Judgment : [P.D. Kode, J.] The appellant-original accused assails the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.354 of 2005, convicting him for committing the murder of his wife Noori @ Manisha Mangesh Sawant on 29th January, 2005 in between 1.30 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. According to prosecution, PW-1 Ankush Sitaram Bhosale, the resident of Jogeshwari, Mumbai was the maternal uncle of deceased Noori @ Manisha. The deceased Noori @ Manisha was born out of the wedlock of sister of PW-1, by name Kumud @ Fatima Hasan Shaikh, who had a love marriage with one Hassan Shaikh and she was residing at Prem Nagar, Jogeshwari. Kumud @ Fatima and Hassan had shifted to Nalasopara (E) about six months prior to the incident. 2.2 About two years prior to occurring of the incident, deceased had love marriage with the appellant. The couple had one issue by name Yash, aged about one year old. The appellant and the deceased were residing in a tenanted premises, i.e., Room No.4 Anusaya Chawl, Janata Colony, Jogeshwari (E). The appellant was working as a checking Master in a Garment Company by name Krish Creation, High Tech Industries at Jogeshwari (E). The deceased was also serving in another company. 2.3 According to the prosecution, PW-1 on two occasions was required to come at the residence of the appellant for settling the quarrels ensued in between the deceased and appellant over the petty reasons. PW-1 then realised that deceased was after the appellant for taking their son Yash to the house of her parents at native place. As the appellant was dodging the same, there used to be quarrels in between the couple. Kumud @ Fatima had also pacified the appellant regarding the said issue. 2.4 According to the prosecution, on 29th January 2005 at about 11.00 hours, Deepak Shelar the owner of premises in which the couple was staying, came to the house of PW-1. He apprised PW-1 that serious quarrels had ensued in between the appellant and deceased in the midnight at about 2.00/2.30 hours and hence PW-1 should visit and pacify them. Accordingly for pacifying them, PW-1 went to the house of his niece Noori @ Manisha. He apprised PW-1 that serious quarrels had ensued in between the appellant and deceased in the midnight at about 2.00/2.30 hours and hence PW-1 should visit and pacify them. Accordingly for pacifying them, PW-1 went to the house of his niece Noori @ Manisha. As the room was found locked, he enquired in the vicinity and also asked his sister Kumud at Nalasopara on phone whether Manisha had been to her place. As he received the information that Manisha had not been to said place, he went for his duty. 2.5 PW-1 at about 1.40 hours while returning for lunch met his another niece PW-3 Mrs. Nasrin @ Nisha Ravindra Gupta. She also replied to the query of PW-1, that Noori @ Manisha had not been to her house at Nalasopara. PW-1 tried to search out for Noori @ Manisha, but was unable to find her. PW-1 alongwith PW-3 Nisha went to the work place of the appellant at Hi-Tech Industries to enquire about the appellant. As the owner apprised them that the appellant had not been for work, they returned to the house of the appellant. 2.6 Due to suspicion arisen, PW-1 and PW-3 broke the lock and opened the door. They found the articles in the room were lying scattered and something was kept beneath the iron-cot near the Wall. After shifting the cot, PW-1 found that niece Noori @ Manisha was lying on her back straight, alike a dead below the cover and froth had oozed out from her open mouth. PW-3 accompanying PW-1, due to fear shouted loudly. PW-1 saw elder niece from the close distance. He found black marking at her neck with froth oozed out of the her mouth. 2.7 PW-1 immediately informed his sister Kumud @ Fatima at Nalasopara on phone. He went to Meghwadi Police Station and lodged the first information Report (Exh.9) against the appellant, on suspicion that the appellant on the count of day to day quarrels after murdering Noori @ Manisha and keeping her covered body beneath the cot had ran away after locking the room. 2.8 PW-5 PSI Chandrakant Kedar after recording Exh.9, registered the Crime No.22/2005 for the offence of murder against the appellant. He visited the place and drew inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama. The further investigation was carried out by PW-6 Sr.PI Vithal Kadam. He arrested the appellant on 1st February, 2005. 2.8 PW-5 PSI Chandrakant Kedar after recording Exh.9, registered the Crime No.22/2005 for the offence of murder against the appellant. He visited the place and drew inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama. The further investigation was carried out by PW-6 Sr.PI Vithal Kadam. He arrested the appellant on 1st February, 2005. After completion of investigation, which amongst other included sending of the corpse of Noori @ Manisha to Co-oper Hospital for postmortem and collecting the P.M. Notes (Exh.13) prepared by PW-4 Dr. Shinde attached to said Hospital who had performed said postmortem, PW-6 submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 27th April, 2005 in Railway Mobile Court at Andheri, Mumbai. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.2) framed against him by the Court of Sessions for the offence of murdering of wife Noori @ Manisha, after the case was committed to the said Court. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses at the trial, i.e., the five witnesses referred hereinabove and additionally PW-2 Rupashree Karandekar, neighbour from adjacent Room No.3 to the appellant. The defence of the appellant was of total denial and false implication. Significantly enough, the appellant during his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was residing alongwith deceased in the Room in which the corpse was found and PW-2 was residing in adjacent room. The trial Court after assessment of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that Noori @ Manisha had met with homicidal death and the appellant had committed her murder by throttling her neck and in-consonance with such finding arrived, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. Mr. Dhopatkar, the learned appointed counsel for the appellant urged that there is no eye-witness to the crime inquestion. He urged that the trial Court has rested the conviction upon circumstantial evidence. He contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances relied by the trial Court by cogent evidence. It was contended that the said circumstances does not form a complete chain establishing the guilt of the appellant. It was further urged that the trial Court erred in taking on record the inquest panchanama (Exh.17) and spot panchanama (Exh.15) without the prosecution examining the panch witnesses. It was contended that the said circumstances does not form a complete chain establishing the guilt of the appellant. It was further urged that the trial Court erred in taking on record the inquest panchanama (Exh.17) and spot panchanama (Exh.15) without the prosecution examining the panch witnesses. It was urged that in absence of any explanation advanced by the prosecution for non-examination of the panch witnesses, reliance placed by the prosecution upon the matters stated in the said panchanamas on the basis of evidence of Investigating officer, who is an interested witness was wholly improper. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance that the body of deceased was found in the matrimonial house as claimed by another interested witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-3. It was urged that as the circumstances relied by the prosecution were not established by cogent independent evidence, the same deserves to be discarded and the appellant deserves to be acquitted or atleast deserves to be given benefit of doubt, by allowing the appeal preferred by him. 5. The learned APP Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh for the State on the other hand supported the judgment delivered by the trial Court by submitting that the trial Court has correctly concluded that the prosecution has established the circumstances relied by the trial Court and the said circumstances coupled with non-explanation regarding such incriminating circumstances on part of the appellant forms a formidable chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the appellant. It was urged that reasoned judgment given by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and the appeal sans merits be dismissed. 6. Thoughtful considerations were given by us to the submissions advanced by the rival parties and the record of the case was carefully examined for determining the substance of the same. 7. Now considering the first circumstance of Noori @ Manisha having met with homicidal death. The reference to the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Shinde, attached with Cooper Hospital as Medical Officer reveals that on 29th January 2005, around 7.30 p.m the dead body of Manisha Mangesh Sawant was received at the said hospital and on next day, in between 12.10 p.m. and 1.30 p.m., he had performed postmortem. The reference to the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Shinde, attached with Cooper Hospital as Medical Officer reveals that on 29th January 2005, around 7.30 p.m the dead body of Manisha Mangesh Sawant was received at the said hospital and on next day, in between 12.10 p.m. and 1.30 p.m., he had performed postmortem. His evidence reveals that he had noticed following 17 external injuries on the said corpse: (i) Abrasion 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm over left submandibular region oblique in direction 1.5 cm below middle 1/3 of mandible. (ii) Semicircular abrasion with concavity towards medial side just right to middle 1/3 of thyroid cartilage side 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm. (iii) Abrasion 4 cm x 0.8 cm over anterior aspect of thyroid cartilage oblique in direction upper end to left side. (iv) Minor abrasion 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm over anterior aspect of lower 1/3 of thyroid cartilage, oblique in direction with upper end towards right side. (v) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.3 cm over left side of lower 1/3 of thyroid cartilage oblique with upper end towards lateral aspect. (vi) Two abrasions (0.6 cm x 0.2 cm) just above injury no.5. (vii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.8 cm over anterior aspect of 1st ring level of trachea, oblique with upper end towards left. (viii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.8 cm over left side of trachea, 4 cm left to injury no.7 oblique upper end laterally. (ix) Abrasion 0. cm x 0.3 cm, 2 cm below injury no.8. (x) Abrasion 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm over left side of neck and 3 cm below angle of mandible. (xi) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm over anterior aspect of trachea at 1st and 2nd ring level. On cut section muscle deep haematoma. (xii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.8 cm over right side of neck 4 cm below lobule of right ear, vertical in direction. (xiii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over right side of neck at the level at level of lower 1/3 of thyroid cartilage, 4 cm lat to thyroid cartilage, vertical in direction. (xiv) Semicular abrasion with concavity medially, over right side of neck, 2 cm away from upper 1/3 of thyroid cartilage 2 cm x 0.3 cm in size, oblique in direction. (xv) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.5 cm over lateral 1/3 of right clavicle vertical in direction. (xiv) Semicular abrasion with concavity medially, over right side of neck, 2 cm away from upper 1/3 of thyroid cartilage 2 cm x 0.3 cm in size, oblique in direction. (xv) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.5 cm over lateral 1/3 of right clavicle vertical in direction. (xvi) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over middle 1/3 of right upper arm anterior aspect, oblique in direction upper end laterally. (xvii) Abrasion 3 cm x 1.8 cm over upper part of right shoulder, oblique medial end anteriorly. 8. According to Dr. Shinde, all injuries were reddish in colour. His evidence further reveals that on internal examination, he noticed Haematoma 3 cm x 2 cm over right side of thyroid cartilage 2 cm x 2 cm over it. Side and 1 cm x 0.8 cm over anterially aspect of thyroid cartilage with no fracture of laryngeal bones, but mucosa of larynx trachea and bronchi were congested. He found that both lungs were congested and odematous on cut section froth and blood was noticed. 9. PW-4 further deposed that the cause of death of deceased was “Asphyxia due to throttling” (unnatural). He deposed that all the injuries noticed by him were possible by throttling with hands during scuffle. PW-4, during cross-examination, in clear terms negated the necessity of finger print marks being seen on neck of the deceased after throttling. Thus considering the aforesaid evidence of PW-4, discussed by the trial Court in para Nos. 6 to 8, we are unable to find any fault with the finding arrived by the trial Court of Noori @ Manisha having met with homicidal death. Needless to add that there was hardly any challenge on part of the appellant to the evidence of PW-4 except the aspect negated by him during the cross-examination. Further more we find that the evidence of PW-4 reveals that he has produced C.A. Report Exh.14 regarding the blood sent to C.A. Perusal of the said Report, negates the death of Noori @ Manisha being occurred due to poisoning. Thus considering the said aspect and the injuries on the person of Noori @ Manisha, same rules out her death having occurred for any other cause other than the homicidal one. 10. Thus considering the said aspect and the injuries on the person of Noori @ Manisha, same rules out her death having occurred for any other cause other than the homicidal one. 10. Now, before considering other circumstances established by the prosecution, we find it necessary to consider the submission canvassed by the learned appointed counsel for the appellant regarding the prosecution, for establishing said circumstances, having rested upon the evidence of interested witnesses, i.e., PW-1, PW-3 and PW-2 and so also PW-5 and PW-6. In view of the submission being centered upon the said witnesses being interested, we find it necessary to recapitulate the law regarding the interested witnesses. In the said context, the reference to the decision of an apex Court in case of Munigadappa Meenaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2008) 11 SCC page 661 reveals that while considering the law regarding partisan witness, the apex Court pointed out the following observations made in the earlier decision in a case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 364 '26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.” 11. The apex Court thereafter observed that the said decision was followed in cases of Guli Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.” 11. The apex Court thereafter observed that the said decision was followed in cases of Guli Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 . The apex Court then observed: '13. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this court as early as in Dalip Singh case ( AIR 1953 SC 364 )in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. It was observed: '25 We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in – Rameshwar V. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ), (AIR at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel'. 12. In the same context, the Apex Court also pointed out the following observations made in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P., reported in ( AIR 1965 SC 202 ) - '14. ….. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ….. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. ….. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence, but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 13. The apex Court further added that the same is the effect in the decision in cases of State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277 and Lehna Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 76 , wherein it was observed that: '19. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan V. Teja Ram (1999) 3 SCC 507 ), the over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby, the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. 14. On the aforesaid backdrop, now considering the evidence of PW-1, we find that he has given the evidence moreso on the lines of the matters stated by him while lodging the first information report. Without unnecessarily reciting his evidence, it can be added that his evidence so reveals that: (i) there were quarrels in between the couple on the count of taking son Yash to the native place of the parents of Noori @ Manisha; (ii) he had received the information from the landlord of the appellant that serious quarrel had ensued in between deceased and the appellant in midnight of 29th January, 2005; (iii) after reaching the house of the appellant, the house found locked; (iv) PW-2 had told him that she has seen the appellant leaving his room alone around 5.00 a.m.; (v) again when he went to the house of the appellant alongwith PW-3, the house was found locked; and (vi) after breaking open the lock, he had noticed utensils scattered in the room and dead body of Noori @ Mansiha found beneath the cot with marks around her neck. 15. The close scrutiny of his evidence in light of the answers elicited in cross-examination, we do not find any of the above referred matters from his evidence has been shattered. 16. 15. The close scrutiny of his evidence in light of the answers elicited in cross-examination, we do not find any of the above referred matters from his evidence has been shattered. 16. Now reference to the evidence of PW-3 the younger sister of the deceased also reveals that when she had phoned on 29th January, 2005 at 8.45 hours to the neighbour of the deceased to contact the deceased, the neighbour told her that there was quarrel in between the appellant and his wife and the appellant had left the house at 5.00 a.m. after putting lock to his house. Her evidence reveals that thereafter she had left Jogeshwari and on the way she met her maternal uncle PW-1. He also told that there was quarrel between the appellant and his wife. Further part of her evidence reveals that alongwith PW-1, she had been to the house of the appellant and after breaking open the lock in presence of two neighbours and on entering the room they found dead body of her sister below the cot. Perusal of the cross-examination of PW-3 does not reveal her evidence being shattered in any manner. On the contrary, it further reveals that on the said day, she had made inquiry with the employer of the appellant and he told that the appellant had not attended his duties on said day. Without indulging any dilation to said matters, it can be safely said that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 corroborates the evidence of each other. The evidence of PW-1 is further corroborated by the complaint Exh.9 lodged by him. 17. Now considering the evidence of neighbour PW-2, the same reveals that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and deceased in the late night and after the quarrels, the deceased used to stay at mother's house at Nalasopara. Regarding the eventful night, she has deposed that in the night in between 28th and 29th January 2005 around 1.30 a.m., she heard quarrel between the appellant and his wife. She deposed that usually she gets-up around 4.30 to 5.00 a.m. from sleep for fetching the water. She deposed that at that time, she noticed the appellant leaving his house and walking towards the road and then his room was locked. She deposed that normally the appellant used to leave his house around 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. for attending the job. She deposed that at that time, she noticed the appellant leaving his house and walking towards the road and then his room was locked. She deposed that normally the appellant used to leave his house around 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. for attending the job. Curiously enough she deposed that at around 11.30 a.m. she received a telephone from the appellant making inquiry whether his wife had returned home and whether lock of the door was removed. The appellant then told her that he was searching for his wife. PW-2 thereafter deposed of PW-1 and PW-3 coming to her house and inquiring about Noori @ Manisha and herself having told them that there was quarrel in between them and they had seen the appellant leaving his house alone in the early morning, but having not seen Noori @ Manisha. It reveals that thereafter the lock of the door was broken by PW-1 after consulting the sister of landlord and dead body of Noori @ Manisha was found concealed below the cot inside the room. The cross-examination of PW-2 also does not reveal any significant material elicited rendering from her evidence unbelievable. Thus the evidence of PW-2 also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. 18. As combined reference to the evidence of PW-1,2 and 3, we find that though PW-1 and PW-3 were relatives of the deceased hardly anything had surfaced on record even to whisper that they were entertaining any grudge or animous against the appellant muchless any reason for falsely implicated him in the case. 19. The evidence of both the witnesses considered as a whole inspires confidence. The same is also found corroborated as observed earlier. With regard to the evidence of PW-2 hardly her evidence denotes that either she was related with the appellant or had any reason to entertain animous against him. Thus considering the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses in light of the observations of th apex Court narrated hereinabove, we find that their evidence is not liable to be rejected on the count of themselves being interested/partisan witnesses. 20. In the context of evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, the learned appointed counsel tried to urge that though both of them having claimed that lock on the room, was broken by PW1, no such a lock has been produced by the prosecution. 20. In the context of evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, the learned appointed counsel tried to urge that though both of them having claimed that lock on the room, was broken by PW1, no such a lock has been produced by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 being well corroborated upon relevant aspect by the evidence of PW-3 merely because the said lock is not produced cannot be said to be affecting their testimony. It can be further added that said event having occurred before the matter was reported to the police, the reference of such a lock is not found in the scene of offence panchanama would not be also a ground for discarding their evidence as tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel. 21. Now considering the evidence of PW-5, his evidence is confined to the recording of a complaint of PW-1, registration of crime, visiting the spot and drawing inquest and scene of offence panchanamas. It is indeed true that as pointed out by the learned appointed counsel, evidence of PW-5 reveals that he is not produced any station diary entry. However, the said aspect altogether appears to be insignificant as hardly any reason for production of such a station diary is either pointed or spelt from the record. Even the case with regard to the evidence of PW-6, who had chargesheeted the appellant also does not appears to be a different. His evidence is confined to the investigation effected by him and particularly regarding the arrest of the appellant and recording of statements of the witnesses. During his cross-examination, it was brought on record that the statement of PW-3 was recorded after four or five days. However, we are difficult to give any undue importance to said aspects. The cross-examination does not reveal that PW-6 was questioned to bring on record whether the statement of PW-3 was without any time and reason was not immediately recorded or otherwise. Needless to add that only in the event of same being deliberately recorded belatedly would have affected the evidentiary value of her testimony. No such a position being established on record, her evidence cannot be said to be impaired for the said reason. Such a conclusion is obivisous as there can be other reason such as non-availability of PW-3 for recording her statement. 22. No such a position being established on record, her evidence cannot be said to be impaired for the said reason. Such a conclusion is obivisous as there can be other reason such as non-availability of PW-3 for recording her statement. 22. It is indeed true that perusal of the evidence of PW-5 or that of PW-6 reveals that no explanation was advanced through them by the prosecution for not examining the panchas for inquest and spot panchanamas. It is an admitted fact that both of them being investigating officers and/or from the Police Department to some extent can be said to be interested witnesses. However, considering their evidence in entirety and the same does not reveal any anxiety on their part to hide any particular thing or any reason for having animous against the appellant and for-mostly the matters spoken by them and particularly by PW-5 regarding the situation about noticing of the corpse while drawing inquest panchanama or at the spot while drawing scene of offence panchanama having remained un-shattered, we are unable to find any substance in the criticism that their evidence is liable to be discarded due to themselves being police Officers and or being interested witnesses. We hastened to add that the decision in case of Vadivelu Thevar cited supra amongst other also reveals that at criminal trial the quality of evidence is importance and not plurality of the witnesses. Hence, merely because the panch witnesses are not examined in present case cannot be said to be affecting the otherwise cogent and convincing evidence of PW-5, PW-6. Needless to add that their evidence also deserves to be accepted and acceptance of the same also duly corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in particular and so also that of PW-3 regarding the matters noticed by them regarding the corpse of the deceased and so also the situation prevailing at the spot. Needless to add that the evidence of these witnesses qua the situation of corpse is found duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 referred hereinabove. 23. In the premises aforesaid, we find no fault on part of the trial Court in accepting the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. We further add that acceptance of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses amongst other established following circumstances: (a) The appellant has plausible motive for committing the offence in-question, i.e., the quarrel in between the couple. 23. In the premises aforesaid, we find no fault on part of the trial Court in accepting the evidence of aforesaid witnesses. We further add that acceptance of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses amongst other established following circumstances: (a) The appellant has plausible motive for committing the offence in-question, i.e., the quarrel in between the couple. (b) The appellant had quarreled with deceased in mid-night of 29th January 2005. (c) The appellant had left his residence around 5.00 a.m. by locking it from outside, which is much earlier than his usual time to leave the room for attending job at 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. (d) The corpse of deceased was found in the said room where deceased and the appellant reside. (e) The situation prevailing in the room denotes quarrel and scuffle having occurred in between the couple. (f) The appellant had not attended his duty on the fateful day. (g) The appellant had called PW-2 on phone, for taking a false claim of deceased also having left the room in the morning. 24. In addition to the aforesaid, we also find that in spite of aforesaid circumstances being put to the appellant, the appellant failed to give explanation to any of them. The said conduct of the appellant of giving non-explanation and so also his conduct of trying to give a false explanation to PW-2 themselves constitute an independent circumstance against the appellant. We are of such opinion, as admittedly the evidence of the witnesses reveal that the corpse of Noori @ Manisha was found in her matrimonial home. The evidence of PW-2 in turn reveals that Noori @ Manisha was in the house in the night in-question and quarrel had occurred in between the husband and wife. Her evidence also reveals that in the morning she had seen the appellant alone leaving the said house by locking the said room at about 5.00 a.m.. In the backdrop of said evidence, her evidence that the appellant had asked her whether his wife has returned or door is still lock, clearly leads to no other conclusion than the appellant attempting to create a false defence for himself of his wife having left the house. His such claim is also belied by the circumstance of the body of the deceased being found in the said house. His such claim is also belied by the circumstance of the body of the deceased being found in the said house. All the aforesaid circumstances considered in the light of the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, which runs as under: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him” necessitated the appellant of giving cogent explanation regarding the circumstances in which the dead body of his wife was found in his house, which was locked by him from outside. The failure of the appellant to discharge the said burden leads to no other conclusion than the appellant being perpetrator of the murder of his wife. 25. Since all the above referred circumstances taken into consideration together within themselves formed as formidable chain leading to the sole inference of guilt of the appellant in committing the murder of his wife, we do not find any fault with the trial Court in arriving at such a finding on the basis of the evidence surfaced at the trial. 26. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities and to the Appellant who is in jail. 27. The fees of the learned appointed advocate is quantified at Rs .2200/-. The said fees be paid to Advocate Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar within four months from today.