JUDGMENT : A.SELVAM, J. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence dated 10.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that the accused 2 and 3 namely Chandran and Thilakavathi are the parents of the first accused viz., Mathivanan. The first accused has married the deceased by name Mariselvam prior to four years from the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased have given Rs.15,000/-, gold jewels and other household articles. After marriage, the deceased and accused have lived in a joint family. The first accused has run an auto electrical shop. For the purpose of extending his business, he directed the deceased to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. The parents of the deceased have refused to concede the demand put forth on the side of the first accused and due to that all the accused have joined together and tortured the deceased. On 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., with an intention to murder the deceased, in their house, the first accused has throttled the neck of the deceased and due to his overtacts, she passed away. After occurrence, the mother of the deceased by name Selvamani has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.1627 of 2010. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer viz., PW10 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer viz., PW7 has conducted inquest and subsequently, the doctor by name Arunkumar (PW4) has conducted autopsy and he found the following external and internal injuries: “The following antimortem injuries are noted over the body:- Contusion of size 2 cms x 1.5 cm seen over the left side of the neck (7 cms below the left side of the mandible) Contusion of size 2 cms x 1.5 cms seen over the right side of the neck (8 cms below the right side of the mandible) On bloodless dissection of the neck: There was extravasation of blood on the superficial and deep planes of the neck. Fracture of size 0.5 cm x 0.75 cm seen on the right side of the hyoid bone with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. Fracture of size 0.5 cm x 0.75 cm seen on the right side of the hyoid bone with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. Other findings: Peritoneal cavity and pleural cavities - empty, pericardium contains 15 ml of straw coloured fluid - heart - right side fluid blood, left side empty; coronaries patent. Lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys - cut section congested. Larynx and trachea - normal; hyoid bone - described in the injury column. Stomach - empty; nil specific smell, mucosa - normal. Small intestine contains 10 ml of hile stained fluid; nil specific smell, mucosa - normal. Bladder - empty; Uterus normal size, cut section empty. Brain – surface vessels and cut section congested.” 4. The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P2. The Investigating Officer has continued investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Theni and the same has been taken on file in PRC No.29 of 2011. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, Theni after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Theni Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.44 of 2012 and subsequently made over to the trial Court. 6. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and after perusing relevant records, has framed first charge against all the accused under Section 498(A); second charge against the first accused under Section 302 and third charge against all the accused under Section 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them. The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 and 2 have been marked. 8. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused. 9. 8. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused. 9. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the first accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- with usual default clause. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused from the charges framed under Sections 498(A) and 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the first accused as appellant. 10. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. The first accused has married the deceased viz., Mariselvam prior to four years from the date of occurrence and after marriage, all of them have lived in a joint family. The first accused has run an auto electrical shop and for the purpose of extending his business, he directed the deceased to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Since her parents have refused to give the same, all the accused have used to torture the deceased and on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm, in the house of the accused, with an intention to murder the deceased, the first accused has throttled the neck of the deceased and due to his overtacts, she passed away. 11. On the side of the prosecution, the defacto complainant has been examined as PW1 and her brother and her husband have been examined as PWs.2 and 3. The doctor who conducted autopsy has been examined as PW4. The Village Administrative Officer, to whom the accused is said to have given a voluntary confession statement has been examined as PW8 and he marked Ex.P8, extra judicial confession statement of the first accused. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution has found the first accused alone guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence as mentioned in the Judgment. 12. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution has found the first accused alone guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence as mentioned in the Judgment. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused has raised the following points: (i) The complaint alleged to have been given by the defacto complainant has been marked as Ex.P1 and the same has been initially registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequently altered into section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) The concerned Revenue Divisional Officer (PW7) has conducted inquest and on the basis of available materials has found that the deceased has committed suicide. But without conducting further inquest, he has given Ex.P6, wherein it has been erroneously found that it is nothing but homicidal murder. (iii) The specific case of the prosecution is that the first accused has met the Village Administrative Officer (PW8) and he has voluntarily given extra judicial confession statement and the same has been marked as Ex.P8 and recorded after investigation and further there is no possibility on the part of the first accused to give such kind of extra judicial confession statement to PW8, since he has not known him earlier and therefore, Ex.P8 is nothing but concocted document so as to suit the convenience of the prosecution. (iv) The doctor who conducted autopsy has been examined as PW4 and his specific evidence is that he has not found any marks of fingers around the neck of the deceased. (v) The first accused has been present all along in the place of occurrence. (vi) The occurrence has taken place on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., whereas, Ex.P1 complaint has been given after a lapse of 5 hours and therefore, Ex.P1 cannot be believed in. (vii) The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused, but the prosecution has not chosen to examine neighbours. 13. (vi) The occurrence has taken place on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., whereas, Ex.P1 complaint has been given after a lapse of 5 hours and therefore, Ex.P1 cannot be believed in. (vii) The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused, but the prosecution has not chosen to examine neighbours. 13. As a repartee to the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, the defacto complainant has given clear evidence to the effect that prior to occurrence all the accused have demanded dowry and further the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused and since the first accused is the husband of the deceased, entire burden lies upon him and he has not discharged his burden and the trial Court after considering the over all circumstances available on record coupled with extra judicial confession statement viz., Ex.P8 has rightly found the appellant/first accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court need not be set aside. 14. Before contemplating the rival submissions made on either side, it has become shunless to narrate the following both factual and legal aspects. 15. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence has taken place on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., in the house of the accused. Further it is seen from Ex.P2 post-mortem certificate and Ex.P3, Final Report that the deceased would have died of mechanical asphyxia due to throttling (manual strangulation). The first accused is the husband of the deceased and since the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of accused and since the death has occurred due to manual strangulation, the first accused is bound to explain the cause of death. 16. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads as follows: “Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 17. Even a mere reading of the said section would go to show that if a person is especially having knowledge in respect of a particular aspect, the entire burden lies upon him. Even a mere reading of the said section would go to show that if a person is especially having knowledge in respect of a particular aspect, the entire burden lies upon him. In the instant case, as mentioned supra, the first accused is the husband of the deceased and the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused and in the postmortem certificate it has been clearly stated that the deceased would appear to have died of mechanical asphyxia due to throttling (manual strangulation). Therefore, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that the entire burden lies upon the first accused. But the first accused has not discharged his burden. Therefore, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is easily discernible that the first accused has committed the crime. 18. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that all the accused have accentuated the deceased to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents so as to extend the business of the first accused and since the parents of the deceased have refused to concede their demand, they caused dowry torture to the deceased. 19. It is true that the trial Court has acquitted all the accused from the charge framed under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 20. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused has contended that since a charge framed against all the accused under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved, the remaining charges have also not been proved on the side of the prosecution. In fact, this Court has perused the entire evidence given by the defacto complainant viz., PW1 and her specific evidence is that the accused have demanded money and also tortured the deceased. But the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence given by PW1 with regard to the said aspect and ultimately acquitted all the accused from the charge framed under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and that itself would not pave the way for coming to a conclusion that the remaining charges have not at all been proved. Therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused with regard to that aspect is sans merit. 21. Therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused with regard to that aspect is sans merit. 21. The first and second contentions raised on the side of the appellant/first accused are that Ex.P1 has been initially registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequently altered into Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and further, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted inquest and ultimately found that the deceased has committed suicide. But without conducting further inquest he has given Ex.P6, wherein it has been erroneously found that it is nothing but homicidal murder. 22. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/first accused, Ex.P1 has been initially registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequently altered into Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Further PW7 has also initially found that it is nothing but suicide. 23. It is an admitted fact that everything has become changed only after getting Ex.P2, postmortem certificate and Ex.P3, Final Report. Since in Exs.P2 and P3 it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased has sustained some injuries and the deceased would appear to have died of mechanical asphyxia due to throttling (manual strangulation), it is needless to say that the aforesaid contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused are of no use. 24. The third contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused is that the appellant/first accused has voluntarily given an extra judicial confession statement to PW8 and the same has been marked as Ex.P8 and recorded after investigation and further there is no possibility on the part of the first accused to give such kind of extra judicial confession statement to PW8, since he has not known him earlier. 25. It is seen from the evidence that the first accused has voluntarily given an extra judicial confession statement to PW8 wherein he admitted his guilt. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/first accused with regard to Ex.P8 is that the same has been recorded after registering the complaint. In fact this Court has perused the entire evidence adduced by PW8 and no where he admits to the effect that he knows registration of complaint. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/first accused with regard to Ex.P8 is that the same has been recorded after registering the complaint. In fact this Court has perused the entire evidence adduced by PW8 and no where he admits to the effect that he knows registration of complaint. The second attack with regard to Ex.P8 is that since the first accused has not known PW8 earlier, no possibility has arisen on the part of the appellant/first accused to give such kind of extra judicial confession. 26. It is an admitted fact that PW8 is a Village Administrative Officer. On the basis of Ex.P1, the Investigating Officer has commenced his investigation. Since the Investigating Officer has commenced investigation, only with a view to escape from clutches of Investigating officer, the appellant/first accused might have approached PW8 and voluntarily given Ex.P8. Simply because the appellant/first accused has not known him earlier, there is no embargo nor inhibition to enquire about PW8 and give Ex.P8. Therefore, the third contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused cannot be accepted. 27. The fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused is that the doctor who conducted autopsy (PW4) has not found any marks of finger around the neck of the deceased. 28. The specific evidence given by PW4 is that the deceased would appear to have died of mechanical asphyxia due to throttling (manual strangulation). Since the specific evidence given by PW4 to the effect that death has occurred only due to manual strangulation, absence of marks of finger around the neck of the deceased would not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further it is depending upon the time of conducting postmortem. Therefore, the fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused is of no use. 29. The fifth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused is that the appellant/first accused has been present all along in the place of occurrence. 30. Simply because the appellant/first accused has been present all along in the place of occurrence, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that he is not a culprit. As pointed out earlier, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, entire burden lies upon him. But he has not discharged the same. 30. Simply because the appellant/first accused has been present all along in the place of occurrence, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that he is not a culprit. As pointed out earlier, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, entire burden lies upon him. But he has not discharged the same. Therefore, there is no incertitude in coming to a conclusion that after committing crime, the appellant/first accused might have feigned as if he has had no connection whatsoever with the crime. Therefore, his mere presence would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that he has had no connection whatsoever with the crime. Under the said circumstances, the fifth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused is useless. 31. The sixth and seventh contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused are that the occurrence has taken place on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., whereas Ex.P1, complaint has been given after five hours and further, neighbours have not been examined. 32. The specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 17.06.2010 at about 03.15 pm., But Ex.P1 has been given after a lapse of five hours. Simply because Ex.P1 has been given belatedly, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Ex.P1 is a concocted document. Further, the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the accused and no possibility has arisen on the part of neighbours to witness the same. Under the said circumstances, non-examination of neighbours is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, all the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/first accused cannot be accepted. 33. It has already been pointed out that with regard to demand of dowry, PW1 has given clinching evidence. But the trial Court has failed to appreciate the same. Even assuming that there is no specific evidence with regard to demand of dowry, as pointed out earlier, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, entire burden lies upon the appellant/first accused. But he has not discharged the same and further even if Ex.P8, extra judicial confession statement is inadmissible in evidence, as pointed out in many places, the first accused has not discharged his burden as contemplated under the said Section. Therefore, it is needless to say that the appellant/first accused has committed the murder. 34. But he has not discharged the same and further even if Ex.P8, extra judicial confession statement is inadmissible in evidence, as pointed out in many places, the first accused has not discharged his burden as contemplated under the said Section. Therefore, it is needless to say that the appellant/first accused has committed the murder. 34. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has rightly found the appellant/first accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal premise, this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and altogether the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 35. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.44 of 2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps so as to incarcerate the appellant/first accused in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.