Judgment :- A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1999, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1998. Parties to these appeals shall be referred to as the ‘accused’ and the ‘prosecution’. 2. There is only one accused in this case, who was tried for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 201 and 194 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and in the alternative he was tried for the offence punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C. Learned Judge of the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under section 302, 201 and 194 of the I.P.C. but convicted him for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. Learned Judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with a default clause for the offence punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. he sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default clause. 3. Facts leading to the litigation are as under:- 4. The accused is a resident of village Jaldhara, Tal.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded. On 23.03.1998, the accused got married to one Ratnamala, who is the victim in this case. Since her marriage Ratnamala was informing her parents that the accused was not treating her well etc. On 02.07.1998, late in the evening the accused in drunken condition abused and attacked Ratnamala. He delivered blow of iron plier (heavy implement used in kitchen), causing injury to her head. He then wiped out Ratnamala’s blood from the floor of the room. After she became unconscious, he lifted her and threw her in nearby well. Soon thereafter he started shouting for help. Neighbours came there, to whom he told that his wife had jumped in the well. In the next morning the accused went to Islapur Police Station and lodged report stating that during previous night his wife Ratnamala had jumped into the well. On this report, an accidental death was registered. Soon thereafter he started shouting for help. Neighbours came there, to whom he told that his wife had jumped in the well. In the next morning the accused went to Islapur Police Station and lodged report stating that during previous night his wife Ratnamala had jumped into the well. On this report, an accidental death was registered. But after the dead body was removed from the well, Ratnamala’s father Anandrao lodged complaint and Crime No.10 of 1998 was registered for offences punishable under sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the I.P.C., at 8.30 p.m. on that day. 5. The prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and the accused examined one defence witness. The gist of the evidence is as under:- 6. P.W.18-P.S.I.Bharatsingh stated that on 3rd July, 1998, when he was on duty at Islapur Police Station at about 11.15 a.m. the accused and the Police Patil of Jaldhara came to the police station. The accused gave an application to him. He perused the application and found information regarding wife of the accused committed suicide etc. This application is brought on record. It is marked as Exh. 86. He registered accidental death No. 10 of 1998 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C. He took entry in the station diary and report was also sent to the Dy. Superintendent of Police. He then proceeded to Jaldhara along with Police Patil and inspected the well. He tried to search for the dead body, but despite search through swimmers, he could not find it. Ultimately, with the help of rope and hook, he could fish out Ratnamala’s dead body. He drew panchanama of the well. He then took the dead body to the house of the accused. The dead body was kept on a bed in open court yard inside the house. Thereafter, inquest was drawn. He noticed little blood oozing from the cut wound on the head of the victim, near right ear etc. Injuries on the face and right arm were also noticed. The dead body was then sent to the Government Hospital at Jaldhara. He recorded statements of 12 witnesses and then on the complaint of victim’s father-Anandrao, registered offence punishable under section 302, 498-A and 201 of the I.P.C. at about 8.30 p.m. on that day. He then went to Kinwat and arrested the accused at about 10.00 p.m. from his house at Kinwat. He recorded statements of 12 witnesses and then on the complaint of victim’s father-Anandrao, registered offence punishable under section 302, 498-A and 201 of the I.P.C. at about 8.30 p.m. on that day. He then went to Kinwat and arrested the accused at about 10.00 p.m. from his house at Kinwat. He noticed one injury near right hand thumb of the accused. He was sent for medical examination. He then went to the house of the accused at Jaldhara and drew panchanama of the place of the incident. 7. P.W.18-Bharatsingh then stated that he recorded statements of more witnesses and received a letter which was written by victim Ratnamala prior to her death. The contents of the letter were relevant and therefore the letter was taken in the custody through panchanama on 07.07.1998. He recorded statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the accused and upon discovery of iron plier, iron ring and shoes of the accused at his instance, he then completed the investigation and sent the chargesheet. 8. P.W.1-Anandrao stated that his daughter Ratnamala-victim in this case, married to accused on 23rd March, 1998. On 5th June, 1998, he learnt telephonically that the accused and the victim had gone to Nanded. On 6th June, 1998, he went to Nanded and met the accused. He took Ratnamala with him to go to his village Adgaon. During her stay of one day at Adgaon, Ratnamala told him that her husband was harassing her. He was consuming liquor and was scorching her skin with burning cigarette. She said that he suspected her character. She also showed injuries caused of scorching on her hand. He took her to Dr. Palaskar of Pusad for treatment. Thereafter, he took Ratnamala to Jaldhara. 9. P.W.1-Anandrao further said that few days thereafter he met Ratnamala in a wedding ceremony at Pimpalgaon. Ratnamala told him about her husband’s harassment. He told about this to Kishanrao-father of the accused and requested him for help. He agreed to help. On 28th June, 1998, his relative Shesherao went to Adilabad for attending a wedding. He told him to pay visit to Ratnamala on his return journey. Shesherao brought a letter from Ratnamala. From this letter, he learnt that Ratnamala was in trouble and wanted to come back. He could identify handwriting of Ratnamala. On 3rd July, 1998, he went to Pusad. There he met his relative Shesherao. He told him to pay visit to Ratnamala on his return journey. Shesherao brought a letter from Ratnamala. From this letter, he learnt that Ratnamala was in trouble and wanted to come back. He could identify handwriting of Ratnamala. On 3rd July, 1998, he went to Pusad. There he met his relative Shesherao. While he was in the house of Shesherao, a messenger from father of the accused came to him and informed him that his daughter Ratnamala had committed suicide by jumping in the well. He immediately hired vehicle and went to village Jaldhara along with his wife and relatives. By the time he reached Jaldhara, police had already taken Ratnamala’s dead body to Kinwat. So, he and his family members went to Kinwat. They saw her dead body and noticed wound on her body. He lodged complaint against the accused stating that he killed Ratnamala and threw her in the well. 10. P.W.3-Jyoti is mother of victim Ratnamala. She said that after her marriage Ratnamala came to her house on 25th March, 1998, but stayed only for a night. On 7th June, 1998, again she was brought to her house, but again only for one night. Ratnamala told her that her husband i.e. accused beat her, scorched her skin with burning cigarette by suspecting her character. She also narrated how her brother Sheshrao brought a letter from Ratnamala. She identified the letter. She said that after they learnt about Ratnamala’s death, she went to Jaldhara and then to Kinwat along with her husband etc. She said that she saw Ratnamala’s dead body and noticed various injuries on her person. She admitted that Ratnamala was pregnant at the time of her death. 11. P.W.5-Shesherao, the maternal uncle of victim Ratnamala stated that after Ratnamala’s marriage, she met him at Pusad at the house of one Vilas (P.W.4). She told him that her husband suspected her character and used to beat her in intoxicated condition. He met Ratnamala again on 11th June, 1998 at Pimpalgaon in a wedding ceremony. She repeated her complaint about her husband regarding beating and scorching her by burning cigarette. On 20th June, 1998, he went to Adilabad for attending another wedding. While returning, he went to Jaldhara and met Ratnamala at about 4.30 p.m. She told him that the trouble from her husband continued. She requested him to ask her father to visit. She repeated her complaint about her husband regarding beating and scorching her by burning cigarette. On 20th June, 1998, he went to Adilabad for attending another wedding. While returning, he went to Jaldhara and met Ratnamala at about 4.30 p.m. She told him that the trouble from her husband continued. She requested him to ask her father to visit. She also handed over a letter written to her father. He delivered letter to Ratnamala’s mother at village Adgaon. On 3rd July, 1998, after he learnt about Ratnamala’s death, he paid visit to Jaldhara and Kinwat etc. 12. P.W.4-Vilas is also relative of victim Ratnamala. He said that on 22nd May, 1998, he had invited his relatives to his house for a ceremony. Ratnamala and her in-laws and husband attended the ceremony. Ratnamala told him at that time that her husband beat and troubled her. He was in the habit of scorching her skin by burning cigarette. Again on 11th June, 1998, he met Ratnamala at village Pimpalgaon in a wedding. Ratnamala again told him that her husband did not behave properly with her. She even expressed fear that her husband would kill her. She sought help. He informed this to father of accused who took the complaint rather lightly and asked them to ignore such minor complaints. 13. P.W.5-Shesherao and P.W.8-Rekhabai, who are relatives of the victim, deposed same story as narrated by P.W.4-Vilas, in their depositions. 14. The next and probably one of the most important witnesses in this case is P.W.6-Somnath. He is a child witness. The prosecution declared this witness hostile, because he had reciled from his earlier statement. At the time of incident, he was 11 years old. He deposed that he knew the accused and the victim. He said that during the night of the incident, he was present in the house of the accused. At that time, besides him, the accused and his wife Ratnamala, there was no other person in the house. Ratnamala was not taking meal on that evening. She asked her husband-accused, why he came back so belatedly. On that count, she was upset and was refusing to take food. The accused asked her to have food, but in vain. He and the accused then had dinner. After the dinner was over, accused delivered two slaps to his wife Ratnamala, because she was not having dinner. She asked her husband-accused, why he came back so belatedly. On that count, she was upset and was refusing to take food. The accused asked her to have food, but in vain. He and the accused then had dinner. After the dinner was over, accused delivered two slaps to his wife Ratnamala, because she was not having dinner. Thereafter, the accused sat in front of T.V. and watched it. Ratnamala left the house and walked towards the well and jumped in it. He followed her by running behind her, but before he could reach, she had jumped in the well. 15. P.W.18-the Investigating Officer through his deposition stated that at 11.30 a.m. the accused Sunil came to him with an application signed by the accused, which is at Exh.86. The submission of this application and the contents of the same are not denied by the accused. In the application the accused mentioned that on 2nd July, 1998, at about 11.30, his wife Ratnamala, jumped in the well. He raised alarm. Neighbours came to his rescue. They tried to take search of Ratnamala inside the well, but they failed. He suspected that Ratnamala committed suicide because she had stomach ache. 16. P.W.7-Dinaji is panch witness who stated that police prepared panchanama of the well as well as Ratnamala’s dead body in his presence. He also added that the well is situated in the village and was surrounded by number of houses on all sides. He further added that the accused resided about 300 ft. towards East from the well and there existed road between his house and the well. This witness also added that though the well was built in stones, at some distance there were rocks, which would be visible, if water goes down. In the panchanama also it is said that the water level was 4 ft. below the rocks (Murum). 17. P.W.15 is one Tukaram. He is panch witness. He said that on 9th July, 1998, P.W.6-Somnath produced a cloth from the house of the accused. This cloth was kept between two big tanks concealed. This cloth was seized and sealed. He then said that on the day during night of the incident, he was present at his cattle shed, which is on the road beyond Maruti temple. This cattle shed is about 100 ft. away from the house of the accused. This cloth was kept between two big tanks concealed. This cloth was seized and sealed. He then said that on the day during night of the incident, he was present at his cattle shed, which is on the road beyond Maruti temple. This cattle shed is about 100 ft. away from the house of the accused. He said that while he was coming back from the cattle shed, it was raining. He noticed that the accused was carrying dead body of his wife in his hand. He saw him throwing it in the well. He then noticed that after throwing the dead body in the well, the accused started shouting. He then noticed Somnath. He also noticed number of other people coming near the well and raising alarm. He admitted in the cross-examination that his statement was recorded on the next day and not on the day when he attended the panchanama. 18. P.W.16 is Dr. Ashok Belkode, who stated that on 3rd July,1998 at about 5.30 p.m. he conducted post mortem examination along with Dr.U.B.More on the dead body of Ratnamala. The prominent features of the dead body, according to him, were:- The dead body was of a female of about 19 years old. Well nourished. Tongue was inside the mouth. Little blood was seen oozing from the nostrils, mouth and right ear. The injuries in detail are as under:- (A) The following external injuries were noticed:- (1) There was old burn scaring injury on right forearm 2” above the wrist ventrally. The burns were two in number (i) 5 x 1 cm (ii) 5 x 1 cm. (2) There were multiple contusions on right forearm dorsally and literally at middle and upper 1/3rd ears, out of which two were major admeasuring 6 x 3 cms. (3) C.L.W. 3” above the right ear on parietal area anterio posteriorly measures 3 x 1 cm and bone deep, with big surrounding hematoma. (4) Contusion in bluish brown colour of complete forehead with hematoma. (5) Superficial pilling of skin at knee joint. Both popliterial fossa. Iliac area bilaterally buttocks, both arms. The aforesaid injury Nos. 1 to 5 were antemortem. (B) The following are internal injuries:- (1) There were number of hematomas under scalp. They were :::: (a) Below forehead complete area. (b) Right parietal region, 4 x 3 inches. (c) Occipital area 3 x 3 inches. Both popliterial fossa. Iliac area bilaterally buttocks, both arms. The aforesaid injury Nos. 1 to 5 were antemortem. (B) The following are internal injuries:- (1) There were number of hematomas under scalp. They were :::: (a) Below forehead complete area. (b) Right parietal region, 4 x 3 inches. (c) Occipital area 3 x 3 inches. (d) Posterior to anterior fontanelle, 3x2 inches. 19. There was no evidence of fracture of skull. Coverings of brain were all congested. There was collection of blood and hematoma corresponding to right parietal injury mentioned at Sr.No.3 of column No.17 amongst external injuries. 20. The victim was found pregnant with 10 weeks’ foetus. The witness opined that the cause of death was due to head injury. He also opined that the injuries were possible by means of kicks with shoes. Old burn injuries were possible by cigarette butts. This witness stated that he examined the accused on the same day at about 11.45 p.m. and found one injury on his right wrist on the ventral side at the base of the thumb. It was abrasion admeasuring 1 cm x 1/4th cm. 21. The learned Judge of the Trial Court in his judgment recorded following findings:- i. The accused subjected Ratnamala with cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. ii. The prosecution could not prove that the accused committed Ratnamala’s murder. iii. The prosecution could not prove that the accused disposed of Ratnamala’s dead body with a view to conceal evidence of murder. iv. The prosecution could not prove that the accused delivered false information to the police in respect of Ratnamala’s suicide. v. Ratnamala committed suicide. vi. The accused abetted such suicide. 22. We went through the evidence as well as judgment of the Trial Court very carefully. We also heard the submissions from both the sides at length and in our view the points for consideration in this case are as under:- (1) Whether the victim died homicidal death? (2) Whether the accused harassed the victim prior to her death? If answer to it is in affirmative, whether it amounted to cruelty as defined under section 498-A of the I.P.C.? (3) If this was a homicidal death, who could have caused death of the victim? If the accused had caused death of the victim, whether it was a murder? POINT NO. (1):- 23. If answer to it is in affirmative, whether it amounted to cruelty as defined under section 498-A of the I.P.C.? (3) If this was a homicidal death, who could have caused death of the victim? If the accused had caused death of the victim, whether it was a murder? POINT NO. (1):- 23. By no stretch of imagination, the evidence would indicate that Ratnamala died due to suicide. It is clear from the evidence that she died homicidal death. The Medical Officer (P.W.16) who conducted postmortem examination along with another Doctor on the dead body of Ratnamala, clearly deposed that Ratnamala had suffered prior to her death, multiple contusions on right forearm, out of which two contusions were major. They were 6 cm x 3 cm in size. These elongated injuries clearly indicated that victim Ratnamala was hit on right forearm repeatedly with a long, hard and blunt object. These injuries were certainly not possible due to accident or due to falling on stone like substance. These injuries clearly indicated that Ratnamala was subjected to assault. Ratnamala also suffered hematoma on right side of her head above right ear on parietal area of head. This was a contused lacerated wound. Another contusion in bluish brown colour on complete forehead was also noticed. This means that two separate blows were delivered on the victims head with hard and blunt object. The medical officer remained firm on his opinion, though he was cross-examined at length that the victim died due to homicide. Such conclusion was obvious, looking to the nature of injuries caused to the victim. The Doctor clearly opined as under:- “In this case the positive findings in the P.M. examination are so strong that the only conclusion for cause of death is due to head injury, because the positive findings and injuries of the scalp are prior to death of the deceased that is why there was evidence of hematoma. These injuries were on the vital part of the body. The sites of the injury on different parts of head and forehead appearance of blood in nostrils, right ear and mouth were the findings that made me to come to the conclusion that the death is due to head injury only and nothing else. These injuries were on the vital part of the body. The sites of the injury on different parts of head and forehead appearance of blood in nostrils, right ear and mouth were the findings that made me to come to the conclusion that the death is due to head injury only and nothing else. The functioning of respiratory system, soon after fall in water is likely to go on and in that case the possibility of some quantity of water entering the lungs and stomach was there but no water was found in stomach or lungs and that is why according to me, it was not a case of death by drowning.” 24. Learned Counsel for the accused repeatedly suggested to this witness that the victim jumped in the well, her head came in contact with hard and blunt object, she lost consciousness immediately and then went inside water. It was suggested that because of loss of consciousness and because of shock, the victim could not breath and so, water did not enter her nostrils or mouth. It was further suggested that because of this peculiar circumstance, it was a case of non-typical drowning (unusual case of drowning), where water in lungs and stomach is not seen. The Doctor firmly rejected this suggestion. This suggestion was futile because as noted above, the injuries on forearm, various places on head were certainly not possible due to one fall even on stony surface. The victim was certainly done to death. It was thereafter her body was thrown in the well. 25. In our view, learned Judge erred in holding that this was not a case of homicide but a suicide. Learned Judge also erred in holding that this was a case of non-typical drowning. Learned Judge also held erroneously that the Medical Officer did not give proper reasoning for rejecting the defence that it was a case of non-typical drowning. Learned Judge held that the victim probably jumped into the well and while doing so, she first came into contact with surface of rocks. He further held that because of this, she became unconscious. Learned Judge in our view committed serious error in appreciating the evidence. We have discussed the evidence above and we have no hesitation that the injuries caused to the victim were not possible by fall in the well with hard and blunt object (stony surface). He further held that because of this, she became unconscious. Learned Judge in our view committed serious error in appreciating the evidence. We have discussed the evidence above and we have no hesitation that the injuries caused to the victim were not possible by fall in the well with hard and blunt object (stony surface). The appreciation of evidence by learned Judge on this part of the evidence appears to us naive and erroneous. We are aware that learned Judge had visited the site and had also seen the well. Despite this, we hold that the conclusions drawn by learned Judge were erroneous. POINT NO. (2) : 26. Learned Judge held that the accused treated the victim with cruelty prior to her death and we also agree that such cruelty was an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Judge of the Lower Court believed the evidence of the parents and other relatives of the victim on this point. In addition to this, P.W.6-the child witness very clearly stated that the accused assaulted the victim in his presence. The accused scorched the victim with burning cigarette is proved beyond reasonable doubt, because injuries were found on the person of the victim at the time of postmortem. They were older injuries. Learned Judge rightly appreciated this aspect of the case holding that the accused treated the victim with extreme cruelty. In our view, this cruelty indicated pervert mentality of the perpetrator. And all this happened during first four months of married life. The victim indeed was treated with cruelty which was as defined in S.498A of the IPC. POINT NO. (3):- 27. This, in our view, is the most important point in this case. If the victim died homicidal death, who caused her homicide is the question and we have to scan the evidence to draw our conclusion. Let us enumerate circumstances which are already proved by the prosecution. (a) The accused was not happy with the victim. He was harassing her. He was scorching her skin with cigarette butts. (b) The victim died homicidal death. The victim suffered multiple injuries on her head and forearm. 28. Let us now go ahead with rest of the circumstances and evidence. 29. Exh.86 is written application made by the accused himself to the police officer on 3rd July, 1998. He was harassing her. He was scorching her skin with cigarette butts. (b) The victim died homicidal death. The victim suffered multiple injuries on her head and forearm. 28. Let us now go ahead with rest of the circumstances and evidence. 29. Exh.86 is written application made by the accused himself to the police officer on 3rd July, 1998. The application was received at the police station at 11.55 a.m. on that day. Police registered A.D. on the basis of this application. The contents of this application are proved. 30. What are the contents of this application? They are as under:- In this application, accused clearly stated: “on 2nd July, 1998, his wife Ratnamala at about 11.30 p.m. jumped in the well. He raised alarm. Hearing his alarm some villagers came to the well. They entered in the well but since the water was more they could not find her. Ratnamala could be still in the well. Ratnamala was suffering from stomach ache. That could be the reason for her suicide.” 31. Let us now appreciate the deposition of P.W.6. He stated that after the victim was slapped, she left house and went towards well. The question is whether this part of evidence is believable. The answer is in negative. This witness supported the accused. He was declared hostile. The witness was quite vulnerable. He was a child. His demeanor is recorded by the learned Judge, during examination-in-chief. Said some notes read as under:- “The witness got frightened and tears appeared in his eyes and he appeared to be under some pressure and avoided to answer further questions.... After some time the witness appeared in a mood to talk.” “The witness seems to have been terrified by some body and was weeping intermittently and was avoiding material questions to answer. He was made to talk after some time by learned A.P.P., when a large crowd in the court hall was made to retreat from the court-hall. In his further deposition the witness stated as under:- ”“The demeanor of the witness gave an indication that, he is an intelligent to understand the question but wisely tries to suppress the reality.” 32. What happened between the accused and the victim till the accused raised alarm near the well is known to the P.W. 6 and the accused only. The witness was obviously under tremendous pressure from the defence side. What happened between the accused and the victim till the accused raised alarm near the well is known to the P.W. 6 and the accused only. The witness was obviously under tremendous pressure from the defence side. The accused in all probabilities influenced him to support his case. None the less, he could not deny this witness’s presence in the house at the relevant time. The accused admitted in his defence that he was present in his house at the relevant time along with this witness and his wife Ratnamala. The accused did not cross-examine this witness. So whatever this witness has stated has gone unchallenged on record. It is thus clear that the accused admitted that he slapped his wife in presence of this witness. Through the deposition of this witness, he wants us to believe that after slapping his wife, she went out of house and walked towards the well and this witness followed her. We are not inclined to believe this part of the deposition of this witness, because he was tutored to say so. What happened to the victim then is being concealed for obvious reason. If this part is removed from the prosecution case, we are left with only one possibility and that is the victim remained in the custody of the accused till her body fell in the well. 33. It is already found that the victim suffered murderous assault before she came in contact of the water of the well. When did she suffer that assault? The prosecution in normal circumstances was under obligation to prove this fact. They could have proved it through deposition of the eye witness viz. P.W. 6. He knew what happened between the accused and victim during that night. But he did not support prosecution. Is it end of the road for them? We think it is not. 34. We have recorded finding that the evidence of P.W.6 when he said that the victim walked up to the well and jumped in it is a falsehood. We could easily remove this chaff from the grain. Even the accused wanted to prove this as his defence. We have no hesitation for rejecting this part of the defence. We hold this mainly because the victim in the meantime suffered a murderous attack. The witness was rather free not to disclose as to who attacked the victim at that time. Even the accused wanted to prove this as his defence. We have no hesitation for rejecting this part of the defence. We hold this mainly because the victim in the meantime suffered a murderous attack. The witness was rather free not to disclose as to who attacked the victim at that time. But since the accused was admittedly present with the victim at that time, should we expect him to give explanation? The answer is in affirmative. 35. The accused voluntarily offered an explanation asserting that his wife voluntarily jumped in the well. In addition, he made a written statement in the next morning to the police that his wife jumped in the well and he went there immediately and raised alarm. Going near the well at 11-30 p.m. during that night is an admitted fact. So also raising alarm is also similarly truthful. What is disputed is that the victim jumped on her own in the well. Her homicidal death is also a fact which is inconsistent with the case and explanation of the accused. We have thus no hesitation to hold that the explanation and the case of the accused is false. In such situation, should we hold that the burden of proving the fact as to what had happened to the victim while she was with the accused was on the shoulders of the accused? Answer lies in provisions of Section 101 read with section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. “101. Burden of proof. – Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” “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.” 36. On one hand section 101 of the Act places irrevocable burden on the prosecution to prove their case that the accused had committed offence. Thus burden is never shifted to the accused throughout the trial. It is in exceptional circumstance the burden shifts to the accused. In a way S.106 is an exception to the rule which is made by S.101. 37. Thus burden is never shifted to the accused throughout the trial. It is in exceptional circumstance the burden shifts to the accused. In a way S.106 is an exception to the rule which is made by S.101. 37. What happened to the victim during that night was especially within the knowledge of the accused. If the accused wanted this Court to give finding that his wife committed suicide, he is bound to explain how the deceased suffered homicidal injury when she was in his custody. In our view, the prosecution has discharged initial burden of establishing guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so the exception carved out by Section 106 to section 101 is attracted. The accused on one hand did not offer truthful explanation, neither discharged burden of proving the fact which was essentially within his knowledge. We have thus this last circumstances which is proved against the accused. 38. We finally enumerate the circumstances that are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. (a) The accused was not happy with the victim. He was harassing her. He was scorching her skin with cigarette butts. (b) The accused admitted that his wife jumped in the well at 11.30 p.m. on 2nd July,1998. (c) He raised alarm and people gathered around him. (d) People took search for the body but did not find it. (e) The accused was in the company of the victim and P.W.6. (f) The accused slapped the victim during the night while they all were inside his house. (g) The accused made a report of the incident of the night in the next morning to the police and suggested falsely that the victim committed suicide because she suffered from stomach ache. (g) The victim died homicidal death suffering multiple injuries on her head and forearm. (h) The accused failed to offer explanation about the events took place between him and the victim during that night, though he was the only person besides P.W.6 to know about it. 39. Let us now reiterate the law on the subject of circumstantial evidence. (g) The victim died homicidal death suffering multiple injuries on her head and forearm. (h) The accused failed to offer explanation about the events took place between him and the victim during that night, though he was the only person besides P.W.6 to know about it. 39. Let us now reiterate the law on the subject of circumstantial evidence. The supreme court in the case of Inspector of Police V. John David, (2011) 5 SCC 509 ), held that: “The principle for basing a conviction on the edifice of circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well-settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.” 40. A reference may be made to another decision in SharadBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. A reference may be made to another decision in SharadBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of the Supreme Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (in para 153) (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned `must' or `should' and not `may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 41. We think the prosecution has proved circumstances against the accused which are inconsistent with innocence of the accused. The chain of evidence in this case is so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it is such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 42. The prosecution thus proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We find the accused guilty of offence of murder as well as causing disappearance of evidence of such offence. We hold him guilty of said offence. 43. It is thus clear that it was accused who had caused death of the victim. The victim had died homicidal death. The injury on the head and the nature of injuries on the head of the victim clearly indicated that it was case of murder. ORDER (1) Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 is dismissed. (2) Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2000 is allowed. The victim had died homicidal death. The injury on the head and the nature of injuries on the head of the victim clearly indicated that it was case of murder. ORDER (1) Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 is dismissed. (2) Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2000 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court shall stand replaced by following order:- (i) The accused (Sunil s/o. Kishanrao Pachpute) is convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. (ii) The accused (Sunil s/o. Kishanrao Pachpute) is convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in default, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (iii) The accused (Sunil s/o. Kishanrao Pachpute) is convicted for he offence punishable under section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in default, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. (iv) The accused (Sunil s/o. Kishanrao Pachpute) is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 194 and 306 of the I.P.C. (v) All sentences shall run concurrently. (vi) The accused is entitled to set off as per provisions of 428 of Cr.P.C. (vii) The valuable muddemal be returned to the accused. (viii) The accused shall surrender to bail within two weeks from today.