JUDGMENT : V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1. The appellant – State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31st July, 1995, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.67 of 1987. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-original accused under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:- Deceased – Nirmala Ramchandra Lokhande was the wife of the respondent. The respondent, his wife-Nirmala and their son-Sudhir were residing at Mangalwar Peth, Satara. Sudhir was about 6 years old at the time of the incident. The respondent was addicted to liquor and used to assault his wife - Nirmala daily. The incident had occurred on the night between 27th February and 28th February, 1987. The respondent, his wife and their son were in the house. At about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., neighbours heard shouts of the respondent – accused. The respondent stated 'what have you done'. The neighbours came to the room of the respondent. They saw that the door of the room of the respondent was shut. The door was locked from inside. The respondent opened the door of the house after 2 to 3 minutes. The neighbours noticed that the body of the wife of the respondent was lying in the room. The body was burnt. The clothes were also burnt. The body was motionless. The neighbours asked the respondent to lodge FIR. Thereafter, the respondent lodged FIR. The body was sent for postmortem. PW.6-PSI, Madhukar Nanasaheb Kava the collected advance medical certificate. This disclosed that it was a case of murder. Hence, on behalf of the State, he lodged FIR (Exhibit-38). Thereafter, investigation commenced. On the very same day i.e. 28th February, 1987, the respondent came to be arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the respondent under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. His further defence is that his wife committed suicide and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Charge came to be framed against the respondent under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. His further defence is that his wife committed suicide and he has been falsely implicated in this case. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent – accused of all the charges, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned A.P.P for the Appellant - State and Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for the respondent - accused. We have carefully considered their submissions, Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the same, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has taken an extremely perverse view and acquitted the respondent – accused. 5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the present case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. One of the main circumstance against the respondent – accused is that the respondent, his wife – Nirmala and their son were in the house on the night between 27th February and 28th February, 1987. Their son was just six years old at the time of the incident. In the morning, the respondent was heard shouting. Then the neighbours arrived on the spot. They saw that the door of the house of the respondent was locked from inside. The respondent then opened the door after few minutes and came out. At that time, the wife of the respondent was seen lying in the house with extensive burn injuries. PW.3 – Begam Noormahamad Shaikh and PW.4 – Dilip Baburao Shedage have deposed to the above effect. PW.3 – Begam had stated that she knew the respondent. Behind her room was the room of one Mahiboob and the room of the respondent was adjoining to the room of Mahiboob. Begam had stated that on the day of the incident at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. she heard the shouts of the respondent. He shouted 'what have you done'. She then went to the room of the respondent. Dilip Shedage (PW.4) and some other persons had also come there. Begam had stated that on the day of the incident at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. she heard the shouts of the respondent. He shouted 'what have you done'. She then went to the room of the respondent. Dilip Shedage (PW.4) and some other persons had also come there. She saw that the door of the room of the respondent was shut. It was locked from inside. After 2 to 3 minutes, the respondent opened the door of the room. They then noticed that the body of the wife of the respondent was lying in the room. It was burnt. Her clothes were also burnt. The body was motionless. Begam asked the respondent to report to the police. 6. PW.4 – Dilip Baburao Shedage has stated that at 6.00 a.m. he heard the respondent shouting 'what have you done'. Therefore, he, PW.3 – Begam and others came to the room of the respondent. The door of the room was closed from inside. Dilip knocked on the door. The respondent opened the door. Dilip noticed smoke in the room and also noticed that the wife of the respondent was lying in the room and she had sustained burn injuries. They told the respondent to report to the police. 7. Not only does the evidence of PW.3 – Begam and PW.4 – Dilip show that the wife of the respondent and the respondent were inside the room, the door was locked from inside, when the respondent opened the door and came out, the wife of the respondent was seen lying in the room with burn injuries and the body was motionless but the respondent himself has also admitted the place, time and his presence in the house at the relevant time. 8. We would now like to advert to the medical evidence. PW.8 – Dr. Raokhande performed the postmortem of the dead body of Nirmala. He has stated that he found a stab wound over left iliac fossa 6 cm X 4 cm penetrating through all layers of abdomen. The depth of the injury was 2.5 cm coils of small intestine over anterior abdominal wall. Coil of intestine charred. Dr. Raokhande has stated that the injury was possible with knife. Dr.Raokhande noticed deep burns over body except below knee joint of both the legs. Percentage of burns 82%. No vesication i.e. blisters suggestive of post mortem burns were seen. Dr. Coil of intestine charred. Dr. Raokhande has stated that the injury was possible with knife. Dr.Raokhande noticed deep burns over body except below knee joint of both the legs. Percentage of burns 82%. No vesication i.e. blisters suggestive of post mortem burns were seen. Dr. Raokhande noticed charring of the left side of thorax upto posterior chest wall. Charring of thoracic wall. Pleura charred. Black fumes not detected in larynx, trachea and bronchi. In addition Dr. Raokhande noticed blood clot in peritoneal cavity. In the opinion of Dr. Raokhande cause of death was stab wound on left iliac fossa. The 82% deep burns were post mortem. He has further stated that as there was no vesication (blisters) and as there was charring without tissue re-action and there were no fumes in larynx bronchi, the burns were post mortem. Dr. Raokhande further stated that signs of inflammation were absent and blood clots in peritoneal cavity suggest that the stab wound was ante-mortem. 9. The evidence of PW.8 – Dr. Raokhande clearly shows that the cause of death was stab injury in the abdomen and thereafter Nirmala was set on fire. Dr. Raokhande has given detailed reasoning as to why he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of death due to burn injuries but it was a case of Nirmala being stabbed in the abdomen, which led to her death and thereafter she was set on fire. The only reason that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.8 – Dr. Raokhande is found in para 12 of the Judgment. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was not a case of homicidal death and it is a case of suicide based on the fact that PW.8 – Dr. Raokhande did not perform the spectroscopic examination and examination/test for detecting enzymes in the dead body. The learned Sessions Judge has based his opinion on the fact that Dr. Raokhande had stated that it is true that in antemortem burn injuries there would be increase in enzymes and there is no such increase in post mortem burns. The learned Sessions Judge had further relied on the admission of Dr. Raokhande where he had stated that it is true that in cases of burns victim's blood would become thicker, due to hemoconcentration and presence of car-boxy hemoglobin, which can be determined by spectroscopic examination. The learned Sessions Judge had further relied on the admission of Dr. Raokhande where he had stated that it is true that in cases of burns victim's blood would become thicker, due to hemoconcentration and presence of car-boxy hemoglobin, which can be determined by spectroscopic examination. The learned Sessions Judge only relying on the fact that these two tests were not conducted came to the conclusion that the evidence of Dr. Raokhande that it was a case of death due to stab injury and thereafter the body was set on fire cannot be believed. In view of the evidence of Dr. Raokhande, wherein he had specifically stated that there was no vesication i.e. blisters suggestive of post mortem burns and no black fumes were found in larynx, trachea and bronchi shows that it was a case of post mortem burns and the fact that Dr. Raokhande had found blood clots in peritoneal cavity and had stated that clotting may continue for a few minutes after death and the categorical evidence of Dr. Raokhande that the cause of death was stab wound on left iliac fossa and thereafter the body was set on fire, which resulted in 82% burns, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence. 10. It is the case of the respondent that his wife committed suicide by first stabbing herself and thereafter setting herself on fire and that he was fast asleep at that time and only on getting the smell of something burning, he got up and saw that his wife was engulfed in flames. If the story of the respondent is true, a blood stained knife would be found in the house of the respondent. The respondent was residing in a two room house. The room in which the wife of the respondent was found lying dead was 10ft X 10ft, however, in the house of the respondent no blood stained knife was found anywhere. It is not possible that the wife of the respondent would have stabbed herself, would have washed the knife, kept it in place and thereafter set herself on fire. Such a sequence of events is just not possible and it is totally unthinkable. The learned Sessions Judge had tried to make capital of the fact that no witness had stated about Nirmala's shouts. According to him this shows that it was the case of suicide. Such a sequence of events is just not possible and it is totally unthinkable. The learned Sessions Judge had tried to make capital of the fact that no witness had stated about Nirmala's shouts. According to him this shows that it was the case of suicide. However, in view of the discussion in this very para, we find this reasoning to be totally fallacious. 11. We would also like to state that according to the respondent the incident took place on 28th February, 1987 at about 6.00 a.m. PW.8- Dr. Raokhande conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Nirmala on 28th February, 1987 from 12.45 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The postmortem notes (Exhibit-47) show that Rigor Mortis was well-marked all over the body. It takes 12 hours for the Rigor Mortis to fully set in. This is clear from medical jurisprudence, including Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. The postmortem was conducted in the month of February, 1987, when the weather is much cooler. It is well known that in cool weather Rigor Mortis takes a longer time to set in. If Rigor Mortis was found well-marked in the period between 12.45 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 28th February, 1987, that means the death must have taken place at least 12 hours before. This further falsifies the defence taken by the respondent. Finding that rigor mortis was well-marked at 12.45 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 28th February, 1987 shows that when Nirmala was sleeping, the respondent had attacked her with a knife in the night in the abdomen and thereafter in the morning at about 6.00 a.m., he had set her body on fire, in order to obliterate the evidence that Nirmala was assaulted with a knife and to show that Nirmala committed suicide by setting herself on fire. 12. The learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the evidence of PW.7 – Sudhir Lokhande. Sudhir was the son of the respondent and deceased. Sudhir had stated that his mother committed suicide by setting herself on fire. He had stated that when he got up from sleep, his mother was burning, hence he woke up his father. His father then tried to extinguish the fire. Due to this, his father also sustained burn injuries. As far as Sudhir is concerned, we find his evidence is not at all reliable. First of all, he is the son of the respondent. His father then tried to extinguish the fire. Due to this, his father also sustained burn injuries. As far as Sudhir is concerned, we find his evidence is not at all reliable. First of all, he is the son of the respondent. Sudhir had stated that at the time of giving evidence he was residing with the respondent. Sudhir was about 15 years old at the time of giving evidence. Looking to the fact that the respondent is his father and looking to the fact that Sudhir was residing with his father at the time of giving evidence, he is bound to speak in support of his father i.e. respondent. It is pertinent to note that no statement of this witness has ever been recorded and this witness has been called by the Court and examined as a Court witness. Looking to the facts on record, we are of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Sudhir. 13. The learned Sessions Judge based on the fact that no shouts of Nirmala were heard by the neighbours had come to the conclusion that Nirmala had committed suicide first by stabbing herself in the abdomen and then by setting herself on fire. We have already observed earlier that this incident had not occurred at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. as made out by the respondent but it had taken place somewhere at about 12.30 to 1.00 a.m. on 28th February, 1987. At that time Nirmala would be fast asleep and the respondent has assaulted Nirmala when she was asleep. On account of this there was no opportunity for Nirmala to raise any shouts. It is because of this, no shouts of Nirmala were heard by any of the neighbours. Thus, the fact that there were no shouts by Nirmala does not mean that it is a case of suicide. 14. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion that it was a case of suicide based on the fact that the neighbours i.e. PW.3 – Begam and PW.4 – Dilip have heard the respondent shouting 'what have you done'. According to the learned Sessions Judge this shows that Nirmala, the wife of the respondent had done something to herself and the respondent was not responsible for the same. According to the learned Sessions Judge this shows that Nirmala, the wife of the respondent had done something to herself and the respondent was not responsible for the same. As far as this aspect is concerned, the medical evidence clearly shows that Nirmala was murdered by stabbing her in the abdomen and thereafter she was set on fire. There was no other person in the house who could have done this, except the appellant. Thus, it appears that the appellant purposely shouted loudly 'what have you done' to give a false picture that his wife had committed suicide. 15. One other circumstance on which the learned Sessions Judge relied upon to acquit the respondent is that the prosecution failed to prove the motive. It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes great significance, however, just because in a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive is not proved, it does not mean that the accused is entitled to acquittal. In the present case, the circumstances overwhelmingly show that the respondent, his wife and their son were in the house, the door was locked from inside, the wife of the respondent was found to have sustained stab injury on her abdomen, which resulted in her death and thereafter she was set on fire. In such case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would definitely come into play. The evidence on record shows that the appellant and the deceased were in the house at the time of the incident. The door was locked from inside. In such case, the accused has to explain how his wife Nirmala sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principle which underlies Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in similar cases. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144, the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused 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 the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144, the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused 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 lays down 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 compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 16. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. i.e. the respondent first stabbed his wife and caused her death and thereafter to cause disappearance of evidence, he set the dead body of Nirmala on fire. However, as far as Section 498A of I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has only relied on the evidence of PW.5 – Kantabai Jagannath Gaikwad, who was the aunt of Nirmala. She had only stated that the respondent used to drink daily and he used to beat his wife – Nirmala. These are vague allegations and no specific incident had been stated by PW.5-Kantabai. Looking to the same, we are not inclined to set aside the acquittal under Section 498A of I.P.C. 17. On going through the evidence on record and especially the medical evidence, we are of the opinion that the view of acquittal under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a totally perverse view. The evidence on record shows that Nirmala met a homicidal death and that at the relevant time the respondent and none else had the opportunity to assault Nirmala and kill her and thereafter to set her on fire. In the present case the circumstances proved by the prosecution forms a complete chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the respondent. 18. In the present case the circumstances proved by the prosecution forms a complete chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the respondent. 18. In this view of the matter, the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondent - accused is convicted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. the respondent - accused is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. the respondent - accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 19. The respondent – accused is on bail. He is granted twelve weeks time to surrender. In case he does not surrender within the said time, the concerned police station i.e. Satara City Police Station shall trace the respondent – accused and take him into custody. The accused is entitled to set off in accordance with law. 20. Fees to be paid to the appointed Advocate is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.