JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. By way of instant appeal, finding of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.35/2013 dated 08.01.2015 has been assailed, whereby appellant has been convicted with life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default further to undergo three months simple imprisonment and has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 (1-B) of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. 10,000/- in default further to undergo three months simple imprisonment and has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 (1-B) of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. First Information Report lodged by PW1 Rambharosi Lal, father of deceased Poonam, dated 04.04.2012 registered by PW20 Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chand, reads as under:- lsok esa] Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh Fkkuk dksrokyh HkjriqjA fo"k;% ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkus ckcr~A egksn; fuosnu gS fd esjh iq=h iwue dh 'kknh fnukad 02-12-2009 dks idat mQZ VhVw iq= Jh ekŒ enuyky ipksjh fuoklh gky catjx uxj Hkjriqj ds lkFk iSjkMkbZt esfjt gkse esa dh FkhA 'kknh ds le; oj i{k dh ekax ds vuqlkj 2]51]000-00 uxj vkSj eksVjlkbZfdy lfgr tsoj ?kjsyw leku vkfn fn,A ftlesa ÁkFkhZ ds djhc 8&9 yk[k ds djhc [kpZ gq,A ijUrq mDr fn;s x;s lkeku ls ifr iadt] llqj enuyky o lkl Á;kx nsoh o pfp;k llqj txnh'k vkSj esjh eqfl;k lkl 'kkjnk nsoh [kq'k ugha gq, rFkk tc ÁkFkhZ dh iq=h igyh ckj fonk gksdj vk;h rks mlus crk;k fd mDr lHkh yksx ngst esa dkj o nks yk[k :i;s dh ekax dj jgs gS fd mDr lkeku ngst ds :i esa ugha fn;k rks 'kkfUr ls ugha jgus nsaxsA ;s yksx lHkh vk;s fnu ngst dh ekax djrs jgs vkSj esjh yMdh dks ekjihV dj rax o ijs'kku djrs eSa o esjs lkFk esjh iRuh m"kk o lkyh csch o iq= eukst o iadt le>kus mlds ?kj ij x, rks lHkh yksxksa us gekjs lkeus gh mDr ekax dks iwjh djus dks dgkA ftl ij ÁkFkhZ us vleZFkrk tkfgj fd ftl ij mDr lHkh yksx xkyh&xyksp o ekjihV ij vkeknk gks x,A ftu ij ÁkFkhZ dh iq=h ds cPpk gksus ds miy{; esa ekax iwjh djus dk vk'oklu fn;kA djhc lky Hkj iwoZ iq=h ds yM+dh gksus ds miy{; esa fQj mDr lHkh yksx ekax iwjk djus dks ncko cukus yxs rFkk yM+ds dh ekSlh 'kkjnk gekjs ?kj vk;h ?kj vkdj dkj o nks yk[k :i;s dh ekax djus dh /kedh nhA yMdh gksus ds ckn ls gh mDr lHkh yksx esjh yM+dh ds lkFk vk;s fnu ekjihV djrs o mlds lkFk ØwjrkiwoZd O;ogkj djrsA vkt ls nks fnu iwoZ ÁkFkhZ ds iq= dh :dkbZ ds miyC/k esa tc iq=h dks fyokus esa vk;k rks iq=h us crk;k fd mlds lkFk ngst dh ekax dks ysdj cqjh rjg ekjihV dh gSA ftlls mldh vka[k ij 'kjhj ij pksVsa ekStwn FkhA ÁkFkhZ dh iq=h ds dkxkjksy igqap dj crk;k fd mls cqjh rjg ekjk x;k gSA mlus dgk fd mls okfil llqjky er Hkstks mDr lHkh yksx tku ls ekj nsxsaA ijUrq ÁkFkhZ us le>k cq>kdj ÁkFkhZ dks okfil Hkst fn;kA ftl ij dy jkr fnukad 03-04-2012 dks jkf= 12-15 cts ÁkFkhZ ds ikl Qksu ls lwpuk feyh fd esjh iq=h dks xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh gSA ÁkFkhZ jkr dks vLirky igqapk rks mldh iq=h iwue e`r feyhA ftlds 'kjhj ij xksyh o pksV ds vykok ekjihV ds fu'kku ekStwn FksA iwue dh gR;k mlds ifr iadt mQZ VhVw llqj enu yky lkl Á;kx nsoh ekSlh 'kkjnk nsoh o pfp;k llqj txnh'k vkfn us vkilh "kMa;= dj ngst ds dkj.k gh gR;k dh gSA fjiksVZ djrk gwa dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dj ngst ds yksfHk;ksa dks nf.Mr fd;k tkosA fnukad & 04-04-2012 ÁkFkhZ ,lMh@& jkeHkjkslh yky jkeHkjkslh yky xkao dkxkjksy iksŒ dkxkjksy ftyk vkxjk ¼mŒÁŒ½ 3. Heard submission of both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned trial court has passed an erroneous judgment, in fact accused had gone to attend marriage of his friend and he was not present at the time of occurrence, recovery of dry cartridge or alleged residuals emanating fire smell from water, can never be reasons of positive evidence, establishing presence of fire smell. Majority of the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution, hence benefit of doubt ought to be extended, so appeal be allowed and findings of the trial court be quashed and appellant be acquitted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that defence has failed to discharge plea of alibi, as enumerated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, place of alleged alibi visit was also 50 to 80 km from Bharatpur, conduct of the accused is highly incriminating, he even did not return till the post mortem and delivery of the body to the parents of the deceased, even none of the family member informed to the Police nor registered the FIR. Demand of dowry was persistent, deceased was often harassed and beaten for dowry, she was even not permitted to stay at her parental home, when engagement of her brother was held, she was beaten there and bruises were there on her eye, prosecution witnesses have not turned hostile but they have conceded that a "compromise" has taken place between their families, which cannot be tenet of criminal law and compromise cannot exonerate brutal killer. Weapon of assault has been recovered on the instance of accused and ballistic report has also established that the fire was shot from questioned weapon and used pellets extracted from the body, have been found to have fired by the weapon recovered, plea of alibi is not discharged, learned trial court has not committed any infirmity in passing the judgment, there is no flaw in the findings, which deserves to be upheld. 5. Having heard both sides, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the record and have carefully examined the evidence thoroughly. 6. 5. Having heard both sides, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the record and have carefully examined the evidence thoroughly. 6. Complainant-Rambharosi Lal PW1, while testified, has turned hostile but he has categorically stated that a compromise has been arrived and he has stated that marriage of his daughter Poonam was solemnised on 2.12.2009 with Pankaj @ Titu resident of Bajrang Nagar, Bharatpur at Paradize Marriage Home and he had gifted motorcycle, jewellery and domestic articles and had spent about nine lakh rupees in the marriage, he has also stated that it was informed to him by his family members that Poonam was tortured and used to be tormented by her husband and members of in-laws family because of dowry, they had been to their family to make them convinced and understood, talks were held with the members of in-laws family of Poonam, he has further stated that talks of Usha, Baby his sister-in-law, sons Manoj and Pankaj had taken place in this respect and has stated that he is not known whether they could be understood, yielded with or not and has expressed his ignorance on method and date of harassment perperated upon his daughter, Poonam has since died and she was shot dead, he has admitted his signatures on Exhibit-P1 and chalked FIR Exhibit-P2, spot-map Exhibit-P3, Panchayatnama Exhibit-P4, Exhibit-P5 seizure memo pertaining to blood stained bedsheet, broken pieces of bangles, nose-pin and has confirmed that the said were sealed after seizure, he has also verified that blood stained apparels of deceased were also seized vide Exhibit-P6 which were sealed and which contains his signatures, Exhibits-P8 to P29 are the photographs, got clicked during the investigation by police, having been hostile, in cross-examination he has further stated that Exhibit-P1 report was got typed by his relative and he cannot say whether its portion 'C' to 'D' is correct or not and has categorically stated that a "compromise" has taken place amongst them and has ratified that on 3.4.2012 he had received a telephonic message through unknown person that his daughter had died of bullet injury so, they had come to Bharatpur in the night itself, report was given to Thanedar Sahab in the noon, it was brought by relatives, he has also stated that it is correct that his daughter was M.A. in English and was preparing for teaching job. 7. 7. Disclosing factual aspect, he has stated that two days ahead of the incident, Pankaj had come to them to attend engagement of his son and after engagement Poonam had returned with her husband to her in-laws home, she had given birth to Khushboo on 3.2.2011, he has further stated that Bina, wife of his younger brother, owes house near the in-laws house of the deceased and rooftops of their home are connected, he has also made an important narration that they did not hear anything alike that some intruder barged into the roof and would have shot at his daughter. 8. Appraisal of the evidence of this witness is enough to indicate that he heard telephone call that his daughter was shot dead and in the same night he reached there and lodged report Exhibits-P1 and P2. Poonam was used to be harassed by her husband and her in-laws because of dowry and so, members of her parental house had gone to make Poonam's in-laws understood and two days before the incident, Poonam had come to attend betrothal ceremony of her brother and was taken back by her husband on the same day without permitting her to stay with her parental home and signs of beating injuries were there on her body besides fire injuries. 9. Normally a married daughter, who visits from out station to attend important function alike engagement of her brother, does not return back on the same day, unless contingency or incidence of estranged relations, so instinct of an undercurrent of simmering uncalm relation, could plausibly be felt. 10. 9. Normally a married daughter, who visits from out station to attend important function alike engagement of her brother, does not return back on the same day, unless contingency or incidence of estranged relations, so instinct of an undercurrent of simmering uncalm relation, could plausibly be felt. 10. PW2 Ram Kumar Bhardwaj, brother of deceased Poonam has stated that his sister was married on 2.12.2009 at Bharatpur, befitting dowry was given in the marriage, he has accepted his signatures on Exhibit-P3, spot-map and Exhibit-P4 Panchayatnama, Exhibit-P41 memo of delivery of dead body and has also accepted that blood stained bed sheet, fragments of bangles, nose-pin were seized vide Exhibit-P5 and said were sealed, wearing clothes of deceased were also taken vide Exhibit- P6 and his signatures were taken, this witness has also turned hostile but factum of compromise has not been ruled out by this witness since he has said that it is wrong that because of compromise, he is deposing wrong, testimony of this witness goes to show that he was very much there at the time of the formalities which had taken place regarding recovery and drawing of spot-map owing to incident of death of Poonam by bullet and she was shot dead in her own in-laws home. 11. PW3 Manoj Kumar, another brother of deceased Poonam, has also stated that his sister Poonam was married on 2.12.2009 with Pankaj @ Titu resident of Bajrang Nagar, Bharatpur and they had spent eight to nine lakh rupees in the marriage, Poonam died of bullet injury and report was lodged by his father, he has accepted his signatures on spot-map Exhibit-P3, Panchnama Exhibit-P4, seizure memo of blood stained bed sheet, broken pieces of bangles, nose-pin Exhibit-P5 and Exhibit-P6 by which wearing clothes of deceased were seized, which does show that he too was there at the time of brutal killing of his sister in her own in-laws house because of bullet injury and he had reached there on hearing unpleasant. In cross-examination he too has admitted that a compromise has taken place amongst them. Assertion made by this witness that "compromise" had taken place between the in-laws and parental family of Poonam, gives an inference that to screen truth and accused persons, truth has been withheld and a hush-hush theory has been introduced and broadcast likewise. 12. In cross-examination he too has admitted that a compromise has taken place amongst them. Assertion made by this witness that "compromise" had taken place between the in-laws and parental family of Poonam, gives an inference that to screen truth and accused persons, truth has been withheld and a hush-hush theory has been introduced and broadcast likewise. 12. True it is that version of hostile witness impinges upon the story of prosecution but testimony of such witnesses ought to be read carefully and is relevant. 13. PW4 Smt. Usha Devi, mother of deceased has turned hostile, this witness has also admitted that a compromise has taken place, she has stated that report was lodged by her husband and she cannot say whether report contains true version or not, as such she too has not ruled out that incident was wrong. 14. PW7 Kunjilal is a witness of arrest memo Exhibit-P34 and has stated that Pankaj Kumar Sharma was arrested by the police, "PW8 Suresh Sharma is a witness to arrest memo Exhibits- P44 and P45 and has accepted his signatures on Exhibits-P44, P45, P46 and P47". Exhibit-P34 arrest memo of accused Pankaj discloses that his arrest could be made on 4.4.2012 at 7:30 PM, he too has said that it is wrong that he would be deposing wrong because of compromise, as such factum of compromise has indisputably emerged from the testimony of all the family members of deceased Poonam, which rather confirms complicity of appellant-accused. 15. PW10 Rajiv Solanki has turned hostile but he has stated that he had come to Bharatpur on hearing telephonic message regarding death of Poonam. 16. Vital it is that Smt. Poonam aging 29 years, was found dead by bullet injury in her husband's home in the night of 3.4.2012, her marriage had taken place on 2.12.2009 and her end came by way of brutal killing within a period of about three years and four months of her marriage. 17. Recital of unlawful demand of dowry, visit of her family members to the house of deceased Poonam to make demanding spouse understood have appeared in the evidence. 17. Recital of unlawful demand of dowry, visit of her family members to the house of deceased Poonam to make demanding spouse understood have appeared in the evidence. Instinct of abnormality in relations has also emanated since prior to her unnatural death while two days ahead to her killing she attended engagement of her brother at her parental home, was taken back on the same day, contents of FIR does also reveal that two days prior to her death she had been to her parental home to attend betrothal of her brother and she had complained regarding beatings and ill-treatment for dowry and even injury on her eye was found and she has disclosed this when she came at her parental home at Kagarol, Agra. 18. Defence plea of "alibi" has been taken by the accused that he was away to "Raya" to attend function in his friend's home, distance between Bharatpur and Raya is not far but it is around 56 km, which can be fathomed by road conveniently even within an hour's time. A male spouse, whose wife is assassinated in the night hours would certainly return back to his home without losing time and from this alleged distance of 56 km in natural course but he did not turn up till next day evening, even members of deceased's parental home, after getting telephonic information and after travelling distance from Kagarol, Agra, reached there and father of the deceased lodged report, it is also surprising that family members of accused nor the accused ventured to lodge FIR with the Police Station, which is also unnatural, nothing is there on the record to show that deceased lady was taken to hospital for medical help by her in-law family, these are circumstances which fortifies involvement when weapon of assault with positive ballistic and FSL has recovered upon the instance of accused-husband of the deceased. 19. Recovery of assault weapon, a 12-bore country made pistol (Katta) has been made on 6.4.2012 at 1:15 PM before witnesses Balkishan PW12 and Ajay Singh PW11 with an empty (fired cartridge) on the instance of accused Pankaj, after information to this effect vide Exhibit-P62 rendered on 6.4.2012 at 12:15 AM, both these witnesses PW11 Ajay Singh and PW12 Balkishan have corroborated recovery of the weapon before them and evidence has remained unshattered. 20. 20. Link evidence pertaining to seizure and deposit of the same has also established by the prosecution PW13 Bahadur Singh, PW17 Narendra Singh, PW18 Ajit Singh and PW21 Gopi Singh, have corroborated this aspect as well. 21. Ballistic-report dated 22.02.2013, admissible under section 293 of CrPC, 1973 depicts that the said 12-bore country made pistol was found serviceable firearm and examination of barrel residues have indicated that it was used and fired, damaged lead pellets of packet 'D' have been established to have been fired from the said 12-bore country-made pistol, comparison of microscopic examination has also suggested that the 12-bore 'Shaktiman Express' damaged cartridge was fired from the said 12-bore country made pistol, serological report dated 31.05.2012 being FSL/Toxi Div. 554/2012 has given test regarding poison etc as negative. 22. Exhibit-P64 FSL/serology report has given a positive finding regarding presence of human blood upon bed sheet, pieces of bangles, nose-pin, saree, blouse, bra articles/Exhibits seized and proved, apart from nose-pin, human blood has been found on all of them. 106 of Evidence Act enumerates :- Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. -- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. 23. An abortive attempt has been made by appellant accused to establish plea of "alibi" that he was away to attend a yagyopaveet sanskar/marriage of his friend but Exhibit-P7, envelop of invitation card, is not addressed to the invitee accused Pankaj or his family member rather its an invitation, which is primarily given to revered ancestors and God Almighty. 24. Defence evidence has also come from the side of accused. 25. 24. Defence evidence has also come from the side of accused. 25. DW1 Devendra Kumar has stated that marriage of his son Chandrashekhar had taken place on 03.04.2012, confirming the photographs of the said marriage he has stated that the place of marriage is 35 to 40 km from their residence, this witness has further stated that a swagat samaroh/ashirwad samaroh had taken place in the intervening night on 3rd and 4th of April 2012 at 11-12 but the said fact is not established by Exhibit-P6 invitation card, since it has got "print" that marriage ceremony was ceremonised on 03.04.2012 in the night and bride was to come on 04.04.2012 in the wee hours of Wednesday. Devendra Kumar has stated that blessing-cum-reception ceremony was held after the marriage, when marriage ceremony was performed on 03.04.2012 in the night hours, then blessing-cum-reception could have not been ceremonised between the intervening night of 3rd and 4th April 2012, in cross-examination this witness has stated that he has got no relationship with Pankaj nor he has produced registration of marriage of Chandrashekhar. Devendra Kumar has specifically narrated that he was having no relationship with Pankaj, in what capacity accused attended ritual marriage, is obscure. Had there been any proximity of relationship, then accused Pankaj would have certainly attended the marriage along with his wife. 26. A person attending ritual marriage at a sheer distance between 60 to 90 km away from his home, would not even be informed about brutal killing of his own wife and was not allegedly aware about the incidence, on the contrary deceased's parental family members i.e. his in-laws reached there and registered the FIR, sense positive circumstance qua appellant being inculpatory and all this mars credence of "Alibi Plea", a sheer explanation, which has been tendered by accused under section 313 of CrPC, 1973 is that he returned in the evening of 04.04.2012, does appear to be an abortive attempt to seek "Alibi", being lame and flimsy defence. It is significant to observe that FIR has been lodged by father of the deceased, none from the family of accused have even given information to the nearest Police Station. Furthermore, alleged distance being away, also not being far away rather fathomable within an hour's time, are circumstances and facts, diminishes worth of plea of alibi and raise finger upon accused being inculpatory. 27. Furthermore, alleged distance being away, also not being far away rather fathomable within an hour's time, are circumstances and facts, diminishes worth of plea of alibi and raise finger upon accused being inculpatory. 27. Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has observed:- 9. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 10. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished. 11. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished. 11. 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 Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 2003 Cri LJ 3892). 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. Supreme Court in Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. The State of Haryana (2012) 5 SCC 766 has also observed:- 17. In our opinion, the courts below have taken a correct view so far as the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is concerned. This Court in Prithipal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10 , considered the issue at length placing reliance upon its earlier judgments including State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. etc. etc. AIR 2000 SC 2988 ; and Sahadevan @ Sagadevan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai AIR 2003 SC 215 and held as under: That if fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, then burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused. by Inspector of Police, Chennai AIR 2003 SC 215 and held as under: That if fact is especially in the knowledge of any person, then burden of proving that fact is upon him. It is impossible for the prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section 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, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. (See also: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747 ; and Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310 ). Thus, findings recorded by the courts below in this regard stand fortified by the aforesaid judgments. 28. Estranged marital relationship were there, fact of persistent dowry demand have established, deceased was brought back on the same day, two days ahead to the incident after participation in her brother's engagement besides she was given beatings and bruises were there on her eye apart from recovery of weapon establishing having been used in brutal killing inculpatory enough to determine alike. 29. Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 , has held:- The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he 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 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule 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 compatiable with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. 30. Accused has not tendered any explanation to discharge burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, he should have explained how and when he parted company of his deceased wife, no plausible explanation exculpating him has come forth, he has not given any explanation and pleaded alibi earlier, prior to the stage of section 313 of CrPC, 1973 even no plausible explanation has been tendered under section 313 of CrPC, 1973 even after her death, nothing of this nature has been explained by him, incriminating positive Evidence of Recovery of weapon used in the killing, establishing its use by ballisitc and F.S.L. fortifies the circumstances. 31. Supreme Court in Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar & Ors (1997) SCC (Cri) 612, has held that evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version, tyrannical conduct of cruelty and persistent demand of dowry over years, has also established, accused has not explained that when he left the company of his wife nor anything alike has emerged from the defence evidence pertaining to plea of alibi from appellant-accused. 32. 32. Leaving wife alone to attend function at some stranger's house, not related with the accused, makes the version of alibi unacceptable, moreover, distance of the alleged visiting spot was easily accessible in an hour's times, conduct of the accused that he did not return even till next whole day and admittedly returned in the evening, after body having been delivered to the father of the deceased on 04.04.2012 at 04:50 PM vide Exhibit-P41 post post-mortem and accused being non-resent throughout, besides, recovery of weapon of assault, a 12- bore Katta, upon the instance of accused, which too having been found to have been used for firing alleged shot, as discussed above, thus burden of discharging exculpatory explanation has not come-forth from the side of accused to substantiate plea of alibi in true sense, so, we find defence-explanation of alibi improbable, non-satisfactory and non-plausible. 33. Learned trial court has meticulously dealt with the evidence and has rightly concluded with the guilt of the accused by holding failure to discharge burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 34. Set of entire evidence, proves case of the prosecution. Incriminating circumstances, coupled with failure of accused-appellant in discharging burden cast upon under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, forms a complete chain consistent that no other inference except guilt of the accused in fastening culpability, comes-out. 35. In aforesaid facts and circumstances discussed and deliberated hereinabove, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of learned trial court but to concur with the same. 36. In the result, appeal fails and findings of learned trial court are confirmed.