JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Ashok Singh against the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.134/2011, whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,00,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Prabhu Dayal (PW2) lodged a First Information Report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (East) and submitted that his youngest daughter Usha was married with the appellant on 12.05.2011 in ‘Samoohik Vivah Sammelan’ at Dausa. It has been further alleged that after five days of marriage, the appellant and his father demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for investing in business and further alleged that they used to demand the amount from the complainant, which was fulfilled by the complainant. Even then, they used to beat her. It was further alleged that in morning on 26.06.2011 when he made phone call to his daughter, then they disconnected the phone and did not allow Usha to talk with him. After some time, he received a call from his daughter, who told him that either fulfill their demand, or else, take her from there, or else they would kill her. It was further alleged that in the night he received call from Harish, the elder brother of the accused-appellant that his daughter is seriously ill and asked him to come immediately to Jaipur. Since there was no arrangement of vehicle in the night, he reached the house of the appellant in morning but by then, she was not alive. He was not allowed to see her dead body, but the person who saw the dead body told him that she was murdered by slitting her neck. 3. The police on the basis of aforesaid written report, registered First Information Report No. 373/2011 for offence under Section 304-B IPC. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC before the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Thereafter, the learned trial court committed the case to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and after that, the case was transferred to the trial court for hearing of the case. Thereafter, the learned trial court committed the case to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and after that, the case was transferred to the trial court for hearing of the case. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and alternatively u/s.304-B IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he alleged false implication. The accused in defence produced two witnesses. The learned trial court after hearing the parties vide judgment dated 21.10.2016 acquitted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, however, convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the trial court has erred in convicting the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC, even though it has at the same time on the same set of evidence, acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge for offence u/s.304B IPC. Learned counsel has referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial court at page 39 onwards to argue that all the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses especially those closely related to the deceased namely; mother-Sushila Devi (PW1), father-Prabhu Dayal (PW2), elder brother-Shankar Singh (PW3), uncle-Lallu Rag (PW4), cousin-Dinesh (PW5), uncle-Mahendra Singh (PW6) and uncle-Hanuman Sahai (PW13), have been disbelieved. Despite the allegations of all these witnesses especially the mother, father and brother of the deceased that accused used to demand a sum of Rs.50,000 from the deceased and that she used to be subjected to cruelty in connection with that demand, it has not so alleged in the written report (Ex.P1). It is submitted that the marriage of the accused-appellant was solemnised along with several other members of the Rawana Rajput Community in ‘Samuhik Vivah Sammelan’ where as per the decision of their community, neither dowry articles, nor any money was given at the time of marriage. The allegation of PW1 to PW6 & PW13 is totally unfounded because they are all interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. The allegation of PW1 to PW6 & PW13 is totally unfounded because they are all interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. Kanaram Gehlot (PW7), Jyoti (PW8), Shimla (PW9), Pinki (PW10), Honey (PW11), Yograshi (PW12), Amar Singh (PW14), Krishna Dutt Jhalani (PW15), Motilal (PW16), Bhenru Lal Lalwani (PW17), Rakesh Vyas (PW18), Laxmi (PW19), Ram Kishan (PW20), Manohar Singh (PW22), Hem Singh (PW23), Sayeed Khan (PW24) and Ram Singh (PW25) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The learned trial court therefore has held the allegations of dowry not proved and on that basis, the learned trial court refused to raise the presumption u/s.113B of the Evidence Act and acquitted the accused of the charge for offence u/s.304B IPC. Not only, therefore, the motive of murder has not been proved, but there is absolutely no evidence as to the intention on the part of the accused-appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Unless the intention is proved, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted for offence u/s.302 simplicitor. 5. Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel arguing as regards the recovery of ‘katar’ vide Ex.P20, submitted that since accused-appellant belongs to Rawana Rajput community and in their community, there is customary to carry ‘katar’ at the time of marriage and also to preserve such ‘katar’ in house. Therefore, the availability of such ‘katar’ at the instance of the accused-appellant could not be taken as an incriminating circumstances against him. It is argued that ‘katar’ in any case was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused-appellant. Besides, this ‘katar’ was not shown to the Doctor in the Court as an article to elicit his opinion whether the injuries could have been received by it. It is contended that even Vakeel Khan (PW21) and Sayeed Khan (PW24), the witnesses of recovery of ‘katar’ have not supported the recovery and have turned hostile. Moreover, the prosecution has not proved by any scientific evidence that the ‘katar’ had the finger prints of the accused-appellant. 6. It is argued that the trial court erred in law in completely discarding the defence evidence in regard to the actual manner of incident. While the prosecution has produced Pinki (PW10), ‘bhabhi’ of the accused-appellant, but her husband Hari Singh (DW2), who has appeared as defence witness present at the time of incident has not been produced. 6. It is argued that the trial court erred in law in completely discarding the defence evidence in regard to the actual manner of incident. While the prosecution has produced Pinki (PW10), ‘bhabhi’ of the accused-appellant, but her husband Hari Singh (DW2), who has appeared as defence witness present at the time of incident has not been produced. Both Pinki and Hari Singh have stated that when the incident had taken place, accused was sleeping on the roof of his house. Deceased Usha was sleeping in the room on the ground floor. In the night at about 1-1.30 am, they heard the sound of shouting by Usha and saw a person coming out of the room of Usha and running from the place of incident. When they came out from their house, that person had already ran away from there. It is stated that when the accused-appellant heard the sound of shouting, he also immediately came downstairs. Even the prosecution witness Kana Ram (PW7), their neighbourer, has stated that when he reached the house of the accused-appellant, he saw that wife of the accused-appellant was lying in the hall of the house and her neck was slit at different places. Her mother-in-law was holding her neck and the accused-appellant caught hold of her legs. On his askance, deceased told that the accused-appellant has caused injuries to her. The accused-appellant did not allow this witness and others to remove the deceased, who was in seriously injured condition, to the hospital. He (this witness), thereupon caught hold of accused-appellant and thereafter the deceased was taken to the hospital in a taxi. This statement was not stated by him in his police statement Ex.D7. However when he was confronted with his police statement, he failed to give explanation as to why there is such disparity between the two statements. Learned counsel submitted that statement of this witness to the extent of above disparity cannot be reliable. However, it is reliable to the extent that accused-appellant was found in the room sitting by the side of the deceased, who was lying in seriously injured condition and had caught hold of her legs, while his mother caught hold of her neck, being consistent with his previous statement. This clearly shows that accused was very much present in the room and had he been guilty person, he would have ran away from there. 7. This clearly shows that accused was very much present in the room and had he been guilty person, he would have ran away from there. 7. Learned counsel argued that the blood was found on the pants and vest (‘baniyan’) of the accused is a neutral circumstance because Sushila Devi (PW1), Prabhu Dayal (PW2) and Pinki (PW10) have stated that the accused-appellant was sleeping on the roof and on hearing hue and cry, he came downstairs and when he saw his wife in seriously injured condition, he immediately took her in the auto to the hospital. Therefore, it is quite natural that while removing her body, his clothes were soaked in her blood. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused-appellant be acquitted of the charge. 8. Per contra, Shri R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is perfectly justified. Such finding has been recorded by the learned trial court on the correct appreciation of evidence. It is argued that Sushila Devi (PW1), Prabhu Dayal (PW2), Shankar Singh (PW3), Lallu Ram (PW4), Dinesh (PW5) and Mahendra Singh (PW6) have consistently alleged that marriage of the accused was solemnised with deceased only about 20 days ago. Kana Ram Gehlot (PW7), the neighbour of the house of the accused-appellant reached their house on coming to learn about the incident. He found the accused-appellant present there with the deceased, who was in seriously injured condition, her neck being slit. It is argued that merely because some of the prosecution witnesses have been won over and not supported the prosecution case, does not cause any dent to the prosecution story. These witnesses were either mostly related to the appellant, or were neighbourers and therefore have tried to help the accused-appellant. 9. It is argued that as per the postmortem report (Ex.P27), the deceased sustained total 16 injuries, out of which 11 injuries were by sharp edged weapon. Injury no.1, which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death in the opinion of the medical board as seen from the postmortem report (Ex.P27) was a stab wound, whereas injury no.2 to 9, 11 and 13 were also by sharp edged weapon and most of them were on the neck of the deceased. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (PW28) and Dr. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (PW28) and Dr. Anil Solanki (PW29) have proved the postmortem report and the cause of death, which was hemorrhagic shock brought about as a result of injury no.1, which was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is argued that since the accused-appellant was present in the room where the dead body of his wife was found with multiple fatal injuries, the presumption of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, has therefore, rightly been raised against him by the learned trial court. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Mulakh Raj Etc. vs. Satish Kumar & Others, AIR 1992 SC 1175 and argued that absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. It is argued that in a case of circumstantial evidence or for that matter, on the witnesses account, the intention of murder can be gathered from attending circumstances including the nature, number and location of injuries. The argument of defence that there ought to be direct evidence regarding intention, is therefore, wholly misconceived. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the various incriminating circumstances detailed out by the learned trial court at page 37 of the judgment from “A” to “J” to argue that despite acquittal of the accused of the charge u/s.304B IPC, conviction of accused-appellant for offence of murder was fully supported by overwhelming evidence available on record. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Perusal of the record indicates that in the written report/FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, it was stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with the accused-appellant on 12.5.2011 and the incident took place in the night of 26th June, 2011 i.e. one and half months thereafter. In fact, immediately five days after the marriage, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000 for starting his business and also used to demand money on one or the other pretext. It is owing to these allegations that the FIR was lodged for offence u/s.304B IPC. However, the charge sheet was filed for offence u/s.304B IPC and in the alternative, also u/s.302 IPC. It is owing to these allegations that the FIR was lodged for offence u/s.304B IPC. However, the charge sheet was filed for offence u/s.304B IPC and in the alternative, also u/s.302 IPC. In the facts of the case, therefore, even if the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge u/s.304B IPC, it cannot be said that he could not be convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC simplicitor. However, since the finding of the conviction of offence u/s.302 IPC has been assailed in the present appeal, we have to find out whether the guilt of the accused-appellant has been brought home by the prosecution by the required standard beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Indisputably, the marriage of the accused-appellant was solemnised with the deceased one and half months before the incident in ‘Samuhik Vivah Sammelan’. The evidence has also come on record that the accused-appellant and the deceased had their room on the ground floor, whereas his elder brother Hari Singh, his wife and parents were staying on the first floor of the house no.2/E/94, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. The prosecution witnesses especially Kana Ram Gehlot (PW7), who immediately after the incident arrived at the place of occurrence saw the deceased lying in the said room at ground floor in seriously injured condition. Although there is minor contradictions between his Court statement and his statement recorded by police u/s.161 Cr.P.C. But Kana Ram is consistent at both the stages at least about the fact that the elder brother of the accused Hari Singh, his ‘bhabhi’ Pinki and neighbour Krishna Dutt Jhalani came to his house at around 1.30 am in the night of the incident and narrated him of the quarrel and the fact that the deceased has sustained serious injuries. When he reached the house, the deceased was lying in seriously injured condition in outside hall of the room. Her neck was slit at different places. Her mother-in-law was holding her neck, whereas accused-appellant was caught holding her legs. 14. Amar Singh (PW14), the auto driver has stated that he received the phone call from Krishna Jhalani around 1-1.30 pm that someone, who was seriously ill, had to be taken to hospital and, therefore, he should immediately reach there. Thereupon he reached on the said location and took a woman to the hospital in his auto rickshaw. 14. Amar Singh (PW14), the auto driver has stated that he received the phone call from Krishna Jhalani around 1-1.30 pm that someone, who was seriously ill, had to be taken to hospital and, therefore, he should immediately reach there. Thereupon he reached on the said location and took a woman to the hospital in his auto rickshaw. Krishna Dutt Jhalani (PW15) has also made statement that Ashok was son of Jagdish Kandera and that his marriage was solemnised one and half months ago. Hari Singh came to his house late at night and requested him to call a taxi. Hari Singh told him that wife of Ashok has fallen due to giddiness and she had to be taken to hospital. These two witnesses though not fully supported the case of the prosecution, but have proved that the deceased was removed from the house of the accused-appellant to the hospital. 15. Sandeep Gupta (PW26), the attesting witness of the arrest memo of accused (Ex.P15) and seizure memo of pants and vest (Ex.P16) has stated that at the time of arrest, Ashok Singh was wearing a vest (‘baniyan’) and pants. These clothes had blood stains. They were seized by the police in his presence. The vest was article-1 and the pants was article-2. Pahad Singh (PW27) has stated that he obtained seven sealed packets from the Police Station and deposited them with the FSL, receipt whereof is Ex.P25 and Ex.P26. Anita (PW30) is the attesting witness of seizure memo of the blood stained clothes of the deceased i.e. ‘sari’, ‘peticot’, blouse, bra and a sanitary napkin. Mahesh Chand, Head Mohrrir of Malkhana, Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur has appeared as PW33 and has stated that as per the direction of DCP, Jaipur (East), he sent various articles to FSL. The copy of the original malkhana register was Ex.P28 and its photocopy was Ex.P28A. He has admitted that the receipt was given to him after deposit of the said articles with the FSL. 16. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat (PW34) was the Investigating Officer of the case, who has proved different stages of the investigation. He has also proved the recovery of ‘katar’ vide memo Ex.P20, with regard to which information u/s.27 of the Evidence Act has been given by accused vide Ex.P29. 16. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat (PW34) was the Investigating Officer of the case, who has proved different stages of the investigation. He has also proved the recovery of ‘katar’ vide memo Ex.P20, with regard to which information u/s.27 of the Evidence Act has been given by accused vide Ex.P29. He prepared the site plan (Ex.P3), seized the clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P8 and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P11. He arrested the accused-appellant Ashok Singh vide Ex.P15. He stated that at the time of arrest, the clothes i.e. pants and vest (‘baniyan’) of the accused contained blood. He has in cross examination stated that the box from which the ‘katar’ was recovered was in the lock and key of the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant first took out the key of the lock, which he had concealed in the room itself and then opened the door and gave the ‘katar’. The key was seized vide separate memo and the recovery of ‘katar’ was made by separate memo. 17. Nathu (PW36) has stated that marriage of Ashok was solemnised in the year 2011. Name of his wife was Usha. On the date of incident, he had stayed in the house of Jai Singh. While he was asleep, Jai Singh woke him up and told that Ashok had beaten his wife Usha and that she has sustained several injuries and has been taken to Apex Hospital. She was bleeding from her neck. The Doctors at the Apex Hospital referred her to SMS Hospital, where she died during treatment. In cross examination, this witness has stated that at the time of incident, he was in the house of Jai Singh, which is 7-8 kms. away from Indra Nagar. 18. Two reports of FSL were received subsequent to the close of the evidence. The learned trial court by order dated 20.10.2016 has taken them on record and marked these two reports as Ex.C1 and C2. The report C1 was of the viscera examination, which was found negative for want of poison. The report-C2 was regarding various items sent to FSL for detection of blood. The accused was again examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. to confront him with these two reports. The report C1 was of the viscera examination, which was found negative for want of poison. The report-C2 was regarding various items sent to FSL for detection of blood. The accused was again examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. to confront him with these two reports. In the FSL report C2, it was found that the clothes of the deceased contained in packet-A had human blood of ‘B’ group and clothes of the accused in packet ‘C’ i.e. pants and baniyan and also ‘katar’ in packet ‘D’ had human blood of ‘B’ group. All this is clinching evidence which points towards the guilt of the accused. Merely because the learned trial court has while discussing the statement of prosecution witnesses as to demand of dowry has not believed such allegations and acquitted the accused of the charge for offence u/s.304B IPC, would not in any manner cause any dent to such case of the prosecution. 19. The postmortem report of the accused has been proved by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (PW28) and Dr. Anil Solanki (PW29), according to which the deceased sustained following injuries:- “1. Stab wound of size 2cm×1cm×? chest cavity deep present over anterior aspect of left side of chest. On the lower aspect of left side fourth rib in between 4-5th ribs spaces transversely placed and margins are clean cut well defined & regular with dry red clotted blood. Further examination shows underneath tissues & muscles found cut & further shows there is cut beneath the wound in the pleura further shows pericardium found cut just beneath the wound there in cut stab wound over right ventricle of heart of size 0.8×0.4× right ventricular cavity deep. Pericardium filled with semi-clotted blood hemothorax about 1200 cc. 2. Incised wound 5cm×1.5cm× muscle deep present over left cheek tailing present medially with dry red clotted blood with clean cut regular well define margins. 3. Incised wound 9cm×4.5cm× muscle deep extending from left side back of left occipital area then coming to lateral aspect of upper part of neck. Anterior aspect with red clotted blood margins are well defined regular clean cut. 4. Incised wound 10cm×3cm× muscle deep present over left side of neck upper part dry red clotted blood & clean cut margins well defined & regular. 5. Anterior aspect with red clotted blood margins are well defined regular clean cut. 4. Incised wound 10cm×3cm× muscle deep present over left side of neck upper part dry red clotted blood & clean cut margins well defined & regular. 5. Incised wound of size 4cm×2cm× muscle deep present over middle part of neck extending from lateral aspect of left side neck to adam’s apple & F/E outer tissues of the thyroid cartilage & muscle found cut with dry red clotted blood. 6. Incised wound 5cm×2cm× muscle deep present over middle 1/3 of neck extending from left side neck to just below adam’s apple with dry red clotted blood with clean cut margin well defined & regular. 7. Incised wound 9cm×3cm×muscle deep present over lower part of front of neck with dry red clotted blood clean cut regular & well defined margins. 8. Incised wound 8cm×1cm× skin to muscle deep present over lower part of neck anteriorly transversely placed & margin are clean cut well defined regular with dry red clotted blood. 9. Incised wound 6cm×1cm× muscle deep present over lower part of neck anteriorly transversely placed & margins are clean cut regular well defined with dry red clotted blood. 10. Linear abrasion of size 6cm×in length present over left forearms U/3 obliquely placed. 11. Incised wound 4cm×1cmx tendon deep present over palmar aspect of right thumb medial part extending upto tip of the thumb with dry red clotted blood with clean cut regular & well defined. 12. Bruise of size 3×2cm posterior aspect of left elbow red in colour. 13. Incised wound 3.5cm×1.5cm× muscle deep present over back of neck more towards left side with dry red clotted blood with clean cut margins. 14. Abrasion 1×0.8cm left knee medial aspect red in colour. 15. Abrasion 0.4cm×0.4cm dorsum of right foot. 16. Multiple abrasion of varying size 3cm×0.5cm to 0.5cm×0.5cm right clavicular region red in colour. Above injuries are ante-mortem in nature & fresh in duration prior to death.” The nature, number and location of the injuries clearly indicate that the intention of the accused was to commit murder of deceased. The defence set up by the accused that a third person was seen running from the house after causing injuries to the deceased in the midnight and statement of some of the witnesses to that effect, hardly inspires confidence. 20. The defence set up by the accused that a third person was seen running from the house after causing injuries to the deceased in the midnight and statement of some of the witnesses to that effect, hardly inspires confidence. 20. While an offence to be murder punishable under Section 302 IPC has to fall in anyone of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC but at the same time, it should not fall in any of five exceptions thereto. Offence of murder postulates that it must have been committed with the intention or knowledge described in anyone of four Clauses of Section 300 IPC. We are not inclined to accept the argument that the present case would fall in exception (4) to Section 300 as there is absolutely no evidence of the fact that the injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased in a sudden fight, on heat of passion at the spur of moment. 21. Motive in a case of circumstantial evidence certainly assumes significance, but converse of it is not true that if the motive is not proved, that alone can be the reason for discarding the prosecution evidence proving several other clinching circumstances against the accused. The circumstances against the accused-appellant especially the fact that the room in which the dead body of Usha was found, was jointly shared by him with his wife and her dead body was found from that room and, therefore, the presumption of Section 106 of the Evidence Act would certainly arise, which inter alia provides that when a fact is especially in the knowledge of someone, the burden of proving the same is upon him. Since the accused was lastly with his wife in his room, he must offer explanation as to how and in what circumstances, the deceased sustained so many injuries. Since the accused had failed to offer any explanation, he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The failure of the accused to furnish an explanation by itself would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him. 22. In view of the totality of evidence, this Court is satisfied that the number of circumstances when joined together form a chain so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. 22. In view of the totality of evidence, this Court is satisfied that the number of circumstances when joined together form a chain so complete as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-appellant. The attending circumstances afford sufficient justification for drawing the inference that it was accused-appellant and none other than him, who has committed the murder of deceased. 23. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.