JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/05/2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh in Sessions Trial No.98/2010 whereby the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story is that the appellant and deceased – Ashrita Devi were living together after death of Ashrita Devi's husband. According to the prosecution, Ashrita Devi was engaged as a maidservant in a school and she was provided with a room where she was found dead. Further case of the prosecution is that on 15/08/2010, the appellant and the deceased went to the house of Ghursai, son-in-law of the deceased, where they had taken meals and thereafter, returned back along with daughter of Ghursai. Further case is that at about 6 PM, the appellant came to the house of Ghursai to leave his daughter and went back. On the next date, in the morning, the dead body of Ashrita Bai was found in her room. Upon merg intimation given in police station, inquest over dead body was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. After receipt of report and nature of injury found on the dead body, FIR in Exhibit P/15 was registered in the police station against the appellant on the allegation of having committed murder of Ashrita Devi. After recording statement of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, seizure of club from the possession of the appellant as also clothes of the deceased and the appellant, those articles were sent for examination to the FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case was committed for trial and the appellant was tried for commission of alleged offence. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. The appellant denied the allegations and all other evidence incriminating him in the alleged commission of offence. No defence witness was examined. Relying upon the evidence of the prosecution and holding proved the circumstantial evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentence as described above. 4. The appellant denied the allegations and all other evidence incriminating him in the alleged commission of offence. No defence witness was examined. Relying upon the evidence of the prosecution and holding proved the circumstantial evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentence as described above. 4. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement of the appellant in the alleged commission of offence. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence witnessing any assault by the appellant on the deceased. The circumstantial evidence that the deceased was residing with the appellant and she was found dead in her house, by itself, was not sufficient to convict the appellant particularly when the Doctor in its cross examination has clearly deposed that the injuries could be caused due to fall. It is submitted that there is no clinching evidence of serious dispute or quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The prosecution evidence shows that the appellant and the deceased were in cordial relations and a day before the incident, they went along to take lunch in the house of his son-in-law and came back. The evidence of Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) and Ramkripal (PW10) of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, is liable to be disbelieved. The club alleged to have been seized from the possession of the appellant would not lead to any incriminating material because it was not proved from the report of the forensic expert that the blood stains found on the club was that of the blood group and origin of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is overwhelming evidence that the appellant and the deceased were residing in a room provided by the school. Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) and Ramkripal (PW10) have stated in their evidence that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant scolded the deceased and abused using words doubting her chastity. Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) and Ramkripal (PW10) have stated in their evidence that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant scolded the deceased and abused using words doubting her chastity. Next day, in the morning, dead body of the deceased was found in her room and she sustained several injuries on her head and her frontal bone was broken which was cause of her death as deposed by the doctor. The appellant failed to prove any plea of alibi and therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, failure of the appellant to explain the circumstances under which his wife Ashrita Devi sustained injuries in the house, points towards the guilt of the appellant. 6. In the present case, conviction of the appellant is based only on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has relied upon the prosecution evidence of Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) regarding the appellant and deceased living together, there being quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, homicidal death of the deceased in the room and failure of any explanation on the part of the appellant to explain the unnatural death of the deceased, seizure of club stained with blood from the appellant etc. 7. Ghursai (PW1), who is the son-in-law of deceased – Ashrita, has clearly deposed in the evidence that the appellant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife after death of Ashrita's husband. The deceased was engaged as Cook in the school and residing in the room behind the school provided to her. He has further deposed that both the appellant and the deceased had come to his house and took meals. He has stated that both were drunk. This witness has further deposed that at about 8 AM in the morning, when he was going to shop, called her mother-in-law, whose residence was situated on way and he found that she was lying dead in her house and there were no clothes on her body. Thereafter, the matter was reported. This witness states that the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel. In his cross-examination, this witness affirmed that the deceased was residing with the appellant. Thereafter, the matter was reported. This witness states that the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel. In his cross-examination, this witness affirmed that the deceased was residing with the appellant. Rajlal (PW2), Premsai (PW3)-brother of son-in-law of the deceased and Rinky (PW4) - daughter of the deceased, all have clearly deposed and there is overwhelming evidence that the appellant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife after the death of husband of Ashrita Devi – the deceased. 8. Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) and Ramkripal (PW10) are two independent witnesses of the prosecution who have deposed regarding incident of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Tribhuwan Paikarma (PW5) has deposed in his evidence that at about 7:30 to 7:45 in the evening, the deceased was sitting on the stairs of her house and the appellant was abusing her and at that time, Ramkripal (PW10) resisted him from abusing and thereafter, they came back. This evidence of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, a day before in the evening, has not been controverted. 9. Ramkripal (PW10) also deposed that when they had come in the evening at about 7, quarrel was going on between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant was hurling abuses on the deceased who was sitting on the stairs. He asked the appellant to resist from abusing and thereafter, they came back. In his cross examination, he admits that except the incident of quarrel which he had seen that day, he did not witness any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. However, the evidence of he having witnessed quarrel on 15/08/2010 between the appellant and the deceased, has not been controverted. There is overwhelming evidence proved from the report and evidence of prosecution witnesses that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the room where she was residing. The evidence further proves that the body was lying naked in the room. There were blood stains all over and injuries were found on her head. The evidence of witnesses and the inquest report proved by the Investigating Officer leaves no doubt that the dead body was found in the room where the deceased was residing with the appellant. 10. Dr. There were blood stains all over and injuries were found on her head. The evidence of witnesses and the inquest report proved by the Investigating Officer leaves no doubt that the dead body was found in the room where the deceased was residing with the appellant. 10. Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW7) who examined the dead body and prepared postmortem report and proved the same in Exhibit P/1 has deposed that upon examination, as many as four injuries were found as below:- ^^'kjhj esa fuEukafdr pksVsa ik;h x;h Fkh%& pksV dzŒ & 1 flj esa nksuks QzUVy ds e/; Hkkx esa ,d QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk ftldk vkdkj <kbZ bap yack xq.kk 1@2 bap pksM+k vkSj gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd FkkA foPNsnu djus ij QzUVy gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ feyh FkhA pksV dzŒ & 2 czqt vkSj lwtu psgjs ds nkfguh vksj vkfcZV esa fLFkr Fkk ftldk vkdkj 5 bap xq.kk 4 bap FkkA dUtsVkbZok yky FkkA pksV dzŒ & 3 nkfguh dksguh ds ihNs [kjkst Fkk ftldk vkdkj 1 bap yack xq.kk 1 bap pkSM+k FkkA pksV dzŒ & 4 czqt ,oa lwtu Nkrh ds ck;h vksj Åijh Hkkx esa fLFkr FkkA** In the internal examination, the doctor found as below:- **[kksiM+h esa QzUVy cksu VwVh gqbZ FkhA bUVªkdzsfu;y jDr lzko FkkA o{k esa ck;h 2] 3 vkSj 4 ilyh VwVh gqbZ Fkh vksj nkfguk 2 ,oa 3 ilyh VwVh gqbZ FkhA QqQ~Qql QVk gqvk FkkA daB vkSj LokWl uyh jDr Hkjk gqvk FkkA nksuksa QsQM+s QV x, FksA vkSj yky jax dk FkkA gn~; dk nkfguk Hkkx Hkjk gqvk Fkk] ck;ka Hkkx [kkyh FkkA isV esa jDr Hkjk gqvk FkkA pksV ,oa chekjh dk fooj.k vkSj mldh vof/k vkSj dkj.k ds laca/k esa er & esjs erkuqlkj lHkh pksVsa e`R;q iwoZ dh Fkh tks dM+s ,oa Hkksrjs oLrq ls igq¡pk;h x;h FkhA pksVksa dh vof/k 18 ls 24 ?kaVs dh FkhA** Cause of death, according to the doctor, as deposed by him in the Court and as stated in the postmortem report was as below:- **e`R;q dk dkj.k vkSj mldk izdkj & esjs erkuqlkj e`R;q dk dkj.k dksek Fkk tks gsM bUtqjh ls gqvk FkkA e`R;q gR;kRed izd`fr dk FkkA 'ko ijh{k.k ls e`R;q dk vof/k 18 ls 24 ?kaVs dh vof/k dk FkkA esjk izfrosnu izŒihŒ 11 gS] ftlds ^v* ls ^v* Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA** In the cross-examination, a suggestion given whether frontal bone could be broken when a heavy object falls on the head, has been accepted by the doctor and as far as, broken ribs (injury no.4) are concerned, doctor has admitted that if 3 to 4 persons ride over, such kind of injury could be caused. 11. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, particularly the evidence of prosecution witnesses, injuries caused, body of the deceased was found in the house, clothes were found torn and removed, dead body was lying naked and frontal bones were broken, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs were broken and there were abrasions on the dead body, we are of the considered opinion that the deceased died a homicidal death and it was not accidental. Moreover, time of death is said to be 18 to 24 hours before postmortem and looking to the time of postmortem, the death must have taken place between 7 PM to 10 PM. 12. The appellant was residing with the deceased in the room. There is evidence to prove beyond doubt that they were living as husband and wife together. The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC nor in the cross examination of any of the witnesses nor any defence witness has come with any plea of alibi that he was not present in the house and had gone elsewhere. Therefore, in these circumstances and in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant was required to explain how his wife sustained such fatal injuries and died a homicidal death where he was residing with the deceased. This failure on the part of the appellant also constitutes an incriminating circumstance pointing towards guilt of the appellant. Though the club seized from the appellant could not be proved to have contained blood of same group or origin of the deceased, the article was found blood stained and there was no satisfactory explanation by the appellant that how the deceased got such fatal injuries. 13. In view of above consideration, we are satisfied to hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, the involvement of the appellant in the alleged incident of murder of deceased – Ashrita Devi. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.