JUDGMENT Darshan Singh J. - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.09.2009 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which accused-appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') and the order on the quantum of sentence dated 16.09.2009, vide which she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are that PW-2 complainant Ved Parkash, the husband of the appellant made his statement Ex.PA to PW-14 S.I. Chanan Singh alleging therein that his wife appellant Babita is resident of village Hebatpur. He has three daughters. Elder is Pooja, aged about 9 years, second daughter is Sweta aged 6 years and Maafi is the younger daughter aged about 4 years. His son Ghanshyam Dass, aged about two years, is the youngest. His wife Babita did not have good moral character. He made her understand about it many times and also told this fact to her parents. The appellant always quarreled with him, his mother and his sister due to her immoral activities. She used to say many times to them that she is not afraid of them. If they will defame her, then she will get them implicated and she will die by putting fire in the house and will also kill him. On 21.04.2008, about 6:00 p.m., he went to his sister Jarso, who is married at village Bakal. She used to say many times to them that she is not afraid of them. If they will defame her, then she will get them implicated and she will die by putting fire in the house and will also kill him. On 21.04.2008, about 6:00 p.m., he went to his sister Jarso, who is married at village Bakal. He came to know in the morning on 23.04.2008 that his wife Babita had been quarrelling with his mother Savitri Devi constantly after he left the house and on the previous night his wife Babita murdered his mother Savitri Devi by causing injuries with an unknown weapon and, thereafter, she took her body in the upper story in the Chobara and put on the fire in the Chobara. She also murdered both his daughters namely Pooja and Maafi by setting them ablaze. In order to create her defence, she got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Kaithal along with members of her parental family. His younger son Ghanshyam Dass is also with her. His wife, instead of giving up the immoral activities and on account of the grudge, murdered his mother and daughters Pooja and Maafi by setting them on fire in the night. S.I. Chanan Singh S.H.O., Police Station Dhand made his endorsement Ex.PA/1 on the said statement and sent the same to the Police Station. On the basis of which, FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered and the investigation was started. 3. Thereafter, PW-14 S.I. Chanan Singh went to the spot at village Sakra and prepared the rough site plan of occurrence Ex.PR. He also got the spot photographed and carried out the inquest proceedings. He recovered from the spot a piece of bedding carpet smeared with blood along with a rope. These articles were kept in separate sealed parcels. He also lifted from the spot the blood stained earth and a piece of brick stained with blood. These articles were also kept in separate sealed parcels. He also found a bunch of hair entangled at 4th stair from the rooftop. He prepared the sealed parcel of the said bunch of hair by putting the same into a plastic container. He also found the broken pieces of bangles and 'Ghunghuru' which were lying on a space between cot and staircase. The same were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PS/3 after converting into sealed parcels. He prepared the sealed parcel of the said bunch of hair by putting the same into a plastic container. He also found the broken pieces of bangles and 'Ghunghuru' which were lying on a space between cot and staircase. The same were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PS/3 after converting into sealed parcels. The Investigating Officer also took into possession the soil along with ash which was also kept in sealed parcel. The dead bodies were sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal for postmortem examination. 4. The Investigating Officer received a wireless message from Police Station, City Kaithal that accused Babita was admitted there due to injuries. He reached there and collected her M.L.R. He moved an application Ex.PT to the doctor to seek his opinion about the fitness of the accused but the doctor reported that she has already been discharged from the hospital on her own. The doctor handed over a sealed parcel containing the clothes of the accused. PW-8 Isham Singh met the Investigating Officer and disclosed to him that the accused-appellant had met him and made the extra judicial confession before him. Then after some time, said Isham Singh produced the accused before him and she was formally arrested and was got medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Kaithal. 5. On 24.04.2008, on interrogation, appellant suffered disclosure statement Ex.PX and in pursuance thereof, on 25.04.2008, she got recovered an axe kept concealed in the food-grain container lying in her house. After conducting the postmortem examination, the doctor had handed over the plastic containers containing bones of deceased Maafi and Pooja and one wooden container containing bones of deceased Savitri, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PY. 6. On 26.04.2008, in pursuance of her disclosure statement, the accused-appellant got recovered a rope which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PBB. 7. On completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.') was presented in the Court. 8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC vide order dated 12.08.2008, to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. 10. 8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC vide order dated 12.08.2008, to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. 10. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant pleaded that she has been falsely implicated at the instance of her husband Ved Parkash and his brother-in-law Multan, as Ved Parkash was a person of suspicious nature. Without any reasonable cause, he used to suspect that she was having extra marital relations with some other persons. In order to get rid of her, he, in collusion with her brother-inlaw, Multan, on the intervening night of 22/23.04.2008 entered into the house secretly and as pre-planed, Multan committed murder of her mother-in-law Savitri for the landed property. Ved Parkash who had doubted her character, was thinking that her children Pooja and Maafi were not born from his loins. Ved Parkash and Multan took the dead body of Savitri to Chobara and after having poured kerosene oil on her dead body and children Pooja and Maafi, who were sleeping, were set ablaze by them after bolting the door from outside. After hearing the noise, when her husband and Multan tried to escape, they were seen by her and thereafter, they also tried to kill her by electrocution. She raised alarm and became unconscious. Later, she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal for her treatment, where the police arrested her and falsely named in this case. She denied having committed the murder of her mother-inlaw and daughters. 11. In defence evidence the accused-appellant examined Sanjay Kumar, the inhabitant of village Sakra, as DW-1 and also placed on record her bed head ticket reflecting the summary of her treatment Ex.DB. 12. On appreciating the evidence on record and contentions raised by the parties, the learned trial Court held guilty and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. She was awarded the sentence as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 13. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 14. We have heard Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate assisted by Mr. She was awarded the sentence as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment. 13. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 14. We have heard Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate assisted by Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Dhurav Dayal, learned D.A.G. for the State of Haryana and have meticulously examined the record of the case. 15. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He contended that in fact the appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant as he was suspecting her moral character. He was even suspecting the parentage of deceased children Pooja and Maafi. 16. He contended that PW-8 Isham Singh, before whom the appellant is alleged to have made the extra judicial confession has not supported the prosecution case. He contended that there was no question of the appellant putting her own children on fire. In fact Multan, the brother-in-law of the complainant, has committed the murder of Savitri Devi in order to grab her landed property. Her body was kept in the Chobara and the same was set on fire by the complainant and said Multan. The children were also sleeping in the Chobara and they suffered the burn injuries. 17. He further contended that the weapon of offence i.e. the axe (kulhari) has been planted in order to strengthen the prosecution case. Moreover, the same is not proved to be the weapon of offence as no blood was found on that axe. He contended that the appellant herself has suffered the injuries, which corroborates her defence plea that the complainant had tired to kill her when she witnessed the occurrence being committed by the complainant and his brother-in-law Multan. He further contended that DW-1 Sanjay Kumar supported the defence plea that complainant had been regularly quarrelling with the accused suspecting her moral character. Even the Panchayats were convened for this purpose in the village. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that she has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant to get rid of her. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel pleaded that the case of the prosecution is based on sound circumstantial evidence. Even the Panchayats were convened for this purpose in the village. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that she has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant to get rid of her. 18. On the other hand, learned State counsel pleaded that the case of the prosecution is based on sound circumstantial evidence. The presence of the appellant is admitted as well as established from the evidence on record. She has not given any explanation as to how the deceased suffered the serious injuries on their persons. She has raised the false plea which is also a link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence. She pretended to have received the injuries in order to create defence. The motive for the occurrence is also almost admitted by the accused and is otherwise proved from the prosecution evidence. The weapon of offence has also been recovered from the possession of the appellant on the basis of her disclosure statement which was found stained with blood. Thus, he pleaded that the conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded by the learned trial Court. 19. We have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 20. No doubt there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. More than six decades back Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 , had laid down the principles as under:- "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 21. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 21. Again in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 the five golden principles which have been stated to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence are (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (ii) 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, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) 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. 22. The aforesaid principles of law have been reiterated/followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of subsequent cases. The reference can be made with advantage to cases C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of A.P., 1996 (10) Supreme Court Cases 193 and Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam 2013 (5) RCR (Criminal) 729. 23. In view of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with relation to the cases based on circumstantial evidence, we have to examine the case in hand. 24. In the instant case, the prosecution is relying upon the following incriminating circumstances: i) last seen, ii) medical evidence, iii) the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, iv) false plea, v) recovery of weapon and vi) motive. 25. As per the prosecution version, appellant Babita, wife of complainant Ved Parkash was having extra marital relations with some persons. Despite persuasion by the complainant, she did not mend her ways and used to quarrel with the complainant, his mother and sisters. 25. As per the prosecution version, appellant Babita, wife of complainant Ved Parkash was having extra marital relations with some persons. Despite persuasion by the complainant, she did not mend her ways and used to quarrel with the complainant, his mother and sisters. She even used to extend threat that if they will defame her, she will trap them and will kill herself by setting on fire and will also kill the complainant. From the above allegations, which are fully corroborated by PW-2 Ved Parkash, complainant, the husband of the appellant, it comes out that the appellant had quarrel with the complainant and his family members and was having the strained relations. 26. It is established from the evidence on record that on the intervening night of 22/23.4.2008 when the occurrence had taken place, complainant Ved Parkash was away to his sister's house at village Bakal. The present appellant and the victims were in the house. 27. PW-2 Ved Parkash has categorically deposed that on 21.04.2008, he had gone to village Bakal at 06:00 p.m. to see his sister, who is married there. He returned from there on 23.04.2008 at 11:00 a.m. He found the village people gathered at/around his house. They told him that his wife had killed his two daughters and mother and had set them ablaze. He further deposed that her parents were also there. They were alleged to have been called during the previous night when the occurrence had taken place. They had taken Babita and her son Ghanshyam to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. After entering into the house, he found that everything was burnt. He went to Chobara, the room built on the first floor, there everything lying in the room was burnt. His mother Savitri, his daughters Pooja and Maafi were lying buried under the burnt material. He rushed to the Police Station, Dhand for reporting the matter. The police party met him at Bus Stand Kaul, where he made his statement Ex.PA. 28. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused appellant has categorically admitted her presence in the house in question on the night intervening 22/23.4.2008, i.e. at the time of the occurrence. 29. The police party met him at Bus Stand Kaul, where he made his statement Ex.PA. 28. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused appellant has categorically admitted her presence in the house in question on the night intervening 22/23.4.2008, i.e. at the time of the occurrence. 29. DW-1 Sanjay Kumar, who has been examined by the accused-appellant to prove her defence plea, has also categorically deposed that he also gave a ring to Ved Parkash, who was out of station and has also deposed that after hearing the screams of accused Babita, he rushed to her house and found that shatters of main door of the house open. He found Babita lying unconscious in the courtyard. The house was on fire. 30. Thus, from the statement of DW-1 Sanjay Kumar also it comes out that at the time of occurrence appellant Babita was present in the house and Ved Parkash complainant had gone out of station. 31. PW-4 Dr. R.D. Chawla had medico legally examined appellant Babita on 23.04.2008. He has found two blisters, one on the middle of right hand and other on the thumb with blackening of skin around it. The copy of the medico legal report of Babita is Ex.PE. The presence of these blisters on the right hand of the accused further confirms her presence in the house in question at the time of occurrence. 32. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is established that all the deceased namely Savitri, Pooja and Maafi were present in the house along with appellant, so she was the person who was seen together with the deceased/victims for the last time before the occurrence. 33. From the statement of PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jain, it comes out that the dead bodies of Savitri, Pooja and Muskan alias Maafi were brought to Civil Hospital, Kaithal for conducting the postmortem examination. The board of three doctors was constituted to conduct the postmortem examination but as the dead bodies were completely burnt beyond recognition, so the board took the decision to refer the dead bodies to Forensic Department, PGIMS Rohtak to ascertain the cause of death and duration of death. 34. He proved the opinion of the Medical Board Ex.PB/1, Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PD/1. Thereafter, the dead bodies were taken to PGIMS Rohtak for postmortem examination. 35. PW-12 Dr. 34. He proved the opinion of the Medical Board Ex.PB/1, Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PD/1. Thereafter, the dead bodies were taken to PGIMS Rohtak for postmortem examination. 35. PW-12 Dr. Sunil Gambhir, Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, PGIMS Rohtak conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Savitri, the mother of the complainant and his daughters Pooja and Maafi. With respect to the dead body of Savitri, he deposed as under: "The body was wrapped off white dirty plastic palli. Body was charred having deep burns all over the body. Skin and soft tissues were partially present. There were heat ruptures and heat fractures all over the body at places. The following parts of the body were missing and burnt off:- i) Anterior part of the skull, ii) Facial bones partially burn off, iii) Anterior part of the chest, iv) Right upper limb at mid of fore-arm, v) Left upper limb-lower 2/3rd of fore-arm, vi) Anterior abdominal wall, the underlying organs were cooked up, vii) Anterior wall of pelvis, viii) Lower 1/3rd of right lower limb, ix) Lower 1/3rd of left lower limb Uterus was identifiable and empty. Stomach contained semi-digested food material. I found the following injuries:- 1) There was depressed fracture 5 X 3 cm present in the right temporal bone. The fracture end showed infiltration of blood. Age findings: Third of molars were present, maxilla and mandible were partially burnt off. The remaining teeth showed moderate to marked grinding. Maniribum sterni was not fused. Body of the sternum and xyphoid were fused. In my opinion the cause of death in this case was due to injuries described above. However, the burns present on the body were post-mortem in nature. The duration was about 1-3 days." 36. He proved the copy of postmortem report Ex.PK. 37. With respect to the dead body of Muskan daughter of Ved Parkash aged 4 years, he gave the following findings: "The approximate articulated length of the body was 118 cm. Body was charred having deep burns throughout the body. Skin and soft tissue were burnt off mainly. Muscles were partially burnt. He proved the copy of postmortem report Ex.PK. 37. With respect to the dead body of Muskan daughter of Ved Parkash aged 4 years, he gave the following findings: "The approximate articulated length of the body was 118 cm. Body was charred having deep burns throughout the body. Skin and soft tissue were burnt off mainly. Muscles were partially burnt. The following parts of the body were missing and burnt: i) Anterior part of the skull, ii) Facial bones burnt off partially, iii) Right anterior part of the chest, iv) Both the upper limbs at the mid arm level, v) Anterior abdominal wall with cooked up and jumbled up abdominal organs, vi) The whole of pelvis, vii) Both the lower limbs: right lower limb at the mid thigh level part of left lower limb. Uterus was indentifiable and empty. External organs of generation were cooked up. Abdominal organs could not be identifiable individually. I found the following injuries on her persons: 1) There was fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th rib at the middle 1/3rd at the mid clavicular line. The fracture end showed infiltration. In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to injuries described above. However, the burns present on the body were post-mortem in nature. The duration was about 1-3 days." 38. Similarly, after the postmortem examination on the dead body of Pooja daughter of complainant Ved Parkash, aged about 9 years, he gave the following findings: "The approximate articulated length of the body was 128 cm. Body was charred having deep burns throughout the body. Skin and soft tissue were partially burnt. The following parts of the body were missing and burnt off:- i) Anterior part of the skull, ii) Facial bones burnt off partially, iii) Anterior part of the chest, iv) Right upper limb at the mid of the arm, rest of the right limb was missing and burnt off; v) Left upper limb was missing and burnt off at the level of left 1/3rd of arm, vi) Anterior abdominal wall exposing the organs which were jumbled up and cooked up, vii) Pelvis especially the right side of iliac bone, viii) Both the lower limbs having a charred end at the mid of bone lower limbs at the thigh. Thus uterus was empty and cooked up. Thus uterus was empty and cooked up. I found the following injuries on her person: 1) Depressed fracture of 3 X 2 cm present on the left side of skull (on the left parietal region). The fracture end showed infiltration of blood, 2) There was a fracture of 2/3rd end of the anterior aspect of the 2nd to 5th rib. The fracture end showed infiltration of blood. In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to injuries described above. However, the burns present on the body were post-mortem in nature. The duration was about 1-3 days." 39. From the aforesaid medical evidence, it comes out that Savitri had suffered the depressed fracture in the right temporal bone, the fracture showed infiltration of blood. In case of Muskan alias Maafi the fractures of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th rib at the middle 1/3rd at the mid clavicular line were found. The fractures end showed infiltration. Similarly, in case of Pooja the depressed fracture on the left side of skull (on the left parietal region) and the fracture of 2/3rd end of the anterior aspect of the 2nd to 5th rib were found. The fracture end showed infiltration of blood. PW-12 Dr. Sunil Gambhir had given a categoric opinion that the cause of death with respect to all the three victims was injuries described above. The burn injuries on their bodies were found post-mortem in nature. 40. So from the aforesaid discussion, it is established that the fatal injuries were caused to all the three victims as a result of which they died and thereafter the dead bodies were set on fire. 41. Thus, it is established that deceased were last seen with the appellant in the house. It is also established from the medical evidence that the fatal injuries were caused to all the three victims and after their death they were burnt. Once the victims were last seen together in the company of the appellant, it becomes her duty to explain as to how they met the homicidal death. 42. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the burden to establish the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution and this burden never shifts. However, in certain circumstances the explanations are also needed from the side of the accused. 42. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the burden to establish the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution and this burden never shifts. However, in certain circumstances the explanations are also needed from the side of the accused. One of that situation is the applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 43. Way back in case Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, 1956 S.C.R. 1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that: "This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge." 44. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 147 has laid down as under: "The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. In this context we may profitably utilise the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: "When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." 45. In view of the aforesaid consistent rule of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred above, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is designed to keep certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate, it is proportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. 46. In the instant case in order to explain the aforesaid circumstances appellant in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken the stand that she has been falsely implicated at the instance of her husband and brother-in-law Multan, as her husband was suspecting her moral character for having extra marital relations with some other persons. In order to get rid of her he (Ved Parkash) in collusion with his brother-in-law Multan, on the night intervening 23/24.04.2008 entered into the house secretly. As pre-planned, Multan committed murder of her mother-in-law Savitri for the landed property. Her husband who had doubted upon her character was thinking that Pooja and Maafi were not born from his loins. Her husband and Multan took the dead body of Savitri to the Chobara and after having poured kerosene oil on the dead body of Savitri and sleeping children Maafi and Pooja, they were set ablaze and shut the door from outside. Her husband and Multan took the dead body of Savitri to the Chobara and after having poured kerosene oil on the dead body of Savitri and sleeping children Maafi and Pooja, they were set ablaze and shut the door from outside. After hearing the noise, they were seen by her when they tried to escape. They also tried to kill her by electrocution. She raised alarm and become unconscious. Later on, she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kaithal for treatment. 47. The aforesaid plea raised by the appellant does not appeal to the reasons at all and also stands falsified from the evidence on record. There can be no motive for Multan to kill Savitri his mother-in-law. Appellant has alleged that she (Savitri) was killed by said Multan for the lust of her landed property. We failed to understand as to how Multan could have inherited the landed property of Savitri in the presence of her son and daughters. Thus, the very reason for the murder of Savitri by Multan as alleged by the appellant is totally unreliable. 48. The defence plea raised by the appellant is also falsified from the medical evidence. She has stated that her daughter Pooja and Maafi were set on fire by complainant Ved Parkash, but their postmortem reports clearly shows the homicidal injuries on their person, which was the cause of their death, as per the opinion of PW-12 Dr. Sunil Gambhir. The burn injuries on their person were only postmortem in nature. So, it is not a case where Pooja and Maafi had died due to burn injuries. 49. Appellant has also alleged that complainant Ved Parkash and his brother-in-law tried to kill her by electrocution. PW-4 Dr. R.D. Chawla, who has medico legally examined the appellant, has categorically deposed that regarding injury No.5 there are blisters which are usually not with the electric burn. In the cross examination again, he reiterated that possibility of injury No.5 having been caused by electrocution is altogether ruled out as there was no existing wound. There was no other external injury on the person of complainant. She has simply complained of pain in the right arm, right scapular region, left arm and lumboscaral region. So except the blisters of her right hand, there was no external injury on the body of the appellant. There was no other external injury on the person of complainant. She has simply complained of pain in the right arm, right scapular region, left arm and lumboscaral region. So except the blisters of her right hand, there was no external injury on the body of the appellant. The injury by electrocution on the right hand of appellant, has been totally ruled out by PW-4 Dr. R.D. Chawla. So, the explanations given by the appellant, have been found false. 50. As the appellant was present in the house along with victim, so she had the special knowledge with respect to the circumstances leading to the homicidal death of her mother-in-law and daughters. Instead of disclosing the true facts she has come forward with false plea/explanation. 51. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act postulate that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. To support this, reference can be made to case Nitin Parmar v. State of Uttrakhand, 2014 Cri.L.J. 984. But the appellant instead of disclosing the true facts, which were especially within her knowledge leading to the death of victims, she has come forward with false explanations. The presumption under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act arises against her. As she was last seen together with the deceased in the house in question, at the time of occurrence, so there is no escape from the conclusion that she is the murder. 52. The appellant has also given the false explanation with respect to the cause of death of the deceased particularly of Pooja and Maafi and as well as the presence of blisters on her right hand. Her plea that her husband's brother-in-law Multan had murdered her mother-in-law Savitri for the lust of landed property and her daughters were set ablaze by complainant Ved Parkash, has also been found false. Thus, the appellant has raised the false plea. 53. The false answers given by the accused and the false plea raised by him/her is also an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 149 has laid down that the false answer by accused can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra v. Suresh 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 149 has laid down that the false answer by accused can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain. In case State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kanda Gopaludu, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 686, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that in case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. The same principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli and others v. State of Gujarat, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 807 and case Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509. Consequently, the false answers given by the appellant and the false plea raised by her further supplies the additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 54. As per the statement of PW-14 S.I. Chanan Singh the Investigating Officer of the case, on 24.04.2008 the appellant suffered the disclosure statement Ex.PX and in pursuance to that she got recovered the axe (kulhari) from the wheat container kept in her residential house. 55. The said axe was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for examination. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.PDD and Ex.PDD/1, as per which the blood was found on the said axe. Though in the results of serological analysis of blood Ex.PDD/1, the origin of the blood could not be established and it was found material disintegrated. Thus, even the weapon of the offence stained with blood was recovered from the possession of the accused in pursuance of her disclosure statement, which is another incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 56. It is not even disputed by the appellant that Ved Parkash complainant was suspecting her moral character on account of having the extra marital relations with some other persons. Complainant Ved Parkash has categorically deposed that the appellant was having extra marital relations with some persons of his family besides her brother-inlaw (sister's husband). Despite his persuasion, she did not mend her ways and she used to quarrel with them without any reason or rhyme. She also used to quarrel with his mother. Complainant Ved Parkash has categorically deposed that the appellant was having extra marital relations with some persons of his family besides her brother-inlaw (sister's husband). Despite his persuasion, she did not mend her ways and she used to quarrel with them without any reason or rhyme. She also used to quarrel with his mother. He had brought all these facts to the notice of her parents and brother but they did not do anything in this regard. She used to extend a threat that in case they happen to complain more against her activities, she would set the house ablaze and she was not afraid of him. She also threatened that she would kill the children if she was pressurised to mend her ways. 57. PW-13 Mahender the brother-in-law of the complainant deposed that he was on visiting terms to Babita as she was related to them. Her husband's real sister Sunita is married to him. Babita and her mother-in-law used to quarrel with each other frequently and used to threat that in case she is further harassed, she would kill them and set them ablaze. He tried to make her understand but she did not mend her ways. She was having extra marital relations. 58. Even in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she has stated that her husband was having suspicion upon her for having extra marital relations. DW-1 Sanjay Kumar also deposed that complainant used to suspect his wife Babita for having extra marital relations with Suresh, Ishwar and Om Parkash resident of village Sakra. 59. The aforesaid evidence shows that the complainant was suspecting appellant for having extra marital relations with some other persons and on account of that there used to remain quarrel in the family. Appellant even extended the threats. Thus, the motive for the commission of the offence on the part of the appellant is also established, which completes ;the chain of the circumstantial evidence. 60. The prosecution had also relied upon the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before PW-8 Isham Singh but he has not supported the prosecution case. 61. Thus, the appellant was present along with victim in the house in question on the night intervening 22/23.4.2008 at the time of the occurrence. The medical evidence shows the homicidal death of all the three victims on account of the injuries and, thereafter, they were set on fire. 61. Thus, the appellant was present along with victim in the house in question on the night intervening 22/23.4.2008 at the time of the occurrence. The medical evidence shows the homicidal death of all the three victims on account of the injuries and, thereafter, they were set on fire. The appellant instead of narrating the true facts had come out with a false plea. The weapon of offence has also been recovered from her possession and she has also strong motive for the commission of the offence. Thus, all the aforesaid incriminating circumstances are cogently and firmly established against the appellant which are of definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards her guilt. These circumstances forms a complete chain and, there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime has been committed by her and none else. These circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the appellant and totally inconsistent with her innocence. Thus, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court is well founded. The sentence awarded to her is also just and appropriate. 62. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.