JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Manojit Bhuyan, J) The appellant Manoj Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and with default stipulations. 2. Ejahar dated 13.08.2010 was lodged against the appellant by his father Nanda Kishore Kumar stating that at 7 A.M. on 13.08.2010 the appellant killed his own wife Mira Devi by hacking her with an axe. The said ejahar was registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No.398/2010 under Section 302 IPC. Upon due investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to trial. Formal charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. 3. As many as 8(eight) witnesses were examined from the prosecution side along with one Court witness. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. The plea taken was of total denial and he also declined to adduce evidence on his behalf. 4. The case of the prosecution is that around 6.00/7.00 A. M. on 13.08.2010 the appellant caused the death of his wife Mira Devi with an axe in the bedroom of the appellant’s house. To bring home the culpability of the appellant, prosecution examined Nanda Kishore Kumar (PW-2), who is the informant and the father of the appellant. According to him, he was digging earth by the side of an embankment for making earthen pots when the youngest son of the appellant came and asked the informant’s wife Phulpatia Devi to bring some medicine for his mother. Phulpatia Devi had gone inside the house and found Mira Devi lying dead. Thereafter, she informed him, whereupon he went to the house of Nandi Gaonburah to pass on the information. Prakash Gupta (PW-3), who is a neighbour, deposed that in the morning of the fateful day he heard a quarrel taking place in the house of the appellant. He left to attend his shop at 6 A.M. and returned at 7 P.M. and it was only thereafter he came to learn that Mira Devi died immediately after the quarrel. He also deposed that frequent quarrels took place in the house of the appellant. Smti. Anjana Devi (PW-5), who is the younger sister of the appellant, deposed to the extent that she saw the dead body of Mira Devi in her elder brother’s (appellant’s) room. PW-5 was, however, declared as a hostile witness. He also deposed that frequent quarrels took place in the house of the appellant. Smti. Anjana Devi (PW-5), who is the younger sister of the appellant, deposed to the extent that she saw the dead body of Mira Devi in her elder brother’s (appellant’s) room. PW-5 was, however, declared as a hostile witness. In cross, she deposed that police seized the axe and she put her signature as a witness. Nandiram Gogoi (PW-6) is also a seizure witness and in his evidence he stated that he saw Mira Devi lying dead in the courtyard and police had arrived in the place of occurrence in the meantime. He deposed that police seized an axe from the house of the appellant and he put his signature in the Seizure List (Ext.2). Another neighbour of the appellant Smti. Laljuri Devi (PW-7) deposed that at the time of occurrence she was plucking flowers in the garden and the father of the appellant was sitting outside. She saw the appellant come out of the house crying, followed by his mother. She also saw the appellant, his mother and father in conversation, whereafter the appellant’s father began crying and the appellant boarding a vehicle in front his house and going somewhere. PW-7 also deposed that she saw the appellant’s father crying out “Manoj! Manoj!” but the appellant left the place without giving any reply. 5. Komal Mohan (PW-8), Sub-Inspector of Police, Golaghat Police Station, deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He had visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses and also saw Mira Devi lying on the floor of her bedroom. He held inquest on the dead body and thereafter sent the body to the hospital for post-mortem examination. He also deposed that he seized an axe from inside the appellant’s house which is 2 feet 3 inches long including the handle which was made of bamboo. A rope was also found tied to the axe. He also deposed that the appellant surrendered himself in the Thana. Smti. Phulpatia Devi deposed as CW-1. She is the mother of the appellant. According to her, the incident occurred at around 7 O’clock in the morning and at that time both the appellant and Mira Devi were inside the room of the house. She had gone inside the room hearing the baby boy of the appellant crying and found Mira Devi dead. She is the mother of the appellant. According to her, the incident occurred at around 7 O’clock in the morning and at that time both the appellant and Mira Devi were inside the room of the house. She had gone inside the room hearing the baby boy of the appellant crying and found Mira Devi dead. In cross, she deposed that it was the baby who informed her about the death of Mira Devi. She also deposed that she did not know where the appellant had gone immediately after the occurrence. 6. The medical evidence brought on record is the evidence of Dr. Prodip Kr. Medhi (PW-1) who proved the Post-Mortem Report (Ext.1). He stated that on 13.08.2010 he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of one Smti. Mira Kumari. Examination revealed presence of the following injuries on the dead body. (1) Lacerated injury on top of the scalp, triangular in shape, measuring 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm with depressed fracture of underlying bone. Also found fracture of both parietal and frontal bone. (2) An incised wound on occipital region, horizontal, measuring 10 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm with fracture of underlying occipital bone. (3) Rupture on parieto – frontal and occipital region. On dissection of brain, large extra-dural, sub-dural, as well as intra cerebral haematoma found on frontal and occipital lobe with oedema and swelling of whole brain. In the opinion of PW-1, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and death was caused due to shock, haemorrhage as well as head injuries sustained by the deceased. 7. The examination of the appellant and the answers to the questions posed to him demonstrates his admission to the fact that his wife Mira Kumari was lying dead inside the house. He also admits to a quarrel having taken place after which Mira died. Further, he had surrendered himself at the Thana after the death of his wife and he quarreled with her. The seizure of the axe from his house by the police was also admitted. On a pointed question as to the axe being found near the dead body in his bedroom, the appellant stated that he had nothing to say. 8. Further, he had surrendered himself at the Thana after the death of his wife and he quarreled with her. The seizure of the axe from his house by the police was also admitted. On a pointed question as to the axe being found near the dead body in his bedroom, the appellant stated that he had nothing to say. 8. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned Court below found compelling circumstantial reasons to believe that the appellant had caused the death of his wife inside his bedroom by means of an axe. The Court below also held that when death is caused while the deceased is in the custody of the accused person, the accused is obliged to give plausible explanation for the cause of death. In the instant case, the appellant did not state anything. 9. A close scrutiny of the evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that Mira Devi @ Mira Kumari was found dead in the bedroom of the appellant. The weapon of offence i.e. an axe was also found and seized by the police from inside the house. The incident of quarrel having taken place on the fateful morning is also brought on record by PW-3. The father of the appellant, as the informant also stated that his son had killed his wife by hacking her with an axe inside the house. 10. The medical evidence coming on record gives description of the injuries sustained and found in the body of Mira Devi. Having regard to the weapon of offence so seized, the connection of the injuries with the seized weapon of offence finds established. In so far as the appellant failing to give plausible explanation for the cause of death of his wife inside his bedroom is concerned, the same operates as a strong circumstance against the appellant that he alone is responsible for the commission of the crime. The situs of the crime is the bedroom of the house of the appellant. Evidence brought on record shows that the adult members present inside the house was the appellant and his wife Mira Devi. An axe was also recovered from inside the house. Under the said circumstances, burden is cast upon the appellant to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. Evidence brought on record shows that the adult members present inside the house was the appellant and his wife Mira Devi. An axe was also recovered from inside the house. Under the said circumstances, burden is cast upon the appellant to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , relied upon in the case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.2057 of 2010), the Apex Court held that where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish a case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. However, the nature and amount of evidence to be led by the prosecution to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of comparatively lighter character and 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 always lies with the prosecution to establish the case and that there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. To reiterate, in the present case the conduct of the appellant in not offering any explanation as regards the homicidal death of his wife inside the secrecy of his bedroom operates as an important link to connect the homicidal death of Mira Devi to the direct involvement and culpability of the appellant in the crime. 11. For all the discussions and findings above, we find no good ground to interfere with and/or to upset the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence so imposed upon him to suffer imprisonment for life together with fine and default stipulations. This appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge at Golaghat in Sessions Case No.123/2010 stands affirmed. Office to send back the Lower Court Records forthwith to the appropriate Court below.