JUDGMENT N.Anand Venkatesh, J. The first accused, who was convicted by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, by judgment dated 29.02.2016, for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo a life imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased wife and there was a brief separation. On a compromise held by the elders of the family, the deceased wife rejoined the appellant. Even thereafter the dispute continued and therefore, the deceased wife had given a complaint against the accused persons before the All Women Police Station, Tirumangalam, on 23.08.2012. PW.1 is said to have gone to the house of the appellant and warned him. Enraged by the same, the appellant, his father (A-2) and his mother (A-3) had entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased wife, namely, Alagupillai @ Uma. This criminal conspiracy is said to have happened on 24.08.2013. The next day on 25.08.2013, at about 9.30am, the appellant with an intention to murder the said Alagupillai @ Uma attacked her with vegetable cutter (Aruvamanai) and caused the cut injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased and had also hit the deceased person with iron rod on both sides of the cheeks and also strangulated the deceased. As a result of the same, the said Alagupillai @ Uma - wife of the appellant died on the same day. 3. Pw.1, who is the brother of the deceased gave a complaint (ExP.1) to the respondent Police and the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.181 of 2013(ExP.17) for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. PW.15 conducted investigation and took statements from witnesses and also prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch (ExP.18 and ExP.19) in the presence of the witnesses and also recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth (MO.3 and MO.4) in the presence of the witnesses and prepared an inquest report, marked as ExP.21. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by PW.12 and the Postmortem Certificate was marked as ExP.14. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by PW.12 and the Postmortem Certificate was marked as ExP.14. Subsequently, the accused person was arrested on 26.08.2013 at about 2.00pm and on the basis of the voluntary confession statement recorded in the presence of the witnesses, Investigating Officer recovered the bloodstained clothes, marked as MO.1 and MO.2 and also seized the weapons used at the time of committing the crime, which were marked as MO.5 and MO.6, apart from other material objects. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed by the respondent Police before the concerned Magistrate Court. 4. On committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the Court below has framed charges against three accused persons for an offence under Sections 120(B) and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. 5. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.15 and marked ExP.1 to ExP.29 and also MO.1 to MO.10, in order to substantiate its case. 6. On completion of the trial, the incriminating materials and the evidence against the accused persons were put to them under Section 313 of CrPC and the accused persons denied them as false. 7. The Court below, on considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the facts and circumstances of the case, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted him for the offence under Section 120(B) of IPC. Insofar as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, they were acquitted of all charges. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that PW.1, the brother of the deceased, PW.2 the father of the deceased and PW.9 the mother of the deceased have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Counsel would further submit that PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 who are the local residents, examined by the prosecution also turned hostile. That apart, PW.6 and PW.7, who are mahazar witnesses have also turned hostile and the confession and recovery witnesses examined as PW.8 and PW.10 have also turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that apart from the evidence of these hostile witnesses, there is no other material to substantiate the case of the prosecution. That apart, PW.6 and PW.7, who are mahazar witnesses have also turned hostile and the confession and recovery witnesses examined as PW.8 and PW.10 have also turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that apart from the evidence of these hostile witnesses, there is no other material to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that the Court below has proceeded to convict the appellant only based on the injuries found in the body of the deceased, which was spoken by PW.12, who is the Postmortem Doctor. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Court below erroneously relied upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and had convicted the appellant, inspite of the fact there were no materials against the appellant to find him guilty for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that PW.13 in her evidence has specifically stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased is possible, even by way of fall from a chair. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the deceased person had sustained injuries, since she fell down from the chair while clearing cobwebs on the roof. The learned Counsel would further submit that the benefit of doubt must have been given to the appellant and the appellant must have also been acquitted in this case. 10. Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even if all the witnesses have turned hostile, if there are materials to show that the appellant had committed the offence, this Court can always rely upon the same, against the appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that it is an admitted fact that the appellant was present at the scene of occurrence, when the incident happened and he has not given any explanation as to the manner, in which the deceased had sustained the stab and cut injuries on the cheeks and also on the neck. Therefore, since the appellant has not explained the factors, which were exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant, the Court has to take an adverse inference against the appellant. Therefore, since the appellant has not explained the factors, which were exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant, the Court has to take an adverse inference against the appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Court below has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also the entire materials placed on record and has rightly convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 12. It can be seen from records that PW.14, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, received information from PW.1 and he registered the case in Crime No.181 of 2013. Even though PW.1 in his evidence disowned the said complaint, admitted the fact that the signature found in the complaint is his signature. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that on 25.08.2013, at about 11.30am, the appellant called him over phone and informed about the fact that the deceased fell down from the chair, while clearing cobwebs and sustained injuries and was hospitalised and PW.1 in fact visited the hospital and found the deceased lying dead in pool of blood. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that the appellant was very much present in the scene of occurrence, when the incident happened. 13. Even though, PW.6 and PW.7 who are the mahazar witnesses, turned hostile, they admitted to the fact that the signature found in the mahazar is their signature. Similarly, the recovery witnesses, who also turned hostile also admitted to the fact that they are the ones, who had signed in the mahazar. 14. This is an unfortunate case, where even the father, mother and brother chose to become hostile witnesses. The evidence of the hostile witnesses need not be completely rejected. The only caution which the Court has to take is to be circumspect in accepting the testimony and to the extent possible, look for its corroboration. The witnesses by turning hostile itself is not a ground to prevent the Court from finding the accused guilty, if there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the prosecution. These witnesses inspite of giving statements to the Police at the stage of investigation against the accused persons, for reasons best known to them, chose not to support the case of the prosecution. These witnesses inspite of giving statements to the Police at the stage of investigation against the accused persons, for reasons best known to them, chose not to support the case of the prosecution. In short, these witnesses thought it fit to support the son-in-law/brother-in-law, casting aside the poor lady, who suffered a miserable death. 15. The definite case of the defence is that the deceased fell down from the chair, while clearing cobwebs in the house. While the deceased was taken to the hospital for giving emergency treatment, the appellant chose to make a statement before PW.13 Doctor, as if the deceased sustained injuries due to her fall from the chair, while cleaning the ceiling in the house. A cursory look at the accident register marked as Ex.P.15 would show that PW.13 had immediately recommended transfer of the deceased person to Madurai Government Hospital. 16. On being transferred, the postmortem was conducted by PW.12 and he had issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as ExP.14. It will be relevant to extract the findings given by PW.12 in the postmortem certificate and the same is extracted hereunder: "The body was seen by the undersigned at 10.30 PM on 26.08.2013. Its condition then was : Rigor mortis present all over the body. Postmortem commenced at 10.30 pm on 26.08.2013. Appearance found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished body of a female, aged about 28 years. Finger & Toe nails are blue. The following ante mortem are noted on the body: 1. An oblique stab injury measuring 4 cm X 1 cm X bone deep, 3 cm along the muscle plande noted on right cheek. 2. An oblique cut injury measuring 6 cm X 0.8 cm X bone deep noted on left parietal region, 7 cm above the angle of mandible. 3. An oblique cut injury 8 cm X 0.8 cm X bone deep noted left parital region, 9 cm above the angle of mandible. 4. Abrasion 2 cm X 1 cm noted over right cheek 5.4 crescentic nail marks noted on front of middle of left side of neck. Convexcity facing posterior and cavity facing anteriorly. On dissection of neck: The underlying neck structure like, thyroid, cricoid, larynx trachea and hyoid bone are normal. There is extravasation of blood noted in superficial and deeper planes of neck, measuring 12 cm X 10 cm noted in front of middle of left side of neck. Convexcity facing posterior and cavity facing anteriorly. On dissection of neck: The underlying neck structure like, thyroid, cricoid, larynx trachea and hyoid bone are normal. There is extravasation of blood noted in superficial and deeper planes of neck, measuring 12 cm X 10 cm noted in front of middle of left side of neck. On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Contusion scalp 10 cm x 6 cm noted on left parieto, temporal region. Diffuse subdural hemorrhage & subarachonoid hemorrhage noted over both the cerebral hemispheres. OTHER FINDINGS: Peritoneal cavity - empy; Pleural cavities - empy; Pericardium - contains 15 ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - right side fluid blood, left side empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs - cut section congested; Larynx & Trachea - normal; Hyoid bone - intact; stomach - contains 200 ml of brown colour fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa - normal; Liver, spleen & Kidneys - cut section congested; Small intestine - contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa - normal; Bladder - empty; uterus - normal; cut section empty; Brain - described in injury coloumn. OPINION: ''THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF ASPHYXIA DUE TO COMPRESSION OF NECK AND HEAD INJURY 20 - 24 HOURS PRIOR TO AUTOPSY" 17. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the opinion of an expert under Section 45 of the Act becomes a relevant fact for the purpose of appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution. The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which conclusion is reached. 18. In this case, not only postmortem certificate has been marked, but also the Doctor, who conducted postmortem has been examined as PW.12. The said Doctor at the time of giving evidence before the Court has categorically stated that the injuries can be caused due to cut by the vegetable cutter and the iron rod. The said Doctor has also given opinion that the deceased died out of asphyxia due to compression of neck and head injury, 20 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy. This evidence has not been discredited in the cross examination. 19. The said Doctor has also given opinion that the deceased died out of asphyxia due to compression of neck and head injury, 20 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy. This evidence has not been discredited in the cross examination. 19. In the considered view of this Court, the deceased could not have suffered the nature of injuries that have been mentioned in the postmortem certificate, by a mere fall from a chair. The injuries include a stab injury, oblique cut injury and crescentic nail marks on front of middle of left side of neck. These injuries can be caused, only if a person is attacked with a sharp weapon. The nature of injuries is also found in the accident register, which is marked as ExP.15, through PW.13, who also says that these injuries can happen due to the vegetable cutter and iron rod. 20. These injuries as recorded by an expert, on examination of the body of the deceased, completely support the case of the prosecution with regard to the weapon used for the purpose of causing injuries. Therefore, the story of the defence that the injuries were caused due to the fall from the chair, while cleaning ceiling, is clearly unacceptable and not the real truth. 21. The next question, which this Court has to address is as to who committed this crime. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has proved or discharged the initial burden of establishing prima facie the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As stated above, admittedly, the appellant was very much present in the scene of occurrence and therefore, burden shifts on him to explain as to what really happened at the time of occurrence, since the said fact is specially within the knowledge of the appellant, more particularly, in a case where the appellant is none other than the husband of the deceased and both of them were present in the house, when the incident happened. 22. It is in cases of this nature, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, comes into play. It will be useful to extract Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is as follows: "106.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" 23. It will be useful to extract Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is as follows: "106.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" 23. It will be useful to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 507 of 2008, while dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which is as follows; "A fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilized. We make it clear that this Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it 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." 24. The above observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is attracted to this case. It has not been disputed that the deceased died in the matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. The appellant and the deceased were only present in the house at the time of occurrence. The above observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is attracted to this case. It has not been disputed that the deceased died in the matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. The appellant and the deceased were only present in the house at the time of occurrence. The cause of death of the deceased, as reflected by postmortem certificate and the evidence of PW.12 reflects stab injury, oblique cut injury, etc., therefore, the burden shifts on the appellant to explain before the Court as to how the deceased sustained such injuries, more particularly, since the story sought to be projected by the appellant does not fall in line with the medical evidence. In this case, the appellant has failed to explain those injuries on the deceased, even though it is the appellant, who had the special knowledge as to what really happened in the scene of occurrence. No specific question questions have been put to PW.12 with regard to one stab injury and two cut injuries found in the body of the deceased and PW.12 has specifically stated that those injuries could be caused by MO.5 and MO.6. 25. That apart, in this case, the serology report, which was marked as ExP.29, shows that the blood group found in the material objects tallied with the blood group of the deceased which is "Group-A". It needs emphasis to also mention the vegetable cutter, MO.5 and twisted rod, MO.6 also contained the bloodstains of the deceased. These overwhelming materials, which were provided by the experts, makes it even more incumbent on the part of the appellant to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the appellant has miserably failed to discharge that burden and therefore, it leaves this Court with no other option, except to take adverse inference against the appellant. The appellant has not even explained, when he was questioned under Section 313 of CrPC, regarding these incriminating materials. 26. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jose @ Pappachan Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, reported in, (2016) 4 Crimes(SC) 77. 27. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 26. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jose @ Pappachan Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, reported in, (2016) 4 Crimes(SC) 77. 27. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence was not established by the prosecution. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the presence of the appellant in the scene of occurrence. 28. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Manickam Vs. State, reported in, (2016) 4 MLJ(Cri) 356. 29. The said judgment also does not have any application to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the accused had suffered several injuries and the prosecution did not establish as to who was the real aggressor. Therefore, this Court held that since the prosecution did not prove the said fact, the onus of proof did not shift to the accused person under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, both the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case. 30. This Court is of the considered view that the Court below has appreciated the entire evidence and materials available on record and has come to the categorical conclusion that the appellant is liable to be convicted and punished under Section 302 of IPC. This Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, concurs with the judgment of the Court below, as the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased was caused by the appellant. 31. This Court does not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, CRL MP(MD) No.6148 of 2017 is closed. The appellant was granted bail by this Court, during pendency of the appeal. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled and the Court below is directed to immediately issue non bailable warrant and secure the appellant to make him suffer the life imprisonment imposed by the Court below and confirmed by this Court in this appeal.