JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 11th of March, 2013, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under : Chambharu Mohan Raut (PW 1) is the father of deceased Maheshwari. Her marriage was solemnized with the appellant in the month of May, 2011. Chambharu lodged his oral report (Exh.9) on 10th of June, 1992 with the Police Station Duggipar of district Gondia. The said report was disclosing a commission of a cognizable offence, hence a Crime was registered vide Crime No.57 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 3. In the report it is stated by the first informant that after marriage deceased Maheshwari started residing with the appellant. They used to reside at Saoner and the appellant was working with a Contractor for Centering work. In 2012, at the time of 'Rangapanchami', deceased and the appellant came to the first informant's house. That time, it was disclosed by the deceased to him as well her mother that the appellant is having illicit relations with somebody and on that count he is maltreating her. On 6th of June, 2012, there was obsequies in the house of the appellant and therefore, the first informant went to Palasgaon, the ancestral village of the appellant. That time, the first informant noticed that the deceased was under tension. After attending the obsequies the first informant proceeded towards his village. On 10th of June, 2012, he received an information on his mobile phone about the death of his daughter. Therefore, immediately he along with his relatives went to Palasgaon. On reaching Palasgaon he noticed certain marks around the neck of his daughter and therefore he made enquiry with the appellant. That time, the appellant confessed that since the deceased Maheshwari was taking suspicion, therefore, he has strangulated her by nylon rope. 4. The investigation of Crime No.57 of 2012 was entrusted to PSI Umrao Landge (PW 10). On reaching Palasgaon he noticed certain marks around the neck of his daughter and therefore he made enquiry with the appellant. That time, the appellant confessed that since the deceased Maheshwari was taking suspicion, therefore, he has strangulated her by nylon rope. 4. The investigation of Crime No.57 of 2012 was entrusted to PSI Umrao Landge (PW 10). He visited the spot of the incident i.e. the house of the appellant. A panchanama (Exh.19) of the house was drawn. He also conducted inquest over the dead body vide inquest Panchanama (Exh.26). He then forwarded the dead body to Primary Health Center at Saundad for Postmortem. He also caused arrest of the appellant. During the police custody remand the appellant agreed to show the rope which he had concealed. The said memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded by the Investigating Officer in presence of panchas. The admissible portion of the said statement is at Exh.27. The nylon rope was seized from the house of the appellant which was kept behind the Cooler. The seizure panchamama of the same is at Exh.28. The Muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. After completion of the investigation, Chargesheet was filed. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions as offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The case was registered as Session Trial No.76 of 2012 after its committal. The learned Sessions Judge, Gondia framed Charge against the appellant. The appellant denied the Charge and claimed for his trial. The prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses to prove the Charge. After a full fledged trial, the learned Judge of the Court below found that the appellant was guilty and therefore, convicted him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. When this appeal was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellant. In view of the following observations of their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1485 (S.C.): “It is not obligatory on the part of the Appellate Court in all circumstances to engage amicus curiae in a criminal appeal to argue on behalf of the accused failing which the judgment rendered by the High Court would be absolutely unsustainable. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1485 (S.C.): “It is not obligatory on the part of the Appellate Court in all circumstances to engage amicus curiae in a criminal appeal to argue on behalf of the accused failing which the judgment rendered by the High Court would be absolutely unsustainable. It is one thing to say that the court should have appointed an amicus curiae and it is another thing to say that the court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of a counsel for the accused and that too even if he deliberately does not appear or shows a negligent attitude in putting his appearance to argue the matter. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court should not have decided the appeal on its merits without the presence of the counsel does not deserve acceptance.” We have scrutinized the evidence with the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. From the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to the appellant, the death is suicidal one or due to the asthma from which deceased was suffering. 7. Two doctors performed postmortem of deceased Maheshwari. They are, Dr. Jaiprakash Ramchandra Shende (PW 8) and Dr. Suresh Anurath Mane (PW 11). The dead body was forwarded to Primary Health Centre, Saundad by Police Officer Duggipar. Both these doctors at the relevant time were serving as Medical Officer of the said Primary Health Centre. On 10th of June, 2012, these two doctors jointly conducted Postmortem examination of dead body of Maheshwari. They noticed that rigor mortis were not present. The Postmortem lividity was present over buttock back and thigh. Face was swollen, cynosed, blue, purple in colour, eyes were close, tongue was inside the mouth. They noticed following external injuries:- i. Ligature encircled the neck horizontally, at lower thyroid level. Ligature mark situated from below right ear to left ear, 30 cm. in length and 2.05 cm. in width. ii. Knot mark found below left ear single, no abrasions, neck was not stretched. iii. Injury to carotid artery cartilage and muscle of larynx and trachea were depressed and injured. iv. Subcutaneous tissue under the ligature ecchymosed, there were two circles on both side of neck. in length and 2.05 cm. in width. ii. Knot mark found below left ear single, no abrasions, neck was not stretched. iii. Injury to carotid artery cartilage and muscle of larynx and trachea were depressed and injured. iv. Subcutaneous tissue under the ligature ecchymosed, there were two circles on both side of neck. According to the Autopsy Surgeon, deceased died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. The Postmortem report is at Exh.22. Dr. Suresh Mane (PW 11) also received a communication (Exh.29) from Investigating Officer along with the nylon rope to give his opinion as to whether the death is possible by the said nylon rope. On examination of the said rope, Dr. Mane gave his opinion (Exh.34) and opined that the strangulation can be caused by the said rope. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been stated by the appellant that when the couple was residing at Saoner that time she has attempted to commit suicide thereby he suggested that the death might be due to suicide. This theory of the appellant has no foundation. Further, the two Autopsy Surgeons specifically deposed before the Court that death is due to strangulation. The findings of these two doctors are hardly challenged by the appellant when these two doctors were under the cross-examination of the defence. 8. Further, from the line of cross-examination of Ramcharan Raut (PW 2) it appears that a suggestion was given to this witness that Maheshwari was a patient of Asthma and she was taking treatment for the same from Dr. Patle (PW 5) and therefore, according to the appellant, she died natural death, which was, of course, denied by him. When Dr. Patle was in the witness box he would have been the best person to throw the light on the said aspect. Nothing was brought on record through Dr. Patle when he was under the cross-examination of learned defence counsel. In that view of the matter, and in view of the evidence of two autopsy Surgeons, we are of the view that death of Maheshwari was homicidal one. 9. The consequent question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellant is responsible for homicidal death of Maheshwari. 10. Appellant is the husband of the deceased. Admittedly, their marriage was performed in the month of May, 2011. 9. The consequent question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellant is responsible for homicidal death of Maheshwari. 10. Appellant is the husband of the deceased. Admittedly, their marriage was performed in the month of May, 2011. It is also not in dispute that at the time of death the couple was residing in the house at Palasgaon. The spot panchanama (Exh.19) and Map (Exh.24) drawn by Motiram Gaidhane (PW 9), A Circle Officer, show that the place of the occurrence is inside the house of the appellant i.e. his bed room. 11. According to the prosecution, there is an immediate extrajudicial confession by the appellant to four prosecution witnesses. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that no explanation is offered by the appellant and therefore, the present case is squarely covered under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. Four persons to whom immediate confession was made are; (1) Chambharu Mohan Raut (PW 1), the first informant, (2) Ramcharan Tularam Raut (PW 2), neighbour, (3) Chandrabhan Dayaram Kursunge (PW 4), neighbour, and (4) Dr. Bhumeshwar Patle (PW 5), who was called to the house of the appellant. 13. PW 1 Chambharu Raut is the father of the deceased. He received information about the death of his daughter on 10th of June, 2012 and that required him to proceed to Palasgaon. On reaching at Palasgaon, he has inquired with appellant as to “what had happened”. Upon that, the appellant disclosed that he has strangulated Maheshwari by using nylon rope since she was raising suspicion that he is having extramarital relationship with somebody. 14. When this prosecution witness reached to the house of his son-in-law and noticed the dead body of his daughter therefore it was most natural on his part to make an enquiry with the appellant. There is nothing unusual or unnatural in making such an enquiry. After getting the reply from the appellant to his enquiry, he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged the report. Thus, at the first available opportunity itself the confession made by the appellant was informed to the police authority. 15. PW 2 Ramcharan Tularam Raut is having his house adjacent to the house of the appellant. After getting the reply from the appellant to his enquiry, he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged the report. Thus, at the first available opportunity itself the confession made by the appellant was informed to the police authority. 15. PW 2 Ramcharan Tularam Raut is having his house adjacent to the house of the appellant. On 10th of June, 2012 at about 6 a.m. when he and the father of the appellant were talking, that time, the mother of the accused came and informed them that Maheshwari was not well. Therefore, Ramcharan, the father of accused and one Karu Shahare visited the house of the appellant. That time, Ramcharan Raut (PW 2) noticed that Maheshwari was lying on the ground and therefore he sprinkled water on Maheshwari. Thereafter, Dr. Patle (PW 5) was called and he came there and after examining he declared that Maheshwari is dead. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has admitted all the facts as referred to above by Ramcharan Raut (PW 2). Ramcharan's evidence further states that the appellant disclosed that he has strangulated Maheshwari by nylon rope. The prosecution has examined another neighbour Chandrabhan Kursunge (PW 4). His evidence shows that when he was going for morning walk he noticed certain persons going to the house of the appellant. Therefore, he also visited the house of the appellant. That time, he noticed the dead body of one lady. Thereafter he went to his house. He also met the appellant on the road and asked him as to what happened, that time, it was disclosed to him by the appellant that he has killed his wife by nylon rope. The appellant has also admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the presence of this prosecution witness at his house. Not only that, he has also admitted that he had gone near Chandrabhan (PW 4) when he was standing on the road. 16. Dr. Bhumeshwar Patle (PW 5) is also examined by the prosecution. He was called to the house of the appellant. After examining Maheshwari he declared her to be dead. To him also, the appellant has made a confession in respect of his culpability to the crime. 17. A conviction can be secured and maintained on the basis of the extrajudicial confession. Bhumeshwar Patle (PW 5) is also examined by the prosecution. He was called to the house of the appellant. After examining Maheshwari he declared her to be dead. To him also, the appellant has made a confession in respect of his culpability to the crime. 17. A conviction can be secured and maintained on the basis of the extrajudicial confession. The law on the said issue is very crystal. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed in the case of Chattar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2009 SC 378 , as under :- “18. An extrajudicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” In the present case, at the time of confession to the prosecution witness, the appellant was a free man. On noticing the dead body, prosecution witnesses nos.1, 2 and 4 only asked as to what happened. On noticing the dead body, prosecution witnesses nos.1, 2 and 4 only asked as to what happened. Their reaction to the situation was most natural. Therefore, it is clear that the confession was not solicited by these prosecution witnesses from the appellant. It is the appellant who has voluntarily made confession to them and at the time of making such confession, from the evidence it is clear that no pressure was exerted on him. Therefore, we are of the view that the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant are reliable and can safely be relied upon. 18. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was performed in May, 2011 whereas the death has occurred on 10th of June, 2012. The death was occurred in the bedroom of the appellant. Thus, the crime was committed inside the four walls. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant. In that view of the matter, it would be useful to refer the observations of Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 as under : “If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. 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 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.” 19. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the deceased was residing with the appellant and she was not suffering from any ailment and when her dead body was found in the bedroom of the appellant, the reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the appellant is responsible for her homicidal death. Such inference can be disrupted if the appellant would tell the Court what else happened to Maheshwari ? 20. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, in our view, inevitable conclusion is that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is dismissed.