JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 17.4.2009 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamipur in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2008 whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for brevity sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 8.9.2007 at 4.40 A.M., PW-1 Braham Dass, resident of Village Panjali had given telephonic information to Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur to the effect that accused has murdered his wife Parveen Kumari and seriously injured his son Ashu. On the basis of information, F.I.R. was registered and the police rushed to the spot. The spot was visited. Snaps of the dead body were taken. Site plan of the spot was prepared. On the way, one furlong behind the place of occurrence, local people were found carrying injured Ashu. He was sent to R.H. Hamirpur. Postmortem of deceased was got conducted in R.H. Hamirpur. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to the legal heirs of deceased. The viscera was retained for chemical analysis. Final opinion of the doctor was also obtained. He opined that the wounds could have been caused with weapon, i.e. Darat. The cause of death was due to head injury with multiple incised wounds and fracture of parietal and occipital bone with laceration of brain leading to shock and death. The death was instantaneous and the time between the death and post-mortem was 1 to 12 hours. The weapon of offence, i.e. Darat was taken into possession after preparing its sketch and put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘H’. Bed-sheet was also taken into possession. The vest and underwear of Ashley, injured were also put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The medical examination of injured Ashu and Ashley was also got conducted. The report from F.S.L. Junga was received. The challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Bed-sheet was also taken into possession. The vest and underwear of Ashley, injured were also put in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The medical examination of injured Ashu and Ashley was also got conducted. The report from F.S.L. Junga was received. The challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused, under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, was also recorded. He has denied the case of the prosecution. According to him, on the material date at 4.00 A.M., he went outside the room to reply the nature’s call and on return, he heard his son Ashley crying that somebody has murdered Parveen Kumari and thereafter he also cried and Braham Dass reached the spot alongwith other villagers. According to his explanation, his wife was murdered by some unknown person when he was outside the room in order to urinate. The trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as noticed hereinabove, and acquitted him under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Abhiraj Guleria, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Braham Dass has deposed that house of accused is situated at village Panjali. It was at a distance of 100 yards from his house. He was sleeping in his house at about 4.30 A.M. He heard cries of accused and one Nek Chand, his cousin. Accused was crying that somebody has murdered his wife Parveen. He went outside his room and found accused and Nek Chand standing outside the house of accused. He inquired from the accused what has happened. Accused was repeating time and again that Parveen has been killed. He rushed alongwith Nek Chand to the upper room of the house of accused and found in match box light that wife of accused was lying in the pool of blood and with Parveen deceased her son Ashu was lying in injured condition. Accused was repeating time and again that Parveen has been killed. He rushed alongwith Nek Chand to the upper room of the house of accused and found in match box light that wife of accused was lying in the pool of blood and with Parveen deceased her son Ashu was lying in injured condition. He returned to his house and telephonically informed the police that somebody has murdered Parveen Kumari. Parveen Kumari had suffered injury on her scalp. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that on the date of incident, accused, his wife Parveen Kumari and their sons Ashley and Ashu were present in the house. He has also admitted that accused, his wife Parveen Kumari and their sons had slept together in upper room of their house. He has also admitted that accused was his affectionate cousin. He has admitted that Parveen Kumari was murdered. He has admitted that injured Ashu was lying by the side of the bed. Accused did not tell him who has murdered his wife nor did he ask him. He wished the accused should be acquitted so that children won’t become orphan. He did not notice at the time of entering into room of the accused and outside any stranger running from the spot. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has admitted that accused was not his first cousin. Accused did not try to escape from the spot. According to him, accused was teetotaler and religious minded person. According to him, accused was suffering from depression. He was being treated by doctor from Jallandhar. 8. Statement of PW-2 Anshul Verma was recorded without oath. According to him, he had suffered injury on his chin and ear in school during day time. He has deposed that he has suffered the injuries with the blow of Darat. According to him, somebody came in their house and chopped his mother. 9. PW-3 Ashley was minor, but his statement was recorded on oath. According to him, his mother has died. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted in his cross-examination that on the material date, his father, mother and brother Ashu were in the house. According to him, somebody came in their house and chopped his mother. 9. PW-3 Ashley was minor, but his statement was recorded on oath. According to him, his mother has died. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted in his cross-examination that on the material date, his father, mother and brother Ashu were in the house. His mother had cooked meals and they took the dinner and gone to bed in the upper room of the house. His mother and brother had slept on the double bed. He and his father slept on a separate bed in the same room. When he got up at about 5.30 A.M. in the next morning, he found his mother was murdered. He has admitted that no stranger had entered their room on that day. He, his brother and his parents were in the room and nobody had come. In his cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, he has deposed that his father was innocent and in his presence, his father and mother never quarreled with each other. 10. PW-4 Veena Devi has deposed that she was Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Majhog Sultani. On 8.9.2007, somebody informed her on telephone that in the house of accused, his wife has been murdered. She went there and by that time, police had reached there. The Darat was lying in the verandah. She has identified Darat Ex.P-1. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-4/A. She signed the seizure memo. She has also identified the bed sheet Ex.P-4. The police has also taken into possession earth containing blood after removing the same from the spot and placed in a parcel sealed with seal impression ‘H’ vide Ex.P-5. Blood stained earth Ex.P-6 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-4/C. The underwear and vest of Ashley were also placed in a parcel sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/D. PW-4 has deposed that shirt of accused Rakesh Kumar was not taken into possession in her presence. She was declared hostile. She was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She has admitted that recovery memo Ex.PW-4/E was signed by her. She identified her signatures on parcel Ex.P-10. In her cross-examination by the defence counsel, she has deposed that her house is at a distance of about 1½ KMs from the house of accused. She was declared hostile. She was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She has admitted that recovery memo Ex.PW-4/E was signed by her. She identified her signatures on parcel Ex.P-10. In her cross-examination by the defence counsel, she has deposed that her house is at a distance of about 1½ KMs from the house of accused. She reached at the place of occurrence at about 6.30 – 7.00 A.M. She went on foot. When she reached the spot, about 50-60 persons of the area had already assembled there. 11. PW-5 Dr. Archana Soni has examined Ashley son of Rakesh Kumar age 9 years. She noticed the following injures on his person : 1. Clean wound with tapering edges incised wound 4 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. left palm, fresh bleeding was present. 2. CLW. right ring finger ½ x ½ cm fresh bleeding was present. Stitches applied in minor O.P. 12. The probable duration was within eight hours. The weapon used was sharp. She issued MLR Ex.PW-5/B. The injuries were opined to be simple in nature. 13. She also conducted post-mortem of deceased Parveen Kumari. According to her opinion, deceased died due to head injury with multiple incised wounds and fractures of parietal and occipital bone with laceration of brain leading to shock and death. The death was instantaneous. The probable duration between death and post-mortem was within 12 hours. She issued postmortem report Ex.PW-5/F. She has signed Ex.PW-5/F. According to her, injuries noticed on the person of deceased would have been sustained with its multiple blows. 14. PW-6 Ajay Kumar has taken photographs Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/E, Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/C. 15. PW-7 Rajinder Kumar on the orders of Sub-Inspector Gulel Chand, accompanied Ashley to R.H. Hamirpur and got him medically examined. 16. PW-8 Rajiv Kumar has deposed that the Investigating Officer handed over to him informatory letter regarding arrest of the accused to be handed over to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur. 17. PW-9 Rajinder Kumar was present with S.I. Gulel Chand alongwith other officials at the place of occurrence at village Panjali. The dead body of Parveen Kumari was entrusted to him. The post-mortem report was handed over by him to S.I. Gulel Chand. 18. Statements of PW-10 Kamlesh Kumari and PW-11 Ashok Kumar are formal in nature. 19. PW-12 Vinod Kumar has deposed that he was associated in the investigation of the case. The dead body of Parveen Kumari was entrusted to him. The post-mortem report was handed over by him to S.I. Gulel Chand. 18. Statements of PW-10 Kamlesh Kumari and PW-11 Ashok Kumar are formal in nature. 19. PW-12 Vinod Kumar has deposed that he was associated in the investigation of the case. S.I. Gulel Chand handed over written request alongwith dead body of deceased Parveen Kumari to H.C. Rajinder Kumar for post-mortem at R.H. Hamripur. He accompanied him to R.H. Hamirpur and thereafter Rajinder Kumar handed over to him five sealed parcels alongwith sample impressions of seal ‘DHH’ for safe deposit with M.H.C., Police Station, Hamirpur. On 15.9.2007, M.H.C. Vijay Parkash, Police Station, Hamirpur handed over to him, ten sealed parcels for transmission and safe deposit with Director F.S.L. Junga. With the parcels, R.C. was also handed over, the copy of which was Ex.PW-12/A. 20. PW-13 Charanjit Singh has deposed that on 11.9.2007, he alongwith Inspector/S.H.O. Anjani Jaswal, Police Station, Hamirpur visited R.H. Hamirpur where Anshul Verma son of accused was admitted. Sh. Sushil Kumar had produced blood stained underwear and Banyan of the injured worn by him at the time of occurrence. These were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-13/A. 21. PW-14 Sunil Kumar has deposed that he was on duty as M.C. in Police Station, Hamripur on 8.9.2007. He received a telephonic call from Braham Dass informing the police that accused has murdered his wife. Telephonic information was reduced into writing by him in the daily diary register at Sr.No.6 dated 8.9.2007. He has proved copy Ex.PW-14/A. 22. PW-15 Vijay Parkash has deposed that on the basis of Rapat Ex.PW-14/A, he recorded FIR. Ex.PW-1/F. FIR was signed by S.I. Gulel Chand. On the same day, constable Vinod Kumar deposited with him three sealed parcels sealed with seal impressions ‘DHH’. S.I. Gulel Chand on the same day deposited with him seven sealed parcels sealed with seal ‘H’. On 11.9.2007, Inspector Anjani Jaswal deposited with him one sealed parcel sealed with seal ‘C’. All the eleven parcels were entered in Malkhana register No.19. On 13.9.2007, one parcel sealed with seal impression ‘H’ on the order of Chhota Ram, A.S.I. was handed over by him to Chhota Ram, A.S.I. He had produced the original Malkhana register and the relevant abstract of the entry was Ex.PW-15/A. 23. Statements of PW-16 Rajesh Kumar and PW-17 Rup Lal are formal in nature. 24. On 13.9.2007, one parcel sealed with seal impression ‘H’ on the order of Chhota Ram, A.S.I. was handed over by him to Chhota Ram, A.S.I. He had produced the original Malkhana register and the relevant abstract of the entry was Ex.PW-15/A. 23. Statements of PW-16 Rajesh Kumar and PW-17 Rup Lal are formal in nature. 24. PW-18 Prito Devi is the mother of deceased. According to her, her daughter was married with the accused 16 years back. At the time of marriage, accused was employed in some tyre factory at Paunta Sahib. After 5-6 years of the marriage, accused left the job. Thereafter, he did some private job at Hamirpur. He also gave up that job and rendered unemployed and became liquor and drug addict. Accused sold the ornaments of her daughter. When nothing was left, accused started subjecting her daughter to cruelty and harassment. 15 days before the murder of her daughter, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her. After 2-3 days, again accused demanded Rs. 3,000/-. She arranged Rs. 3,000/- and handed over to the accused. She was telephonically informed by Braham Dass at 5.00 A.M. that her daughter has been murdered by the accused. She rushed to the spot. 25. PW-19 Satish Kumar has deposed that on 8.9.2007, Gulel Chand, Additional S.H.O. had asked him to rush to R.H. Hamirpur and get the medical of Ashu done from the Hospital. 26. PW-20 A.S.I. Chhota Ram has deposed that on 13.9.2007, S.H.O./Inspector Anjani had given him one application Ex.PW-5/G alongwith Darat, Postmortem report of deceased and MLC of Ashu. The Darat was sealed in a parcel. He produced all the documents and Darat before Medical Officer and thereafter, he opened the parcel contained Darat and re-sealed with his seal ‘DHH’. The doctor has given opinion Ex.PW-5/H on the application as well as on the postmortem report Ex.PW-5/F and MLC of Ashu Kumar. 27. PW-21 Anjani Jaswal has deposed that on 11.9.2007, one Sushil Kumar at R.H. Hamirpur produced to him the underwear and blood stained vest Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 of injured Ashu, which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/F. The clothes were placed in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘C’. He had partly investigated the case. 27. PW-21 Anjani Jaswal has deposed that on 11.9.2007, one Sushil Kumar at R.H. Hamirpur produced to him the underwear and blood stained vest Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 of injured Ashu, which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/F. The clothes were placed in a parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘C’. He had partly investigated the case. He scribed an application Ex.PW-5/G to the Medical Officer, R.H. Hamirpur seeking opinion regarding the possibility of the injuries found on the person of deceased and injured Ashu with the blows of Darat Ex.P-1. He deputed ASI Chhota Ram to seek medical opinion of the doctor. He handed over an application, MLC, postmortem report and parcel containing Darat to him. He also scribed application Ex.PW-21/A seeking opinion of the doctor. He recorded the statement of Prito Devi and injured Ashu. 28. PW-22 Guler Chand has deposed that he was sleeping in his house. Constable Sunil Kumar came to his quarters and informed that telephonic information was received in Police Station to the effect that accused has murdered his wife and injured his son Ashu at village Panjali. He signed FIR Ex.PW-1/F. He rushed to the spot alongwith staff. He found that near the house, injured Ashu was being carried by some persons. He rushed to the place of occurrence, i.e. the bed room of the accused and found Parveen Kumari lying dead in the bed room in a pool of blood. The room was in the upper storey of the house of the accused. Accused was sitting in the courtyard. Darat Ex.P-1 was lying on the double bed, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. Darat Ex.P-1 was identified by the son of accused, namely, Ashley. He prepared the sketch of Darat Ex.PW-4/F. Darat Ex.P-1 was blood stained and hair of Parveen Kumari were stuck on it. He took into possession blood stained bed sheet Ex.P-4 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/B. He also took into possession blood stained earth from the room of the accused and put it in a plastic box and thereafter put in a parcel and sealed with seal ‘H’ vide memo Ex.PW-4/C. He also took into possession clothes of Ashley injured vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/D. The shirt of the accused was also lying in the room, which was blood stained. It was taken into possession after placing it in a sealed parcel with seal ‘H’ vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/E. The shirt of the accused was Ex.P-18. It was identified by the son of accused, namely, Ashley. The accused was wearing trousers, which was blood stained. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/G. His trousers were Ex.P-20. He prepared a site plan Ex.PW-22/A. He filled in inquest forms Ex.PW-5/D and Ex.PW-5/E. He concluded in his investigation that accused was unemployed and his wife used to impress upon him to work which provoked the accused and he murdered the deceased. He also came to know during investigation that before going to bed, accused and his wife Parveen Kumari had some heated exchanges. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that when the accused went to urinate, there was a chance for the stranger to enter the bed room of the accused and to murder his wife. 29. PW-23 Dr. Rajneesh Thakur has deposed that on 8.9.2007 at 6.20 A.M., on the request of Police Ex.PW-19/A, he examined Ashu son of Rakesh Kumar aged 7 years. According to him, the probable duration of injuries was within 4 hours and kind of weapon used was sharp. He issued MLR Ex.PW-19/B. 30. Ex.PW-24 Chaman Kant has deposed that on reference of Medical Officer, R.H. Hamriour on 8.9.2007, with regard to injury No.1, he has examined Ashu son of Rakesh Kumar aged 8 years. He issued MLR Ex.PW-24/A. 31. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that accused, deceased Parveen Kumari and two sons were sleeping in the upper storey of the house. Statement of PW-3 Ashley has been recorded on oath. He has categorically deposed that no stranger entered the room on that day. It has come in the statement of PW-18 Prito Devi that marriage between the accused and deceased was solemnized 16 years back. He was employed in tyre factory at Paunta Sahib. Thereafter, after 5-6 years of the marriage, accused left the job. Thereafter, he did some private job at Hamirpur. He became liquor and drug addict. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from PW-18 Prito Devi. She also gave a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the accused. It has come in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer that Parveen Kumari used to impress upon him to do some job. He became liquor and drug addict. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from PW-18 Prito Devi. She also gave a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the accused. It has come in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer that Parveen Kumari used to impress upon him to do some job. It also led to tiff. The police recovered Darat Ex.P-1 in accordance with law. It was stained with blood. PW-1 Braham Dass has admitted that Parveen Kumari was murdered. He has not noticed any stranger running away from the house. He was looking after the children. According to PW-5 Dr. Archana Soni, deceased died due to head injury with multiple incised wounds and fractures of parietal and occipital bone with laceration of brain leading to shock and death. She has categorically opined that injuries received by the deceased could be inflicted by Darat Ex.P-1. PW-5 Dr. Archana Soni also noticed injuries on the person of Ashley. Darat Ex.P-1, clothes of accused and injured Ashley were taken into possession in accordance with law. PW-23 Dr. Rajneesh Thakur has examined Ashu son of accused and issued MLR Ex.PW-19/E. 32. The only explanation of the accused is that he had gone out to urinate and in the meantime, stranger had come and killed his wife. This version cannot be believed. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 Ashley that no stranger had entered their room on that day. PW-1 Braham Dass has stated that he has not seen any stranger running from the spot. There is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that accused had gone far away place to urinate. He must have left the place for about 1-2 minutes. Accused was present in the house with his wife and his sons. He was last seen with the deceased. He has to explain what happened in the room. On Ex. P-18 shirt and Ex.P-20 trousers of the accused, human blood was found. How the blood appeared on the shirt and trousers has not been explained. The explanation of the accused that he tried to save or remove the dead body of the deceased cannot be believed. As per MLRs Ex.PW-19/B and Ex.PW-5/A injuries were received by the sons of the accused and deceased by Darat. The deceased has died instantaneously after receiving the injuries with Darat Ex.P-1. 33. The explanation of the accused that he tried to save or remove the dead body of the deceased cannot be believed. As per MLRs Ex.PW-19/B and Ex.PW-5/A injuries were received by the sons of the accused and deceased by Darat. The deceased has died instantaneously after receiving the injuries with Darat Ex.P-1. 33. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 have held that where prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that (i) either the husband and wife were last seen together, (or) the offence was committed in the dwelling house, where husband also resided, and if the accused husband offers no explanation as to the injuries received by his wife or if the explanation is false, there is strong circumstances which indicates that he committed the crime. Their Lordships have further held that in case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Their Lordships have held as under : “12. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 15. 15. 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 Section 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. 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” 34. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 have held that the accused’s failure to give satisfactory explanation to an incriminating circumstance which was within his special knowledge amounts to failure to discharge the onus which lies on accused under section 106 of Evidence Act. This itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Their Lordships have held as under : 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. 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. 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 compatiable 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 Re. Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras, 218.” 35. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dnyaneshwar vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445 have held that when the deceased found murdered in her matrimonial home and the possibility of any outsider committing the offence ruled out, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. Their Lordships have held as under : “10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his cause that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access. It is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) (1) SCALE 19, this court held : "22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Jude as also by the High Court categorically go to show that at the time when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. by a gun short injury is not disputed. The fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute. 23. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. by a gun short injury is not disputed. The fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute. 23. The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and charring' existed so far as Injury No. (i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go the show that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a short the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over grabellai middle of forehead. It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not in the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show that a the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same." 36. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda alias Murli Manohar Mishra vs State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288 have held that failure of accused husband to explain how his wife met with an unnatural death in their bedroom, provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances. Their Lordships have held as under : “34. If it is proved that the deceased died in an unnatural circumstance in her bed room, which was occupied only by her and her husband, law requires the husband to offer an explanation in this behalf. We, however, do not intend to lay down a general law in this behalf as much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We, however, do not intend to lay down a general law in this behalf as much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Absence of any explanation by the husband would lead to an inference which would lead to a circumstance against the accused.” 37. The accused has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and we found no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. 37. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.