JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 9th February, 2005, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Session Trial No. 29 of 2004, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed the murder of his wife, Sushila Devi alias Nancy. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased, Sushila Devi alias Nancy, was married to the accused, Surender Mohan, who is a driver by profession. According to the prosecution, the accused was unemployed and was doing nothing. Due to the fact that he had no source of income and could not support his family, there was continuous bickering between the husband and wife. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased wanted to visit her parental home on 20th June, 2004, since it was her brother's birthday. A quarrel took place between the husband and wife in the kitchen of their house on 18th June, 2004. During the course of this quarrel, the accused hit Sushila Devi with a bhaimplu (an iron blow pipe used to blow air into the kitchen fire) on the temple region near left ear. She suffered a head injury and died. Further, according to the prosecution, the accused used a kau ( an instrument used for digging) and inflicted two-three injuries on his head to make it appear that he had been attacked by his wife. On this basis, the accused was charged for having committed the murder of his wife. After trial, he has been acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State. 3. At the outset, we may note that it is not disputed that Sushila Devi alias Nancy died as a result of an injury suffered by her on the head. The investigation machinery was set into motion on the basis of the statement made by PW-1, Sanjeev Kumar, the real brother of the accused. In his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., duly signed by him and recorded by the police on 18.06.2004 at about 10.20 p.m., he stated that he and his two brothers were all working as drivers at Shimla. On 23rd May, 2004, he came to the village since his elder brother, Sunil Kumar, had expired. His younger brother, Surender Mohan (accused), was a driver, but unemployed for about one year and, therefore, quarrels used to take place between the husband and wife. On 23rd May, 2004, he came to the village since his elder brother, Sunil Kumar, had expired. His younger brother, Surender Mohan (accused), was a driver, but unemployed for about one year and, therefore, quarrels used to take place between the husband and wife. He further states that on 18th June, 2004, when he returned from the market to his house, after some time, he heard accused, Surender Mohan, and his wife, Sushila Devi alias Nancy quarreling in their kitchen. He ran to the kitchen of the accused and saw that the accused (Surender Mohan) was holding an iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) in his hand and Sushila Devi alias Nancy was lying on the ground covered with blood. Thereafter, Surender Mohan came out of the kitchen, picked up the kau and inflicted two-three blows on his own head. Then Sanjeev Kumar (PW-1) immediately ran to the house of Leela Devi (PW-5), Member of the Gram Panchayat, who resided in the neighbourhood. Sanjeev Kumar (PW-1) informed Leela Devi (PW-5) that Surender Mohan had beaten up his wife, who is lying unconscious. He requested Leela Devi to loan her vehicle to take Sushila Devi to the hospital at Nadaun. Leela Devi came home and then Sanjeev Kumar and his wife, Vanita Devi (PW-2), put Sushila Devi alias Nancy in the vehicle provided by Leela Devi. The accused also accompanied them in the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Suresh Kumar. They went to CHC Nadaun, but the Medical Officer, after checking Sushila Devi, declared her to be dead. This was the first version given by Sanjeev Kumar to the police. However, while appearing in Court as PW-1, he gave a totally different version. 4. According to the statement made in Court, the accused was also employed at Shimla and not unemployed. In Court, Sanjeev Kumar stated that on 18th June, 2004, at 8.00 p.m.,when he was in his house, Sushila Devi was preparing meal in her kitchen. Since the fire wood was wet and not burning properly, she got irritated and in anger, started abusing her two year old son and started beating him. Then, Surender Mohan (accused) rushed inside the kitchen to save the child. Sushila Devi then gave a blow of the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) to herself and also beat the accused. Thereafter, she fell down on the floor on which some mustard oil had spread. Then, Surender Mohan (accused) rushed inside the kitchen to save the child. Sushila Devi then gave a blow of the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) to herself and also beat the accused. Thereafter, she fell down on the floor on which some mustard oil had spread. Due to fall, she suffered another injury near her ear. Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar arranged for a vehicle and took Sushila Devi to the Hospital where she was declared dead. According to him, he did not make any statement to the police, but further went on to state that he may have got puzzled. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He admitted his signatures on the statement, Ex. PA, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He, however, virtually denied most of the facts recorded in the statement, Ex. PA. He admitted that when he entered the kitchen, Sushila Devi was lying in a pool of blood on the floor. He also admitted that he had rushed to the house of Leela Devi (PW-5). He, however, denied that Leela Devi came to his house. He admitted that in the vehicle driven by Suresh Kumar, they all had gone to CHC Nadaun and the police was informed by the Doctor in the Hospital at Nadaun and the police had come to the spot. From his statement, it is apparent that though he and his brother were residing in a building, but they have separate kitchens and were residing in separate portions of the building. He also stated that when the incident took place, his wife, PW-2, Vanita Devi, was cooking food in her kitchen and he reached the house at that very moment after brining ration from the market. 5. PW-2, Vanita Devi, is the wife of PW-1. She also has given a version similar to that of PW-1. According to her, it was Sushila who gave a blow of the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) two-three times on the head of the accused and after seeing blood, she got terrified and then struck her head with the wall and also inflicted two-three blows with the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) on her head. She denied having made any statement to the Doctor that Sushila had suffered injuries due to her husband, the accused. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but denied most of the relevant portions. She denied having made any statement to the Doctor that Sushila had suffered injuries due to her husband, the accused. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but denied most of the relevant portions. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she never saw Sushila hitting the accused or her son with the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu). 6. PW-5, Leela Devi, states that on 18th June, 2004, Sanjeev Kumar, brother of the accused, came to her house and asked for the jeep. According to her, Sanjeev Kumar told her that Sushila had given beating to the accused with an iron blow pipe (bhaimplu) and also injured herself and therefore, she was to be taken to the Hospital in the jeep. She was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. She denied having made any statement that PW-1 had told her that it was the accused, who gave blows to the deceased. 7. PW-7, Suresh Kumar, is the driver of the taxi, in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. He was also declared hostile. 8. PW-4, Suresh Kumar, was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Kamlah. According to him, on 18th June, 2004, he was informed by Leela Devi that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and his wife and the wife of the accused was taken to the hospital. He then went to the house of the accused and saw blood scattered in the kitchen of the accused. He informed the police on telephone, who asked him to remain present at the spot. Next day, the police visited the spot and photographs were taken. He has also supported the accused on other issues. 9. The medical evidence of Dr. G.R. Kaushal is very material for decision of this case. He was the Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Nadaun. He states that on 18th June, 2004, at about 9.40 p.m., Sushila Devi was brought in the Hospital by her sister-in-law, Vanita Devi and brother-in-law, Sanjeev Kumar and they disclosed the history of injuries being sustained in a quarrel with her husband. He examined Sushila Devi. She was unconscious and gasping for breath. The pulse rate was not readable. Blood Pressure was also not recordable. Sushila Devi did not respond to any resuscitative measure. She was declared dead at 9.55 p.m. and the police was informed. He examined Sushila Devi. She was unconscious and gasping for breath. The pulse rate was not readable. Blood Pressure was also not recordable. Sushila Devi did not respond to any resuscitative measure. She was declared dead at 9.55 p.m. and the police was informed. He found the following injuries on the person of Sushila Devi: “1. There was abrasion on left leg measuring 6 cm x 2.5 cm. It was of oval shape. The floor of the abrasion was pinkish in colour. 2. There was contusion on left leg of lenier shape measuring 6 cm x 2 cm. Its colour was bluish. 3. There was swelling on the left eye lid extending to forehead. Its shape was irregular and size was 8 cm x 3 cm. Colour of over lying skin was bluish. Eye could only be opened passively. Eye was showed redness and pupil was dilated. 4. There was bleeding through both nostrils. On examination, no source of bleeding could be seen, nor any injury seen in the nostril. 5. There was lacerated wound in the scalp on left parietal region of irregular shape with margin everted. Size was 6 cm x 2.5 cm. The wound was bleeding profusely. Underlying wound was felt. Fracture on pulpation could not be ascertained. 6. There was laceration on lower back region of irregular shape. Size was 3 cm x 1 cm.” According to him, injuries No. 1 and 2 were simple in nature. Injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 were grievous. Thereafter, he handed over the body to the police for post mortem examination. According to him, he had detected only one injury, injury No. 5, on the scalp of the deceased. He denied that injury No. 3 was a part of injury No. 5. He, however, states that bleeding from the nostrils, i.e. injury No. 4, could be a result of injury No. 5. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that injury No. 5 could be caused by a fall on a grinding stone (sil). He further specifically denied that the said injury could be as a result of fall on the edge of a kundi (stone utensil). He specifically denied the suggestion that injury No. 5 could be self-inflicted with the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu), Ex. P-2. He, however, did not rule out the chance of injuries No. 1 to 3 being caused by a fall. He specifically denied the suggestion that injury No. 5 could be self-inflicted with the iron blow pipe (bhaimplu), Ex. P-2. He, however, did not rule out the chance of injuries No. 1 to 3 being caused by a fall. This witness had also examined accused-Surender Mohan on the same day and had found three injuries on the person of Surender Mohan and these injuries were simple in nature. 10. PW-9, Dr. K.S. Dogra, conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has opined that the injury on the scalp was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. He, in cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be sustained by striking her head against the pucca wall or by the deceased herself giving the blow of the iron blow pipe. He also denied the suggestion that the injury could be caused by a fall on the edge of a grinding stone (sil). 11. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the brother, sister-in-law and other villagers had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution version. 12. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the accused. 13. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, contends that admittedly, the death of the accused took place inside the kitchen and other than the accused and their minor child aged two years, there was no other person in the kitchen. He, therefore, submits that it was the accused who alone could be aware of what had happened inside the kitchen. The accused has given no explanation in this regard. He submits that in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when the accused alone is aware of the facts, he must state those facts. He further submits that the version of the defence, as put to the witnesses, cannot be accepted, since the medical evidence does not support the defence theory that the deceased suffered the injuries either by inflicting blows on herself or by a fall on the grinding stone. According to Mr. Mandhotra, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it is the accused alone, who murdered his wife. 14. On the other hand, Mr. According to Mr. Mandhotra, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it is the accused alone, who murdered his wife. 14. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, submits that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused because none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution version and all of them have turned hostile. 15. In India, the malaise of witnesses turning hostile has reached alarming proportions. There is hardly a case where witnesses do not turn hostile. At the same time, we are also aware of the fact that the police, more often than not, is guilty of padding or creating false evidence. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits. Merely because the witnesses turn hostile is not a ground to acquit the accused, if there is other material on record which leads to the irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone and none else, who could have committed the offence in question. 16. In the present case, the following circumstances stand established: 1. That the accused, his wife (deceased) and one two years old son were alone in the kitchen. 2. It also stand established that a quarrel took place. 3. It is also established that deceased, Sushila Devi, died as a result of head injury received by her. 17. Coming to the evidence of the brother of the accused (PW-1), from his statement, it is more than apparent that he had gone to the market and returned to the house. He then heard the sounds of his brother and the deceased fighting with each other and he rushed to their kitchen. When he reached the kitchen, the deceased was already lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Therefore, he is not an eye witness to the incident and his version that the accused was beaten up by the deceased and that the deceased had inflicted blows of the bhaimplu on herself cannot be accepted at their face value. Admittedly, when he entered the kitchen, the deceased was already lying on the ground and, therefore, this witness could not have been aware about what had taken place prior to his entering the kitchen. Admittedly, when he entered the kitchen, the deceased was already lying on the ground and, therefore, this witness could not have been aware about what had taken place prior to his entering the kitchen. His evidence is only relevant for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that he heard a quarrel between his brother and sister-in-law and that when he entered the kitchen, his sister-in-law was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. 18. As far as the statement of PW-2, Vanita Devi, is concerned, it is more than obvious that she is telling total lies. In Court, she stated that she saw the deceased giving blows of the bhaimplu to the accused. She also states that she saw the deceased banging her head against the wall and then inflicting blows of the bhaimplu on her head. This version, on the face of it, is false because she herself has admitted that her husband was the first to go and she reached the kitchen of the accused after her husband, PW-1, had reached there. As discussed above, by the time PW-1 reached the kitchen, the deceased was already lying on the floor. Therefore, on the face of it, this witness could not have witnessed the deceased giving blows to the accused. Her statement is apparently a cooked up version. 19. It is not difficult to find out the reason why PWs 1 and 2 have turned hostile. They are the real brother and sister-in-law of the accused. Out of the three brothers, one had recently died and now PW-1 obviously wants to save his only brother from going to jail. 20. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 396, went to the extent of disbelieving the statement of the mother of the accused made in Court and placing reliance on her statement made to the police. The following observations of the Apex Court in this regard are very relevant: “15. The mother of the accused, Smt. Dhillo Devi stated before the police that her son (the accused) had told her that he had killed Seema. No doubt a statement to the police is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section 162 (1) CrPC, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162 (1) CrPC it can be used to contradict the testimony of a witness. No doubt a statement to the police is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section 162 (1) CrPC, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162 (1) CrPC it can be used to contradict the testimony of a witness. Smt. Dhillo Devi also appeared as a witness before the trial court, and in her cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement to the police to whom she had stated that her son (the accused) had told her that he had killed Seema. On being so confronted with her statement to the police she denied that she had made such a statement. 16. We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo Devi to the police can be taken into consideration in view of the proviso to Section 162 (1) CrPC, and her subsequent denial in court is not believable because she obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the accused) from punishment. In fact in her statement to the police she had stated that the dead body of Seema was removed from the bed and placed on the floor. When she was confronted with this statement in court she denied that she had made such a statement before the police. We are of the opinion that her statement to the police can be taken into consideration in view of the proviso to Section 162 (1) CrPC.” 21. The present case stands on a better footing since PW-1 has now resiled from his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. A statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is signed by the witnesses and stands on a better footing than a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 22. With regard to the hostile witnesses, in Bhagwan Dass's case (supra), the Apex Court held as follows: “18. No doubt Smt. Dhillo Devi was declared hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement to the police. However, as observed in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra: (SCC p. 363, para7) “7....the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.” Similarly in Sk. Zakir v. State of Bihar, this Court held: (SCC p. 16, para 5) “5....It is not quite strange that some witnesses do turn hostile but that by itself would not prevent a court from finding an accused guilty if there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the prosecution.” In Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court held that the dependable part of the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on. Thus, it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, and the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India vide Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. 19. In the present case we are of the opinion that Smt. Dhillo Devi denied her earlier statement to the police because she wanted to save her son. Hence, we accept her statement to the police and reject her statement in court. The defence has not shown that the police had any enmity with the accused, or had some other reason to falsely implicate him.” 23. We may also make reference to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. -When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” A bare perusal of this Section shows that if some facts are especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 24. In a criminal case, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must, therefore, prove all the circumstances which can be proved. But, if there is some circumstance or fact, which is known only to the accused and the accused fails to give any reasonable explanation, then the Court would not be wrong in drawing conclusion against the accused. 25. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 681, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the husband and wife were last seen together. The offence was committed in the dwelling house where the husband and wife were residing together and the husband, who was accused of killing of his wife, offered no explanation as to how the injuries were received by his wife. The offence was committed in the dwelling house where the husband and wife were residing together and the husband, who was accused of killing of his wife, offered no explanation as to how the injuries were received by his wife. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that if the husband offers no explanation or the explanation given by the husband is false, this would be strong circumstance to indicate that it was the husband who had committed the crime. 26. The Apex Court had this to say with regard to cases based on circumstantial evidence: “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused an inconsistent with their innocence.” 27. In respect of offences, which take place inside the premises of a house, the Apex Court held as follows: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and 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, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution, 1944 AC 315, quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271 ). A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution, 1944 AC 315, quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271 ). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead 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. Here it is necessary to keep in mind 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. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: “(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. 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.” 28. After discussing a number of earlier judgments, the Apex Court held as follows: “22. After discussing a number of earlier judgments, the Apex Court held as follows: “22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 , it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 , the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 , the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” The present case is similar to the case before the Supreme Court. 29. In Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky versus State of Punjab, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 306, dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court held as follows: “14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g. where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.” 30. In State of Rajasthan versus Jaggu Ram, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 51, dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court held as follows: “27. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g. where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.” 30. In State of Rajasthan versus Jaggu Ram, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 51, dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court held as follows: “27. In our considered view, this was a fit case for invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, this Court considered the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in a case somewhat similar to the present one. This Court noted that the accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. It was held that for the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there was every justification for drawing an inference that they had murdered the boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a different inference. 28. xx xx xx 29. We are sure, if the learned Single Judge of the High Court had adverted to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and correctly applied the principles of law, he would not have committed the grave error of acquitting the respondent.” 31. In the present case, the first version given in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as the version given to the Doctor was that the injuries were suffered by the deceased in a quarrel which took place with her husband. The statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was signed by PW-1 and he has admitted his signatures thereupon. In the present case, the first version given in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as the version given to the Doctor was that the injuries were suffered by the deceased in a quarrel which took place with her husband. The statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was signed by PW-1 and he has admitted his signatures thereupon. He firstly falsely stated that he had made no such statement. Later, to wriggle out the situation, when confronted with the signatures, he stated that he was puzzled. Even if a person is puzzled, he would not wrongly implicate his brother in a case of murder. Similarly, the Doctor had no enmity with the accused and he would have recorded only what was told to him by the persons accompanying the injured. It was only the family members and the co-villagers, who were accompanying the deceased, Sushila Devi, to the Hospital and none of them had any reason to give a false statement to the Doctor. 32. Thus, from the discussion, it is apparent that the accused and the deceased were alone in the kitchen. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has not given any explanation as to how his wife suffered the injuries. The defence has put up three different versions either by making suggestions to witnesses in cross-examinations or that set up by PW-1 and PW-2. One version is that the deceased inflicted blows on herself with the bhaimplu. The second version is that she suffered injuries by slipping on the mustard oil and falling on a sil (grinding stone). The third version is that she suffered the injuries when she fell on the kundi. There is also another version that she banged her head against the wall. 33. The medical evidence of both the Doctors, PW-8 and PW-9, rules out any of these possibilities. The accused has not given any explanation, but the defence raised is ruled out by the medical evidence. It was the accused and the wife alone who were in the kitchen and, therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it is the accused who inflicted the blow to his wife, which led to her death. 34. Having held so, the next question is whether this action would amount to murder or would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 34. Having held so, the next question is whether this action would amount to murder or would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is no proof as to what was the genesis of the occurrence. According to the defence version, the deceased gave a blow of bhaimplu to her husband and then inflicted blows on herself. We have not accepted this version, but the possibility of wife having given a blow to the husband and then the husband's having grabbed the bhaimplu and in return giving a blow to her cannot be ruled out. Admittedly a quarrel took place between two of them. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that it is the accused, who initiated the fight or it was he who gave the first blow. In the absence of any concrete evidence in this regard, the benefit will have to be given to the accused. It is also apparent that he gave a blow in the heat of the moment with the iron blow pipe on the head of the wife and can be attributed with the knowledge that he was acting in a manner which may lead to the death of the deceased. Keeping in view all these factors in to consideration, we are of the considered view that the offence in question would fall in Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 35. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court and convict the accused-respondent of having committed the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II, of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and the accused be produced before us for being heard on quantum of sentence on 30th July, 2012. The Registry to take further necessary action.