JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2015 and 5.6.2015, respectively, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 1/13 (regd. No. 42/14), whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Co-accused Sahabdeen and Sardaro Begum were acquitted of the offence charged against them. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 19.8.2012 Mohd. Raffi telephonically informed Police Station Tissa that Muzaffar Khan has killed his wife with gunshot. S.I./Addl SHO Dharam Singh (PW-13) alongwith ASI Ravinder Singh and others proceeded to the spot. The statement of Abdul Majeed was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ext. PW-1/A. He was working on daily wages in Public Works Department. His eldest daughter is Reena Begum. His daughter Reena Begum(deceased) was married with Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari about one and a half month back as per Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage his daughter came to his house 2-3 times with her husband and stated that her husband used to quarrel on trivial issues. He used to taunt her that she has not brought any dowry nor she is doing the household work. He also used to say that if she will speak out, he would shot her with a gun. He had also advised his son-in-law not to pick up quarrels with his daughter. On 19.8.2012 at about 7:00 AM, he was sleeping in his house. He heard the noise near the house of his daughter Reena Begum. On hearing the noise, he and his wife Smt. Shamshad Begum went to the spot. They went to the room of Reena Begum. Mohd. Farooq, Mohd. On 19.8.2012 at about 7:00 AM, he was sleeping in his house. He heard the noise near the house of his daughter Reena Begum. On hearing the noise, he and his wife Smt. Shamshad Begum went to the spot. They went to the room of Reena Begum. Mohd. Farooq, Mohd. Hanu and Pradhan Dilawar Mohd were present on the spot. Pradhan Dilawar told that Muzaffar Khan has killed his wife with gun and ran away from the spot. He saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the cot. He noticed bullet mark on her right breast. Many persons had assembled there. His daughter was killed by Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari with gun of his father Sahabdeen. On 19.8.2012, SI Dharam Singh handed over rukka Ext. PW-1/A to Const. Rakesh Kumar (PW-6) for taking the same to Police Station Tissa. Thereafter, FIR Ext. PW-5/B was registered. The spot map was prepared. In the ground floor of the house of the accused persons there were three rooms. In the third room a gun SBML length about 53 inch with iron rod and string bearing body No. 6263 with which the accused Muzaffar Khan killed his wife was recovered and sealed in pulinda with 15 seal impressions of seal “V”. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-2/C. During the course of investigation, it revealed that co-accused Sahabdeen after the gun shot removed the gun from the room of accused Muzaffar and kept it in another room. Blood stains were cleaned by Sardaro Begum, wife of accused Sahabdeen with the help of duster and both Sahabdeen as well as his wife caused disappearance of the evidence. The post mortem report is Ext. PW-11/B. Viscera and case property were taken into possession and sent for chemical examination. Reports of RFSL, Mandi Ext. PX and RFSL, Dharamshala Ext. PY were obtained. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 2.6.2015 and 5.6.2015, respectively. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Abdul Mazid deposed that Reena Begum (deceased) was his eldest daughter. His daughter Reena Begum(deceased) was married with Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari about one and a half month back, as per Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage his daughter visited his house 2-3 times with her husband. She told that her husband used to quarrel on trivial issues and threatened to kill her. He used to taunt his daughter that she has not brought sufficient dowry nor she is doing the household work. He had also advised his son-in-law not to pick up quarrel with his daughter. On 19.8.2012 at about 6:45-7:00 O’ Clock, while he was asleep, he heard the noise near the house of his daughter Reena Begum. On hearing the noise, he and his wife Smt. Shamshad Begum went to the spot. Many other persons had also gathered there. They went to the room of Reena Begum. Mohd. Farooq, Mohd. Hanu and Pradhan Dilawar Mohd had reached there. These persons told him that Muzaffar Khan has killed his wife with a gun and ran away from the spot. He saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the cot and there was a bullet shot mark on her right breast. Her clothes were torn. There were no exit wounds in the body of his daughter. There was smell of gun shot fire in the room where she was lying dead. The father of his son-in-law was licence holder of the gun with which his daughter was killed. His cousin Mohd. Raffi informed the police over phone. The police reached the spot within half an hour and recorded his statement Ext. There was smell of gun shot fire in the room where she was lying dead. The father of his son-in-law was licence holder of the gun with which his daughter was killed. His cousin Mohd. Raffi informed the police over phone. The police reached the spot within half an hour and recorded his statement Ext. PW-1/A. He noticed that his son-in-law, accused Muzaffar ran away from the spot and his father accused Sahabdeen followed to nab him. Accused Sahabdeen returned to the spot after 10-15 minutes but his son-in-law was not found by him since he absconded. The police also inspected the spot Earlier, the incumbents of the house, including accused were reluctant to produce the gun but when police threatened to take stringent action, accused Sahabdeen produced the gun in question from the adjoining room, where his daughter was lying dead. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in the month of August, maize is sown. He denied that maize crop was about to ripe. He also denied that maize crop is generally harvested in the month of August. He denied that owners burst crackers and fire gun shots to scare Bears and Monkeys away from maize fields. Volunteered that there is no forest area nearby. The forest is about 1 km. away from the maize fields of accused. There was no one in the room where occurrence had taken place except his son-in-law and deceased daughter. He denied the suggestion that relations between his daughter and his son-in-law were very cordial. He denied the suggestion that when the family of accused Sahabdeen including his accused son, daughter-inlaw and wife were proceeding to their maize fields and before departing accused Muzaffar had loaded ammunition in the gun and it got fired accidently and bullet hit her breast leading to her death. 7. PW-2 Dilawar Mohd. is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Khushnagari. According to him, on 19.8.2012 in the morning around 6:35-6:45 AM, he heard some noise while he was strolling in the courtyard of his house. Noise was heard from the house of accused Sahabdeen. He rushed to the house of accused. On reaching there, he found Mohd. Hanu and Mohd. Farooq standing at the door in the house of accused Sahabdeen where accused Muzaffar and his wife used to live in the ground floor. After entering the house, he found Reena Begum lying dead. Mohd. Noise was heard from the house of accused Sahabdeen. He rushed to the house of accused. On reaching there, he found Mohd. Hanu and Mohd. Farooq standing at the door in the house of accused Sahabdeen where accused Muzaffar and his wife used to live in the ground floor. After entering the house, he found Reena Begum lying dead. Mohd. Farooq told him that he heard noise of gun shot from the room of accused Muzaffar. The dead body of Reena Begum was lifted from the floor and placed on the double bed. He found gunshot injuries on right side of her breast and her clothes were torn and he noticed gun shot wound. He was told by Mohd. Farooq and accused Sahabdeen that accused Muzaffar after firing gun shot had run away and could not be traced. Mohd. Raffi informed the police. The gun was produced by accused Sahabdeen from the adjoining room where Reena Begum was lying dead. Half burnt clothes, supposed to have been used as cork in the gun were found lying on the floor near the dead body which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. The gun was produced by accused Sahabdeen. It was taken into possession by police and sealed in parcel Ext. P-1. The gun is Ext. P-2. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he had seen accused Sardaro standing in the corridor of first floor while accused Sahabdeen had gone to chase his accused son. He denied the suggestion that Reena Begum died since she was sitting in the opposite direction while ammunition in the gun was being filled up by accused Muzaffar and his finger got slipped on the trigger and resulted into accidental gun fire shot. He also deposed that had the trigger been pressed accidently, the accused would not have run away from the spot and would have stayed back to take care of his wife or to take her to the hospital for immediate medical treatment. 8. PW-3 Gulab Deen deposed that in his presence and of Pak Mohd., Munnawar Khan produced one black coloured bag containing silver bottle having gun powder and another small bottle containing potassium and besides this one gun licence having photograph of accused Sahabdeen. All these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ext. 8. PW-3 Gulab Deen deposed that in his presence and of Pak Mohd., Munnawar Khan produced one black coloured bag containing silver bottle having gun powder and another small bottle containing potassium and besides this one gun licence having photograph of accused Sahabdeen. All these articles were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-3/A. He denied the suggestion, in his cross-examination, that the relations between accused Muzaffar Khan and Reena Begum were cordial. 9. PW-4 Mohd. Hanu is the material witness. He deposed that on 19.8.2012, he heard gunshot noise in the morning around 6:45 AM from the side of house of accused Muzaffar Khan. Accused Muzaffar Khan has two storeyed house and he used to reside on the ground floor with his family. First floor of the house was in occupation of his parents. On hearing gunshot, he rushed to the house of accused Muzaffar Khan. He entered the room and found that wife of accused Muzaffar Khan was lying unconscious. She was lying with her back on the floor and face upwards. He noticed gunshot wound on the right side of her breast. In the meanwhile, Farooq Khan also arrived there. Parents of victim along with Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and 5-6 persons also came on the spot. He tried to provide water to victim but she could not take it and water spilled on the floor. Thereafter, he alongwith Farooq and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat lifted victim Reena Begum and placed her on the double bed. 10. PW-5 HC Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 19.8.2012 SI Dharam Chand handed over to him case property, including SBML gun and another parcel stated to be containing half burnt cloth pieces duly sealed with seal “S”, which he entered at Sr. No. 225 in the Malkhana Register No. 19. On 21.8.2012, Const. Deepak Kumar handed over to him two parcels containing viscera and clothes of deceased Reena Begum alongwith two envelopes addressed to RFSL, Dharamshala and RFSL, Mandi which he entered at Sr. No. 226 in the Malkhana register. On the same day, SI Dharam Chand also handed over two small parcels containing gun powder and potash duly sealed with seal impression of “D”, which he entered at Sr. No. 227 of Malkhana register. 11. PW-8 HC Kailash Chand deposed that on 27.8.2012, he sent case property i.e. five parcels alongwith envelope addressed to the Director RFSL, Mandi through Const. No. 227 of Malkhana register. 11. PW-8 HC Kailash Chand deposed that on 27.8.2012, he sent case property i.e. five parcels alongwith envelope addressed to the Director RFSL, Mandi through Const. Yog Raj vide RC No. 106/12. One sealed parcel said to be containing gun, 2nd sealed parcel containing half burnt clothes, 3rd containing silver bottle having gun powder, 4th containing potassium and 5th containing clothes worn by the deceased and a pellet recovered from her body alongwith docket, copy of FIR, etc were sent to RFSL, Mandi. He also sent one parcel containing viscera to RFSL, Dharamshala. 12. PW-10 Const. Yog Raj deposed that on 27.8.2012, HC Kailash Chand handed over to him five parcels duly sealed with sample seals and an envelope addressed to Director, RFSL, Mandi vide RC No. 106 of 2012 to hand over the same at RFSL, Mandi. On 28.8.2012, he handed over these articles at RFSL, Mandi and handed over the receipt on his return to MHC, PS Tissa. 13. PW-11 Dr. Chandan Verma has conducted the post mortem. His report is Ext. PW-11/B. According to him, the cause of death was gun shot injury on chest leading to injuries to vital organ and hemorrhage in thoracic cavity, leading to shock and death. The pellet recovered was put in parcel and sealed with seals of CHC Tissa, bearing CTH alongwith clothes. Viscera of deceased Reena Begum was preserved and put in a container and sealed with the seals. 14. PW-12 Const. Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 27.8.2012 MHC Kailash Chand handed over to him one parcel sealed with six impressions of CHC Tissa alongwith envelope duly sealed addressed to RFSL, Dharamshala vide RC No. 107/12. He deposited the same with RFSL, Dharamshala on 28.8.2012. 15. PW-13 SI Dharam Singh is the I.O. According to him, a telephonic message was received at PS Tissa on 19.8.2012 from Mohd. Raffi. He proceeded to the spot alongwith ASI Ravinder Kumar, HC Hakam Chand etc. The Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat alongwith other residents was also present on the spot. Photographs were clicked. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Abdul Mazid under Section 154 Cr.PC vide Ext. PW-1/A. The FIR was registered. The case property, including gun was taken into possession. The spot map was also prepared. The Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat alongwith other residents was also present on the spot. Photographs were clicked. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Abdul Mazid under Section 154 Cr.PC vide Ext. PW-1/A. The FIR was registered. The case property, including gun was taken into possession. The spot map was also prepared. He also deposed that during the course of investigation, it was noticed that accused Muzaffar Khan after marriage used to pick up quarrels with his deceased wife and later on killed her with a gun. 16. PW-1 Abdul Mazid has deposed that Reena Begum (since deceased) was his eldest daughter. She was married with accused Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari about one and a half month back to the date of occurrence. On 19.8.2012 at about 6:45-7:00 O’ Clock, while he was asleep, he heard the noise of gun shots emanating from the residence of his daughter Reena Begum. On hearing the noise, he and his wife Smt. Shamshad Begum rushed to the spot. Many persons had also gathered there. They went to the room of Reena Begum. Pradhan Dilawar Mohd had already reached on the spot. These persons told him that Muzaffar Khan, his son-in-law has killed his wife with a gunshot and ran away from the spot and accused Sahabdeen followed to nab him. He had noticed bullet injuries on right side of the breasts of his daughter. He has categorically deposed that there was no one in the room where occurrence had taken place except his son-in-law and deceased daughter. He denied the suggestion that the fire has taken place accidently. The statement of PW-1 Abdul Mazid has been corroborated by PW-2 Dilawar Mohammad. He was Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Khushnagari. According to him, on 19.8.2012, in the morning at around 6:35-6:45 AM, he heard some noise while he was strolling in the courtyard of his house. Noise was heard from the house of accused Sahabdeen. He reached the spot and found gun shot injuries on right side of breast of deceased Reena Begum and her clothes were torn and the gun shot wound was visible. He was told by Mohd. Farooq and accused Sahabdeen that accused Muzaffar after firing had run away and could not be nabbed. Mohd. Raffi informed the police. In his presence, the gun Ext. He was told by Mohd. Farooq and accused Sahabdeen that accused Muzaffar after firing had run away and could not be nabbed. Mohd. Raffi informed the police. In his presence, the gun Ext. P-2 was produced by accused Sahabdeen from the adjoining room where Reena Begum’s body was lying. Half burnt clothes supposed to have been used as cork in the gun were found lying on the floor near the dead body which were taken into possession by the police. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Reena Begum died since she was sitting in the opposite direction while ammunition in the gun was being filled up by accused Muzaffar and his finger got slipped on the trigger which resulted into accidental gun fire. 17. PW-4 Mohd. Hanu also heard gunshot and reached the house of accused. He deposed that accused Muzaffar Khan has two storeyed house and he lives in the ground floor with his family. His parents reside in first floor. He entered the room and found that wife of accused Muzaffar Khan was lying unconscious. He noticed gunshot wound on the right side of her breast. In the meantime, Farooq Khan also reached on the spot. The parents of victim along with Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and 5-6 persons also came on the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith Farooq and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat lifted victim Reena Begum and placed her on the double bed. 18. The cause of death, as per the post mortem report Ext. PW- 11/B, was gunshot injury to vital organ and hemorrhage in thoracic cavity leading to shock and death. PW-11 Dr. Chandan Verma has categorically deposed that wounds noticed on the person of deceased Reena Begum during her post mortem, in his opinion, could have been caused by gun. Gun Ext. P-2 was shown to him in the Court. According to PW-11 Dr. Chandan Verma, penetrating gunshot wound was noticed at right breast. The pellet recovered was measuring 6 mm in diameter and 5 mm in length from superior border of spleen and posterior chest wall. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 5-6 hours. According to the RFSL report, Ext. PX, gunshot fire discharge residues have been detected in the barrel of Ext. E/1 (SBML) gun. The gunshot fire discharge residues have been detected on Ext. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 5-6 hours. According to the RFSL report, Ext. PX, gunshot fire discharge residues have been detected in the barrel of Ext. E/1 (SBML) gun. The gunshot fire discharge residues have been detected on Ext. E/2 (semi burnt cloth pieces). Ext. E/2 (semi burnt cloth pieces) could have been fired from Ext. E/1 (SBML) gun. Black powder found in Ext. E/3 (metallic container containing black powder) was found to be gun powder. Gun powder found in Ext. E/3 (metallic container containing black powder) was different from the pink colour powder found in Ext. E/4a (a cartridge like shaped container). Ext. E/5a was lead pellet and could have been fired from Ext. E/1 (SBML) gun. Ext. E/2 (semi cloth pieces) and Ext. E/4b (cloth piece) were found similar on the basis of colour, texture and burning test. 19. Thus, it is conclusively proved, as per the testimonies of the witnesses, as discussed hereinabove and the FSL report Ext. PX, that the deceased was shot by the accused with gun. The deceased was married only one and a half months back. She used to complain that accused used to pick up quarrels with her on trivial issues. He used to chide her for bringing insufficient dowry. According to the evidence available on record, the accused used to live with his wife on the ground floor. The parents were residing on the first floor. The plea that the deceased died due to accidental fire cannot be believed. The accused also ran away from the spot. His father Sahabdeen tried to chase him but could not be nabbed. In case, the death was caused by accidental fire, the accused should have stayed back and taken his wife to hospital. 20. There were only two persons in the room and it was for the accused to explain as to what happened in the room. 21. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu alias Balasubramaniam vrs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 60 , have held that the appellant-accused husband’s failure to give plausible explanation as to how his wife living with him died in matrimonial home during his presence, this circumstance would add up to other proved circumstances which substantiate prosecution case against the accused. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 60 , have held that the appellant-accused husband’s failure to give plausible explanation as to how his wife living with him died in matrimonial home during his presence, this circumstance would add up to other proved circumstances which substantiate prosecution case against the accused. It has been held as follows: “21. It is also pertinent to note that PW-5 Dr. Rajabalan stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused 10 to 12 hours prior to the post-mortem. We have already stated that the post-mortem was conducted at 5.00 p.m. Thus, the death occurred around 6.00 a.m. The death occurred in the house where the deceased resided with A1-Babu. Presence of the accused at 6.00 a.m. in the house is natural. Besides, it is not contended by A1-Babu that he was not present in the house when the incident occurred. To this fact situation, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is attracted. As to how the deceased received injuries to her head and how she died must be within the exclusive personal knowledge of A1-Babu. It was for him to explain how the death occurred. He has not given any plausible explanation for the death of the deceased in such suspicious circumstances in the house in which he resided with her and when he was admittedly present in the house at the material time. This circumstance must be kept in mind while dealing with this case. We are mindful of the fact that this would not relieve the prosecution of its burden of proving its case. But, it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, has offered an explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. In this case, in our opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the death of the deceased was homicidal and A1-Babu was responsible for it. A1-Babu could have by virtue of his special knowledge regarding the said facts offered an explanation from which a different inference could have been drawn. In this case, in our opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the death of the deceased was homicidal and A1-Babu was responsible for it. A1-Babu could have by virtue of his special knowledge regarding the said facts offered an explanation from which a different inference could have been drawn. Since he has not done so, this circumstance adds up to other circumstances which substantiate the prosecution case.” 22. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Vithal Patil vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 516 , have held that when prosecution establishes facts from which reasonable inference could be drawn that deceased committed suicide, appellant should have, by virtue of his special knowledge regarding those facts offered an explanation which might drive court to draw different inference. Since the appellant has failed to prove facts which were especially within his knowledge, adverse inference can be drawn against him. It has been held as follows: “21. There is also another angle to this case. The prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide by jumping in the river along with her daughter. The deceased was in the custody of the appellant. She left the appellant’s house with the small child. Admittedly, neither the appellant nor any member of his family lodged any missing complaint. The appellant straightway went to the house of the deceased to enquire about her. This conduct is strange. When his wife and small child had left the house and were not traceable the appellant was expected to move heaven and earth to trace them. As to when and why the deceased left the house and how she died in suspicious circumstances was within the special knowledge of the appellant. When the prosecution established facts from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide, the appellant should have, by virtue of his special knowledge regarding those facts, offered an explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. The burden of proving those facts was on the appellant as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act but the appellant has not discharged the same leading to an adverse inference being drawn against him (See: Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr. The burden of proving those facts was on the appellant as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act but the appellant has not discharged the same leading to an adverse inference being drawn against him (See: Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Babu alias Balasubramaniam)” 23. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Thakur Singh, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 211 , have held that since the facts relevant to cause of death being only known to accused and he not explaining them, principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, would be clearly applicable. It has been held as follows: “15. We find that the High Court has not at all considered the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.1 This section provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said: “This [Section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.” 17. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.” 17. In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra this Court held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was said: “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 place 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.” 18. Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra in which case the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 19. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra this Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.” 24. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alber Oraon vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 306 , have held that in a case where murder was committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden of proving innocence would be on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. It has been held as follows: “[6] Trimukh v. State, 2006 10 SCC 681 was justifiable and correctly relied upon inasmuch as this Court opined that – "Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside the 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 corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give the cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed." Reliance has correctly been placed on the subsequent decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar v. State, 2007 1 SCC 433 , State v. Jaggu, 2008 12 SCC 51 , Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2009 10 SCC 434 , and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, 2008 13 SCC 767 .” 25. Thus, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 2/5.6.2015. 26. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.