JUDGMENT: 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 3.1.2009 and order of sentence dated 7.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 410 of 2006 whereby the appellant herein has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, as has been projected on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant-Etwari Mohuli (PW-8) on 23.5.2006, before the officer-in-charge, Pirtand Police Station is that, on 22.5.2006, the date on which his daughter namely Sadari Devi came to his house, after having returned a frock purchased for her sister-in-law (Ntnad)-Adhani Kumari aged about 7 years, since her husband, the present appellant had disapproved the frock because of the exorbitant price than the actual price. It has been alleged that after some time the informant's son-in-law i.e. the present appellant came to his house and asked for money given to his wife for purchase of the said frock, whereupon Sadari Devi told him that she has already spent some money. Thereafter, this appellant started demanding the entire money given to her, which ensued hot exchange of words. Later on, the matter was pacified and the informant told the appellant that he would give the money spent by her daughter and gave rupees five to her daughter. Thereafter, the appellant and his wife (deceased) went to their house. It has further been alleged that on 22.5.2006 at about 7 p.m., the informant's son told him that the appellant has killed Sadari Devi (deceased daughter) by inflicting tangi blows, causing severe injuries on her person and thereafter fled away. Thereafter, the informant went to the house of his daughter and found her dead body in the house. It has further been alleged that the informant enquired from nearby persons, who informed him that his son-in-law committed murder of his daughter between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, an F.I.R. was lodged. Pirtand P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and investigation was conducted. 2. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Pirtand P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and investigation was conducted. 2. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Ultimately, the case was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -ll, Giridih for trial. 3. During trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined altogether 10 witnesses, out of which, PW-1 is the doctor. P.W. 2 is a hostile witness. PWs-3, 4 and 6 are the hearsay witnesses, PW-5 is the most material witness, PW-7 is the brother of the deceased, PW-8 is the informant, father of the deceased,'PW-9 is the I.O. and PW-10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the fardbeyan. 4. PW-1-Dr. Vishwanath Das, who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased-Sadari Devi, found altogether 11 incised wounds on the body of the deceased, which are as follows:- (i) Incised wound-3" x 1/2" x over upper portion of left lateral side of the neck. (ii) Incised wound-3" x 1/2" over anterolateral aspect of left side of the neck cutting the muscle, major blood vessels, larynx, trachea and partially Oesophagus. (iii) lncised-wound-3 1/2" x 1/2" over middle portion left lateral side of the neck. (iv) Incised wound-2 1/2" x 1/2" antero-laterally over lower portion of the, neck. (v) lncised-wound-2" x 1/2" over base of the left lateral side of the neck. (vi) Incised wound-2 1/2" x 1/2" behind left ear, (vii) Incised wound-3" x 1/2" over posterior portion of neck. (viii) Incised wound-5" x 1/2" over left axilla. (ix) Incised wound-3" x 1/2" over left side on upper portion of chest. (x) Incised wound-2" x 1/2" over left arm. (xi) Incised wound-2 1/2" x 1/2" over left side of forehead. According to doctor, all the injuries being ante mortem in nature were caused by sharp cutting weapon like tangi. The doctor also opined that death has occurred due to shock and haemorrhage, on account of aforesaid injuries. The post mortem report has been marked as Exhibit-1. 5. (xi) Incised wound-2 1/2" x 1/2" over left side of forehead. According to doctor, all the injuries being ante mortem in nature were caused by sharp cutting weapon like tangi. The doctor also opined that death has occurred due to shock and haemorrhage, on account of aforesaid injuries. The post mortem report has been marked as Exhibit-1. 5. P.W. 2-Damodar Pandit, who turned hostile initially and after re-examination on his recall, has stated that a tangi with a handle was recovered from the house of the appellant which was stained with blood and he proved the signature on the inquest report, which is marked as Exhibit-2. 6. PW-3-Baldeo Pandit has stated that he went to the house of appellant where several persons congregated there and found the dead body of the wife of the appellant. 7. PW 4-Mahabir Mahto who has deposed that after coming to know from the father-in-law of the accused-appellant, he went there on the next day and saw the deceased in a pool of blood on the earth. He further deposed that he saw 7 injuries on the dead body. 8. PW-5-Ram Das Mahuli, has testified that when he was grazing his cattle, he saw the appellant coming out from his house and starting fleeing, which created suspicion in his mind about the conduct of the appellant and immediately he went to the house of the appellant and made several calls, but nobody came out. Thereafter, he saw the wife of the appellant dead in the house, and the blood oozing out from her body lying on the ground having sustained several injuries. He has further deposed that just before the occurrence, both the appellant and the deceased came to their house and no other person was present in their house. 9. PW-6-Krishna Mahuli, who is a hearsay witness, has deposed that he came to learn about the death of Sadari Devi from the father of the deceased and he has further stated that he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased with several injuries. 10. PW-7 is Laljit Mahuli, who is brother of the deceased-Sadari Devi, has deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with the appellant and the appellant has committed murder of his sister and at the time of occurrence she was in her in-laws place. 10. PW-7 is Laljit Mahuli, who is brother of the deceased-Sadari Devi, has deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with the appellant and the appellant has committed murder of his sister and at the time of occurrence she was in her in-laws place. He has further deposed that he came to learn that her husband-the appellant, has committed murder but he has not stated the source of information received by him. He further stated that on getting information when he along with Mahavir, his father and Krishna went to the house of his sister, he saw the dead body of the sister along with several injuries on her person. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that he is not a witness to the hot exchange of words with regard to purchase of frock between the appellant and his deceased sister. 11. PW-8-Etwan Mahuli, is the father of the deceased and informant of the case, has deposed that purchase of frock which was later on returned, whereupon the appellant demanded entire money including rupees five spent by the deceased. He has further stated that he came to learn from PW-5, Ramdas Mahuli that the daughter of the informant has been murdered by the appellant and after committing murder the appellant fled away, Thereafter, he along with Mahavir, Krishna and Laljit went to Haldibera and on reaching there, he saw the dead body of her daughter at the door of the house and saw pool of blood beneath and around the dead body of his daughter. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence but came to learn from Ramdas Mahuli about the occurrence. 12. PW-9 is Jai Prakash Mahto, the Officer-in-charge of Pirtand Police Station, who is the investigating officer of the case, has stated that while conducting a raid along with Pankaj Kumar, officer-in-charge and CRPF Jawan against the extremist, upon reaching at Haldibera, they came to learn about the murder in Village-Haldibera. Thereafter, they immediately proceeded to the house of the appellant, where the informant-PW-8 was present. He has further deposed that officer-in-charge, Pankaj Kumar recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3) of PW-8 and handed over charge of investigation to him, proving the inquest report as Exhibit-2/1. Thereafter, they immediately proceeded to the house of the appellant, where the informant-PW-8 was present. He has further deposed that officer-in-charge, Pankaj Kumar recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3) of PW-8 and handed over charge of investigation to him, proving the inquest report as Exhibit-2/1. The dead body of the deceased was found lying near the door in a pool of blood and a bloodstained tangi was recovered and the same has been marked as Exhibit-4. He has further stated that he has recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained the post-mortem report and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. 13. PW-10-Pankaj Kumar, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, has recorded the fardbeyan and recovered the bloodstained tangi near the dead body and prepared the seizure list. After closure of prosecution case, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials, to which he denied. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has failed to scrutinize the statement of witnesses and arrived at a wrong finding about the guilt of the appellant, purely on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and none of the witnesses had seen the appellant committing the murder of his wife and the only witness, PW-5, whose testimony has been given much importance by the learned trial court, is not free from doubt nor his testimony can be construed to be trustworthy. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1976) 4 SCC 288 , AIR 2011 SC 1017 and (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 16. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that in view of the overwhelming and unimpeachable evidences of PW-5 being corroborated by the medical evidence and the chain of circumstances, learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and in that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference. 17. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court after taking into account the testimony of star witness, PW-5 along with chain of circumstances, has convicted the appellant, which does not call for any interference. 18. The present appeal is based on circumstantial evidence as well as the last seen theory, based on the testimony of PW-5 coupled with the medical evidence of doctor-PW-1. Having scanned thoroughly the evidence/testimony of PW-5, it would be apparent that the PW-5 in his deposition has testified the following circumstances, which is reproduced hereinbelow: (a) That before the occurrence, he saw the appellant along with deceased wife in their house. (b) Just after occurrence, he saw the appellant fleeing away. (c) The conduct of the appellant appears to be suspicious, whereafter he immediately went to the house of the appellant-and-despite repeated call nobody came out of the house. (d) He saw the white of the appellant lying dead on the floor, having sustained injuries with pool of blood and no person was present in the house. (e) Bloodstained tangi was recovered in his presence. 19. The aforesaid circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, the other prosecution witnesses namely PWs-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have consistently testified that they have seen the dead body with several injuries being found on the floor with pool of blood. Apart from the chain of circumstances, as aforesaid, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which is another circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellant. 20. To strengthen our view, it would be profitable to quote the relevant paragraphs of the case law, enunciated in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 . "14. 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. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions-quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh.) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: "(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. 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 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. 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court." 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kiriti Pal v. State of W.B., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 178 has been pleased to inter alia hold that "The theory of "last seen alive" comes into play when the time gap between the way the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead was so small, the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible. Where the person who is last found in the company of another who is dead or missing, the person with whom he was last found alive has to explain the circumstances as to how and where and in what manner he parted company with the deceased". 22. We have carefully examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material exhibits minutely. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory.. The circumstances from which inference of guilt of the appellant has been sought to be dawn has been cogently and firmly established, therefore, the circumstances taken cumulatively forms a complete chain, so that there is no escape from- the conclusion that it is the appellant and none else who is the perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cited by learned counsel for the appellant is of no help on the face of overwhelming unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and coupled with medical report. 23. In the light of the yardstick for scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence, when we examine the evidences led by the prosecution for sustaining the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant, we conclude that in view of chain of evidence unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant. 24. Thus, we do find that prosecution has been able to establish the case. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant. 24. Thus, we do find that prosecution has been able to establish the case. Thereby, the learned trial court, is absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby confirmed. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.