JUDGMENT Inder Singh Uboweja, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 357/99, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment of life and R1 for 5 years with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased - Sulakshni Bai was wife of the appellant, they were residing in their house at village - Navagarh. On 22.04.1999, at about 6.00 p.m. near village pond, deceased was disputing with her husband about his second marriage. At that time, the appellant assaulted her by an iron rod (Sabbal) and thereafter, the appellant dragged her and brought her in his house. Prosecution witnesses Ram (PW-5) and Anil (PW-6) are the eyewitnesses of the above incident, who have actually seen the appellant assaulting Sulakshni Bai (deceased) near the pond and in his house. Thereafter, Sulakshni Bai (deceased) cries were stopped. 2. On 24.04.1999, dead body of Sulakshni Bai (deceased) was found near village canal. Merg intimation (Ex/P-1) was registered at Police Station, Ambikapur. In continuation, they registered First Information Report as Ex/P-12. The police officer rushed to spot and called the Panchas through notice (Ex/P-3). Mother of deceased, Fundari Bai (PW-1), sister of deceased, Pati Bai (PW-2), Raj Kumar (PW-4), Ram (PW-5), Prahlad Soni and Munni had identified the dead body as the dead body of Sulakshni Bai (deceased). 3. Investigating officer had seized blood stained soil, plain soil, plain wooden part, blood stained wooden part from the house of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex/P-5. He prepared Naksha Panchayatnama (Exs/P-7 & P-8) of the appellant's house and also prepared spot map vide Ex/P-11. After that, he sent the dead body of the deceased to District Hospital, Ambikapur for postmortem examination. Postmortem examination has been conducted by Dr. N. K. Pandey (PW-8), who was unable to opine the cause of death of deceased. During investigation, it revealed that deceased was assaulted brutally by the appellant and the appellant, after committing murder of his wife, threw her dead body near the village canal. 4. Case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. During investigation, it revealed that deceased was assaulted brutally by the appellant and the appellant, after committing murder of his wife, threw her dead body near the village canal. 4. Case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has not examined any defence witness. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 5. Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that conviction of the appellant is solely based on eyewitnesses Ram (PW-5) and Anil (PW-6) who only saw the mar-pit. According to her, in their statements, major contradictions were seen and on medical evidence cause of death cannot be ascertained, therefore, conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC cannot be sustained and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Mutariya v. State of M.P. 2000(1) C.Cr.J. 271 (M.P.), in which the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. has held that for allegation of murder in which evidence of prosecution witnesses are contradictory and not reliable and are also not supported by medical evidence, the accused shall be acquitted. Learned counsel further placed reliance on Shailesh v. State of M.P. 2002(II) MPJR SN 26, in which the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. has held that on the basis of contrary statement and non supporting medical evidence - Conviction would not be sustainable under Section 302 read with Section 120B or Section 34 IPC. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Smita Ghai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the Sessions Court. 9. Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Now, we shall examine the evidence, on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted. Ram (PW-5) and Anil (PW-6) are the witnesses of the incident of assault, which was given by the appellant to the deceased before discovery of her dead body near canal area. 10. 9. Admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Now, we shall examine the evidence, on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted. Ram (PW-5) and Anil (PW-6) are the witnesses of the incident of assault, which was given by the appellant to the deceased before discovery of her dead body near canal area. 10. Ram (PW-5) has deposed that he knew the deceased and her husband (appellant) and his house is nearby the house of the appellant. He stated that in the pond near Mahamaya Temple, Up-Sarpanch was supervising the stair work. At that time, 8 coolies and 3 reja were working on site. At about 2.30-3.00 pm., he was catching fish in the pond. He saw that near the pond, appellant was assaulting his wife with iron rod. He also dragged his wife to his house. At that time appellant's wife was crying, but no one helped her. Appellant also assaulted his wife inside the house. After some time, cries of Sulakshni Bai (deceased) stopped and therefore, he thought that Sulakshni Bai had died. After three days of the said incident, dead body of Sulakshni Bai (deceased) was found near the village canal in decomposed condition. He is also a witness of Panchayatnama. In his cross-examination, nothing material could be brought based on which, either his testimony may be discarded or it may be said that he was falsely implicating the appellant in the said incident. His evidence about the incident was fully intact and inspire confidence and is trustworthy. 11. Anil (PW-6) has also seen the said incident. He has deposed that he knew the appellant and his wife. His house is situated near the house of the appellant. On the fateful day about 7 pm., when he was coming back from labour work, he saw that the appellant was beating his wife by rod. He tried to interfere. At that time, appellant, who was armed with Sabbal, threatened him that do not interfere, otherwise he will kill him, then he went to his house. He is also a witness of identification of dead body of Sulakshni Bai and he also signed the Panchayatnama (Ex/P-4). In his cross-examination nothing material could be brought based on which, either his testimony may be discarded or it may be said that he was falsely implicating the appellant in the said incident. He is also a witness of identification of dead body of Sulakshni Bai and he also signed the Panchayatnama (Ex/P-4). In his cross-examination nothing material could be brought based on which, either his testimony may be discarded or it may be said that he was falsely implicating the appellant in the said incident. He stuck to his statement and no infirmity could be brought against him. His testimony is fully reliable. 12. Therefore, from evidence of both the eyewitnesses Ram (PW-5) and Anil (PW-6) it appears that prior to discovery of the dead body of Sulakshni Bai (deceased), she was brutally beaten by her husband in a public place near Mahamaya Temple and also inside the house. It is also proved that her cries were ultimately stopped in appellant's house and lastly she was seen alive with her husband by these witnesses. 13. Autopsy surgeon, Dr. N.K. Pandey was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on examination of the dead body of Sulakshni Bai (deceased) he found that the dead body was in decomposed condition. On external examination, he found that rigor mortis were absent; whole body was swollen with maggot on different part of body; foul smell was coming; eyes closed; tongue protruded; face swollen; whole body was dark greenish; cuticle peeled off; cuticles and muscles of both sole detached; nails soften; scalp hair easily pulled out; on some portion of back of chest blisters were present and face was swollen with dark greenish colour. An iron wire of 155 cm was tied around abdomen and stool was passed. Autopsy surgeon has opined that mode and cause of death cannot be ascertained. He suggested to preserve the viscera, right side Tibia and wearing clothes. According to his opinion, time passed since death was 72 hours. 14. Although, Autopsy Surgeon has not clearly stated that death of Sulakshni Bar (deceased) was homicidal in nature, but Panchayatnama (Ex/P-4) and Autopsy Report (Ex/P-9) clearly show that death was not natural and it was also not normal. Her dead body was recovered near the canal in decomposed condition, there were burn injuries, metal wire was tied around abdomen which show that after murdering Sulakshni Bai (deceased), her dead body was burnt and then was thrown away in the canal which anyhow come on the bank. 15. Her dead body was recovered near the canal in decomposed condition, there were burn injuries, metal wire was tied around abdomen which show that after murdering Sulakshni Bai (deceased), her dead body was burnt and then was thrown away in the canal which anyhow come on the bank. 15. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 16. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 311 , the deceased boy was brutally assaulted by the accused and when one of them declared that the boy was still alive, the accused carried away the boy who was not seen alive thereafter. The accused gave no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. The court held that when the abductors withheld that information from the court, there was every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the boy. The accused by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a different inference. 17. In Sahadevan @ Sagadevan v. State (2003)1 SCC 534 , the prosecution established the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused from the morning of March 5, 1985 till at least 5 p.m. on that day when he was brought to his house, and thereafter his dead body was found in the morning of March 6, 1985. In the background of such facts the court observed that it was obligatory on the accused to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner the deceased parted company with them. 18. In the background of such facts the court observed that it was obligatory on the accused to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner the deceased parted company with them. 18. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2006 AIR SCW 5300, it was held that: "...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 Court. 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. 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 S.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. In case of no explanation or false explanation it would become an additional link in chain of circumstances." 19. Further in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2006 AIR SCW 5768, it was held that: "Whether an inference ought to be drawn under Section 106 is a question which must be determined by reference to facts proved. It is ultimately a matter of appreciation of evidence and, therefore, each case must rest on its own facts. The respondent, accused having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. It is ultimately a matter of appreciation of evidence and, therefore, each case must rest on its own facts. The respondent, accused having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by S.106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance, therefore, provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." The Court further held that: "...The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd's case reported in AIR 1960 Madras 218." 20. In the present case, deceased was assaulted by her husband publicly, thereafter, she was again assaulted by her husband in the house. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered near the village canal. Her death was unnatural, abnormal and homicidal. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd's case reported in AIR 1960 Madras 218." 20. In the present case, deceased was assaulted by her husband publicly, thereafter, she was again assaulted by her husband in the house. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered near the village canal. Her death was unnatural, abnormal and homicidal. Deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of her husband, therefore, burden was upon the appellant to prove that how Sulakshni Bai (deceased) died, but the appellant has not offered any explanation as to how the deceased died and how her dead body was found near the village canal. So, these circumstances clearly show that the appellant was having special knowledge about death of his wife and these circumstances were incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant, therefore, finding of guilt against the appellant/accused was fully justified. 21. In view of the above evidence on record, we find that conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent, reliable and clinching circumstantial evidence and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court. We do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.