JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 34 (S-S) 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence, under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to surfer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Asssam. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant, namely, Shri Bikram Khodal (hereinafter called "the appellant') and his wife, namely, Smti Anima Khodal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') were living in their house and on 17.09.2005, at about 7 A.M., the deadbody of the deceased was found lying, in a pool of blood in their house and the appellant was also found near the deadbody in his house. On being asked, by some of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant confessed that he had killed his wife by assaulting her with a 'lathi'. 4. A lathi', alleged to be used by the appellant, was found near the deadbody and the same was seized by the appellant, in presence of the witnesses. Shri Bikram Khodal (P W-1), younger brother of the appellant, lodged an F.I.R. (Ex. 1) with the Police and the same was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. During the course of investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person from his house, prepared inquest report (Ex. 2), seized the incriminating weapon i.e.' lathi' vide Ex. No. 3, prepared a Sketch Map (Ex 4) and examined the witnesses. The Investigating Officer forwarded the deadbody for postmortem examination. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, in due course, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (PW -8). 7. PW -1 (informant), PW -2, PW -6 and PW -7 are brother, mother, sister and uncle respectively of the appellant. In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (PW -8). 7. PW -1 (informant), PW -2, PW -6 and PW -7 are brother, mother, sister and uncle respectively of the appellant. PWs.-3 and 4 are independent witnesses, being the President and the Secretary of the VDP respectively. PW -5 is the Medical Officer, who performed autopsy and PW -8 is the Investigation Officer. 8. At the end of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. While admitting his presence near the deadbody, recovery of the 'lathi' (material Ext. 1) from near the deadbody, he denied to have made any extra judicial confession before P.Ws. No. 3 and 4 and his involvement with the alleged crime. Pleading ignorance about the cause of death of his wife, the accused person took the plea of alibi saying that, on the fateful morning, while returning from the river, after taking bath, he found the deadbody of his wife, lying naked on the ground and that, he told the same to his mother (PW -2), who visited his house: immediately thereafter. 9. Considering the evidence on record, more particularly, circumstantial evidence, as well as the extra judicial confession, made by the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 10. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 11. Mr. K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, taking us through the evidence, on record, has submitted that except the evidence of P.Ws.-3 and 4, regarding the extra judicial confession, there is no evidence, to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. Contending that the appellant had denied to have made extra judicial confession, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing substantial, cogent and reliable evidence and as such, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and set at liberty. 12. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, drawing our attention to the substantial evidence, surface from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the extrajudicial confession, made before P.Ws. 12. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, drawing our attention to the substantial evidence, surface from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the extrajudicial confession, made before P.Ws. 3 and 5, who were the respectable persons of the society, has submitted that considering the hour of the incident, i.e. early morning and the fact that both the appellant and the deceased used to live in the same house, it can be safely concluded that none, other than the accused, had caused the death of his wife. It is also submitted that the medical evidence, rendered by PW -5, corroborates the prosecution version that the death was caused by means of a 'lathi', which was recovered from near the deadbody. 13. It is further submitted that the presence of appellant and availability of the weapon of assault near the deadbody, are strong substantial evidence leading to the guilt of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that though the appellant had taken the plea of alibi, he failed to substantiate the said claim by adducing any evidence. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the prosecution could establish that none, other than the appellant had caused the death of the deceased and as such, learned Sessions Judge committed no error by recording the conviction and sentence. 14. Having heard the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties and considering the statement of the appellant, made under Section 313 Cr. P.C., we find no difficulty in understanding that the deadbody of the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood, with injuries on her person in the house, where the said couple used to live. The deadbody of the deceased was found early in the morning at 7 AM and the appellant was very must present near the deadbody. 15. From the evidence of the seizure list witnesses, i.e. PW -1, PW -3, PW -4 and the Investigating Officer (PW -8), it has been clearly established that a bamboo 'lathi' was found in the place of occurrence and the same was seized by the Police. The bamboo 'lathi' has been exhibited as Material Exhibit No. 1. The appellant has also, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. admitted that the 'lathi' (material Ext. 1) was seized by the Police. Of course, he has denied to have used the said 'lathi'. 16. The bamboo 'lathi' has been exhibited as Material Exhibit No. 1. The appellant has also, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. admitted that the 'lathi' (material Ext. 1) was seized by the Police. Of course, he has denied to have used the said 'lathi'. 16. The medical Officer (PW-5), who performed the autopsy found the following injuries: 1. 1.3" x 2" and bond deep cut injury on occipital region of head two more similar type of deep cut injury below the above injury. 2. 2.2" x 1 1/2 " and bone deep cut injury on the parietal region of head. 3. Multiple bruise and abrasion all over the back, in front of chest on both forearm and both lower leg. 4. Evulsions of upper incisor teeth bruise and abrasion over fall. Cranium and Spinal Canal:- The three cut injury on the occipital region cut the underlying scalp and skull underlying brain matter and membranes are exposed. The cut injury on parietal region is bone deep. The underlying brain matters is not exposed. Thorax: Multiple bruise and abrasion on the chest wall right, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs are fractured. Puaurae, Larynx and pericardium healthy. Both lungs are congested. Right side of the heart is full of blood. Left side of the heart is empty. 17. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was, due to head injuries, sustained by the deceased. He has exhibited the postmortem report as Ext. No. 5. The Medical Officer, further opined that the injuries were anti mortem and that, the injury No. 1 and 2 could be caused by a bamboo 'lathi', like material Ext. No. 1. 18. From the above evidence, it is found that the said 'lathi', i.e. material Ext. 1 was shown to the Medical Officer and he affirmed the possibility of using the same in causing the fatal injuries. The said medical evidence, rendered by PW -5, remained unchallenged. Therefore, it stood established that the said 'lathi' was used in causing the death of the deceased. In view of the above, we find no difficulty, in believing, that the bamboo 'lathi' (material Ext. 1) aforesaid was the weapon of assault. 19. Fact remains that the both the appellant and the deceased used to live in the same house to the exclusion of others. In view of the above, we find no difficulty, in believing, that the bamboo 'lathi' (material Ext. 1) aforesaid was the weapon of assault. 19. Fact remains that the both the appellant and the deceased used to live in the same house to the exclusion of others. There is nothing on record to show that any other person had access to the place of occurrence during the intervening period, i.e. the time when the appellant was alive and the time of her death. 20. It is also admitted position, as revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly P.Ws.-2, 3 and 4, coupled with the admission of the appellant, made under Section 313 Cr. P.C., that he was present near the deadbody, till the time of his arrest therefrom. 21. Though the appellant has taken the plea of alibi, i.e. going to the river for taking bath, there is no evidence in support of the said plea. Burden lies upon the person to prove the plea of alibi, who takes such plea. In the case at hand, the appellant failed to substantiate the said plea. Hence, we find no force in favour of such plea. That apart, as the appellant was living with the deceased during her lifetime and as he was found near the deadbody along with the weapon of assault, under the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there is no difficulty in holding., that the appellant had the knowledge, as to how the deceased met with her death. His failure, to explain such circumstance by adducing evidence, despite taking the plea of alibi, goes against him. 22. The appellant, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that he had informed his mother, immediately after the incident, about the said fact. But PW -2, Shri Satyabati Khodal, i.e. mother of the appellant, in her evidence, did not state anything, indicating, that her son had informed her that he, after coming from the river, found the dead body of his wife. 23. As discussed above, the prosecution has been able to establish that both the appellant and the deceased were living together in the same house, i.e. place of occurrence, that the deceased was found lying with injuries, in their house, that the weapon of assault was found near the dead body and that the appellant was also available near the dead body. The medical evidence has supported the prosecution version that the fatal blows were given by the said seized 'lathi'. 24. In view of the above, the finger of guilt points to the appellant. The failure of the appellant to prove the alibi fortifies the prosecution version that the appellant had caused the death. 25. Both the P.Ws.-3 and 4, who were the respectable persons of the society, being President and the Secretary of the VDP, clearly stated that immediately after the occurrence, they visited the place of occurrence and that, the appellant had confessed before them that he had caused the death of the deceased . 26. PW -7, Uncle of the appellant, also stated that he was informed by the VDP Secretary, that the appellant had killed his wife. There is nothing on record to find that the P.Ws.-3 and 4 had any ill feeling or grudge against the appellant, That apart, no contradiction could be elicited to demolish their evidence regarding extra judicial confession. P.Ws.-3 and 4, who gave evidence regarding extra judicial confession, are found to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt their evidence regarding extra judicial confession. 27. In view of the above, considering entire aspect of the matter, the circumstantial evidence, as discussed above, coupled with the extra judicial confession aforesaid, it is found that the said circumstances form a complete chain of events, leading to the irresistible conclusion, inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant, that none, other than, the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by assaulting her with the material exhibit No. 1, i.e. bamboo 'lathi'. 28. The nature of the injuries, sustained by the appellant, the parts of the body, i.e. the vital organs, like head and. parietal region, on which the blows were given and the circumstances, in which the deceased met with the death, indicate that the appellant had inflicted the fatal blows with an intention to cause death or with the knowledge that the injuries, inflicted on the said vital organs, were likely to cause the death of the victim. parietal region, on which the blows were given and the circumstances, in which the deceased met with the death, indicate that the appellant had inflicted the fatal blows with an intention to cause death or with the knowledge that the injuries, inflicted on the said vital organs, were likely to cause the death of the victim. The facts and circumstances, in which the said injuries were caused, do not fall under any of the exceptions prescribed by Section 300 of the I.P.C. Therefore, it has been well established that the appellant gave the blows aforesaid with an intention of causing fatal injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. 29. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant had caused the murder of his wife i.e. the deceased. 30. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are affirmed and upheld. 31. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr. K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to her as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. The LCR be returned. Appeal dismissed