JUDGMENT : RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa, Sessions Division Janjgir Champa (CG) in S.T. No.74/2010 whereby and whereunder the accused/appellant stands convicted for commission of murder of his wife- Manki Bai, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. As per case of the prosecution, deceased Manki Bai was wife of the appellant. They were residing at village Mohanpur, District Janjgir Champa. On 27.2.2010, Manki Bai (since deceased) had come to her parental home at village Madhaipur to celebrate the festival. On 4.3.2010, the appellant reached to the parental house of the deceased Manki Bai at village Madhaipur and forcibly tried to lead her to accompany him and when Koushalya Bai, and Shukrawar Singh, who are mother and father of the deceased tried to intervene, the appellant also assaulted them. The appellant carried out Manki Bai to the forest of village Chhata. On 7.3.2010 at about 9-10 am, one Ritu and some other persons found the dead body of Manki Bai at the forest, on which, Jamunabai, sister of the deceased lodged information to Police Station Baloda. Merg was registered vide Ex. P/2. Inquest report was prepared and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in autopsy, death of the deceased was found to be homicidal. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. The appellant did not plead guilty therefore, trial was conducted. After completion of trial statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing counsel for both the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under : (i) Statement of Jamuna Bai (PW1), Shukrawar Singh (PW3), Kaushalya Bai(PW4), Janki Bai (PW5) and Saheblal (PW9) ought not to have taken in to consideration because they are relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses. (ii) There is material omission and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses but the trial Court has overlooked the same and passed the judgment of conviction against the appellant which is not based on sound principle of law. (ii) There is material omission and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses but the trial Court has overlooked the same and passed the judgment of conviction against the appellant which is not based on sound principle of law. (iii) From the evidence of witnesses, it is not established that the appellant has assaulted the deceased and therefore, from this nature of evidence which is not inspiring confidence, finding of conviction ought not to have been recorded by the trial Court. (iv) The incident had occurred on 4.3.2010 and merg intimation was recorded on 7.3.2010 and no explanation is given by the prosecution for the delay then benefit of doubt should have been awarded to the appellant. (v) The appellant was not in custody while one Axe was alleged to have been seized from him and it cannot be proved in pursuance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (vi) As per postmortem examination dead body of the deceased was found with insects which is indicative of the fact that death of the deceased had taken place some days back and the evidence in this regard is shaky in nature. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State duly supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and submits that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law, and is not liable to be interfered with invoking jurisdiction of appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witness. 8. Dr. U.K.Markam (PW10) conducted autopsy of the deceased Manki Bai on 8.3.2010 at about 10.00 am and noticed following injuries: i. Incised wound on left elbow joint lower arm back size of 10 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut. ii. Incised wound on neck back region 6 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut. iii. Incised wound on left side of neck of 6 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut and just below 1st wound of 5 cm x 2 cm. iv. Incised wound on left side back 7 cm x 4 cm, margin clear cut. v. Incised wound on back 8th thoracic region of 10 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut. vi. Incised wound on left side of neck of 6 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut and just below 1st wound of 5 cm x 2 cm. iv. Incised wound on left side back 7 cm x 4 cm, margin clear cut. v. Incised wound on back 8th thoracic region of 10 cm x 4 cm margin clear cut. vi. Incised wound on front side of chest vertical size 12 cm x 8 cm margin clear cut. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the mode of death was due to asphyxia as a result of shock of multiple incised wounds over the body. Version of the autopsy surgeon is unrebutted during cross examination and there is no other expert opinion contrary to the opinion give by this witness, therefore, it is established that Manki Bai died due to multiple incised wounds on her body and looking to the injuries, we are of the view that it is caused intended to kill. 9. Jamuna Bai (PW1), Shukrawar Singh (PW3), Kaushalya Bai (PW4), Janki Bai (PW5) and Sahelbal (PW9) have categorically deposed before the trial Court that the appellant came to village Madhaipur having one Axe in his hand and he was violent and dragged the deceased Manki Bai towards forest of village Chhata. 10. True it is that there is some exaggeration in their statements regarding they are being eye-witnesses, but from the merg intimation recorded on information by Jamuna Bai (PW1) and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness, it is clearly established that right from the day of the incident to their deposition before the Court, they are stable on their version that it was the appellant who dragged the deceased from her parental house towards village Chhata and thereafter, dead body of the deceased was found in the forest of village Chhata. 11. Let us now advert in respect of other surrounding circumstances so as to formulate an opinion whether it was the appellant who committed murder of his wife Manki Bai. It is clear from the evidence that the appellant had come to the parental house of the deceased. Thereafter, he took away the deceased from her house. The deceased was in custody of her husband at village Madhaipur (parental village of the deceased) to village Chhata and the dead body of the deceased was found in the forest of village Chhata. Thereafter, he took away the deceased from her house. The deceased was in custody of her husband at village Madhaipur (parental village of the deceased) to village Chhata and the dead body of the deceased was found in the forest of village Chhata. When the incident took place in the secrecy of forest, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead ocular evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. 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, 1872 which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 12. In the present case, the prosecution has succeeded to discharge initial burden to establish the fact that deceased was in the custody of the appellant from village Madhaipur and it is also established that the appellant was having an Axe and he was violent. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the appellant to give cogent explanation as to when he separated from his wife, but he has offered no explanation. In the said premise to establish its case the burden lies on the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 13. In the present case, all the witnesses have seen the deceased in the custody of the appellant and thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive. The appellant has offered no explanation as to what he did after taking away his wife. In absence of any explanation on the part of the accused/appellant about his wife, there is every justification for drawing an inference that he has murdered his wife. The appellant has offered no explanation as to what he did after taking away his wife. In absence of any explanation on the part of the accused/appellant about his wife, there is every justification for drawing an inference that he has murdered his wife. Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be 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 like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding commission of murder. The accused/appellant by virtue of his special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. 14. In a case where no eye-witness 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 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. 15. In the present case, the accused/appellant was with his wife while dragging her towards village Chhata and he alone knows what happened to her until she was with him. If she was found murdered, the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the appellant has murdered her. Such inference can be disrupted if accused/ appellant would tell the court what else happened to his wife at least until she was in his custody. 16. As per the statement of Dr. U.K. Markam (PW10), he conducted autopsy on 8.3.2010 at about 10.00 am and in his opinion the death was caused since 5 days prior to examination. It means death was caused on 4.3.2010 and on that day as per the ocular evidence, the appellant dragged the deceased towards forest of village Chhata. 17. Present is not a case, where some exaggeration in the statements of witnesses or delay in reporting the matter will help the appellant because offence is committed in forest area and the same is a place of secrecy. 17. Present is not a case, where some exaggeration in the statements of witnesses or delay in reporting the matter will help the appellant because offence is committed in forest area and the same is a place of secrecy. Anything which would have helped the appellant is only the explanation when questions were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but in that statement he chose the mode of denial, when attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime. Nothing could help the appellant and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant be termed as futile exercise. It is a matter of 'last seen' between wife and husband and there is no scope for any third person to intervene. 18. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the points raised by the defence, we are of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason for us to disturb the finding recorded by the trial Court. 19. As a net conclusion, the appeal has no substance and the same being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 20. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. The trial Court shall issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the appellant for his arrest and after his arrest he be sent to jail immediately for serving the remaining part of the sentence.