JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkarnji in Sessions Case No. 15/10. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for three months. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:- "Deceased Parvati was the wife of the appellant. They have two sons Vishwanath and Kumar. PW 7 Megha was the wife of Vishwanath and Sangita was the wife of Kumar. They were all residing in Sahu Nagar, Lane No. 7, Chandur, Tal. Hatkanangale. The appellant and his wife Parvati were residing in one room, Vishwanath and his wife Megha were residing in another room and Kumar and his wife Sangita were residing in third room. All the three rooms were adjacent to each other." It is the prosecution case that the appellant suspected that his wife had some illicit relation with some other person and on that count, quarrel used to take place between the appellant and deceased. Parvati was doing the job of working on spindle machine. On 30th January, 2010 after Parvati came home, quarrel took place between her and the appellant on account of suspicion in the mind of the appellant that Parvati had illicit relation with some other person. The quarrel continued upto 12.00 to 12.30 midnight. In the morning, at about 6.30 a.m. the appellant assaulted his wife Parvati on the head with a grinding stone. Parvati was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. Parvati died in the hospital on 31st January, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. PW 2 Vishwanath, who is the son of the appellant and deceased lodged F.I.R. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested on the same day i.e. 31st January, 2010. At the time of arrest of the appellant, his slippers were found stained with blood. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 2. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 2. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. His further defence is that his wife Parvati fell in the house and dashed her head against the grinding stone which resulted in her death. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant committed murder of his wife Parvati. 4. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is totally dependent upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against the appellant are as under:- "(i) motive; (ii) the appellant and deceased were the only two persons residing in the room. At night quarrel took place between the appellant and deceased on the ground that the appellant suspected her character. The quarrel went on till 12.30 midnight and in the morning Parvati was found unconscious with grievous injuries on her head; (iii) at the time of arrest, slippers of the appellant were found stained with blood. As per the C.A. report, blood of 'O' group was found on the slippers which is the blood group of deceased." 5. As far as the circumstance of motive is concerned, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW 9 Vatsala Karande. She is the sister of Parvati. Vatsala has stated that the appellant was suspecting the character of his wife Parvati. The appellant suspected that his wife Parvati was having illicit relation with some other person. Vatsala has stated that Parvati always used to inform her on phone about the appellant quarrelling with her on account of such suspicion. Prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW 7 Megha, who is the daughter-in-law of the appellant as well as deceased. The appellant suspected that his wife Parvati was having illicit relation with some other person. Vatsala has stated that Parvati always used to inform her on phone about the appellant quarrelling with her on account of such suspicion. Prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW 7 Megha, who is the daughter-in-law of the appellant as well as deceased. Though this witness has turned hostile, however, it is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination, she has admitted that on 30th January, 2010 after Parvati came home, quarrel started between Parvati and the appellant on account of the appellant suspecting that Parvati had illicit relation with some other person. Megha has admitted that the quarrel continued upto 12.00 to 12.30 midnight. In the morning at 6.30 a.m. Parvati was found in grievously injured condition in the house. Thus, the evidence of PW 9 Vatsala and PW 7 Megha shows that the appellant had a motive to commit murder of his wife Parvati. 6. The evidence on record shows that only the appellant and Parvati were residing in the room. No other person was residing in the room. To show that only the appellant and Parvati were residing in the room, reliance is placed by the prosecution on the evidence of PW 2 Vishwanath. Vishwanath is the son of the appellant and deceased Parvati. Vishwanath has not supported the prosecution. However, the evidence of Vishwanath is not shaken on the aspect that his father and mother were residing in one room, Vishwanath and his wife Megha were residing in another room and his brother Kumar and his wife Sangita were residing in third room. According to Vishwanath, all the three rooms were adjacent to each other. The evidence of PW 7 Mehga shows that in the night quarrel took place between the appellant and his wife Parvati which quarrel continued upto 12.00 to 12.30 midnight. In the morning, Parvati was found lying in the room in an unconscious state with injuries of her head. Thus, section 106 of the Evidence Act would come into play. 7. The evidence of PW 2 Vishwanath shows that no other person except the deceased and the appellant were residing in their house. In the morning Parvati is found unconscious with grievous injuries on her head. In such case, the appellant has to explain how Parvati sustained injuries and died. 7. The evidence of PW 2 Vishwanath shows that no other person except the deceased and the appellant were residing in their house. In the morning Parvati is found unconscious with grievous injuries on her head. In such case, the appellant has to explain how Parvati sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlie Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied when certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : (AIR 2007 SC 144) : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 525 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused 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. 8. The defence of the appellant as seen from the cross-examination is that, his wife Parvati fell down on the grinding stone and sustained injuries on her head. In view of the defence taken by the appellant, we would like to advert to the medical evidence. PW 15 Dr. Kadam has stated that it is not true to say that injuries mentioned in the post mortem report are possible if head falls on a stony staircase or grinding stone from a height of about 6 to 7 ft. PW 16 Dr. PW 15 Dr. Kadam has stated that it is not true to say that injuries mentioned in the post mortem report are possible if head falls on a stony staircase or grinding stone from a height of about 6 to 7 ft. PW 16 Dr. Mahendra has stated that the injuries can be caused by a fall, but he did not agree with the suggestion that the injuries sustained by Parvati were possible if her head fell on hard and blunt substance from a height of 6 to 8 ft. Thus, the medical evidence clearly falsifies the stand taken by the appellant. 9. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted his wife Parvati with a grinding stone on the head which led to her death. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. PW 15 Dr. Kadam performed the post mortem on the dead body of Parvati. On external examination, he found the following injuries :- "(1) Face eye blackish. (2) Head curved sutured wound from right ear approximately 6 c.m. above temporo parietal region 6 stitches. (3) Left ear sutured wound temporo parietal region 5 cm. above left ear 3 stiches. (4) Abrasion right brow 1 x 1 cm superficial." On internal examination, Dr. Kadam found the following injuries:-- "Head - Scalp Heamatoma fronto parietal temporal occipital region. Skull - Fractured fronto parietal transverse Brain - Extradural haemorrhage Subdural haemorrhage Cerebral bleeding Soft brain tissue frontal region. According to Dr. Kadam, internal and external injuries mentioned in column No. 17 and 19 are possible by hard and blunt object used by force. The probable cause of death of Parvati is shock due to the head injury." 10. Another circumstance against the appellant is that at the time of his arrest, his slippers were found blood stained. No doubt, both the panch witnesses who have been examined on the aspect of arrest of the appellant and seizure of his blood stained slippers have not supported the prosecution. However, it is noticed that PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal has deposed on this aspect. Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile, we see no reason to discard the evidence of PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal on the aspect that when the appellant was arrested, his slippers were found blood stained. We are of this opinion that the evidence of PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal can be relied upon. Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile, we see no reason to discard the evidence of PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal on the aspect that when the appellant was arrested, his slippers were found blood stained. We are of this opinion that the evidence of PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal can be relied upon. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal so as to cause us to disbelieve his evidence. In this connection, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew & Ann, (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 65 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 503 wherein it was observed that prima facie public servant must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that as a public servant they are interested in the success of their case. 11. in the case of Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 435, 1978 SCC (Cri) 66. The Supreme Court observed that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, his evidence need not be rejected on the ground that the seizure witness did not support the prosecution. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, [(2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 111] : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3968 (S.C.)]. In the present case, on scrutiny of the evidence of the investigating officer PW 17 A.P.I. Dhumal, we find that his evidence is trustworthy and reliable, hence we have no hesitation in relying on the same. It is noticed that the appellant has not furnished explanation for Finding of blood on his slippers. It is seen as per the Chemical Analyser's report Exhibit-26 that the slippers were stained with blood of 'O' group. As per C.A. report Exhibit-27, the blood group of deceased Parvati was found to be of 'O' group. This shows that the blood of the group of deceased was found on the slippers of the appellant which is a highly incriminating circumstance. 12. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder of his wife Parvati. This shows that the blood of the group of deceased was found on the slippers of the appellant which is a highly incriminating circumstance. 12. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder of his wife Parvati. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 13. Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur. We quantify the legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Ms. Rohini M. Dandekarat Rs. 5,000/-.