the deceased was done to death. This statement of the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that he was found by P.W. 7, the informant, leaving the house after locking it and confessing his guilt of committing murder and putting the dead body in a gunny bag which the police on reaching at the place of occurrence recovered. Thus, the explanation appears to be completely false and this can easily be taken to be strong circumstance against the appellant, as it is well settled that where an accused is alleged to have committed murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence that offence took place in the dwelling house, where the husband normally resides and in that event, if a false explanation is given or the accused fails to give any explanation, it can be taken to be strong circumstances against the accused. Thus, it can be safely said that it was only the appellant who committed murder of his wife. Under this situation, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the charge levelled against him. 8. Thus, it can be safely said that it was only the appellant who committed murder of his wife. Under this situation, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the charge levelled against him. 8. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.