JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Azeemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The sole appellant has faced charge under Sections 302/201 IPC regarding death of his wife, Hemwanti Devi and causing disappearance of the dead body. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.12.1996 has held the appellant guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order of sentence dated 13.12.1996 awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The impugned judgment has been passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.235 of 1995. 3. As per the prosecution case the officer-in-charge-cum-Sub-inspector of Police, H.N. Saha of Bishunpur Police Station was on flag march with B.S.F. force and police party on 05.03.1995 and reached the village Banalat Hat and heard rumour that on the West of Haka Jang road in village Banalat, leg of a lady is lying with injury. The informant went there and saw the leg of unknown lady having injury but on search other parts of the dead-body was not found. 4. The inquest report was prepared and on the basis of self statement of the police officer, the police has registered Bishunpur P.S. Case No.10 of 1995 dated 06.03.1995 against unknown person under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation the police got information, that appellant Akshaywar Sao and his wife Hemwanti Devi, who have left their house, five days ago are missing. 5. On the basis of same the Police has arrested Akshaywar Sao on 28.03.1995 and recorded his confessional statement, which has been been mentioned in paragraph 46 of the case diary at 14 Hours. As per the confessional statement of the accused he has narrated the entire episode that on 01.03.1995 (Wednesday) at around 05:30 P.M., he alongwith his wife, Hemwanti Devi aged about 24-25 years were proceeded from Banalat going to the old house at Lesligang but because of the evening, they decided to stop in the way at Banari in the night. As per the confessional statement of the accused he has narrated the entire episode that on 01.03.1995 (Wednesday) at around 05:30 P.M., he alongwith his wife, Hemwanti Devi aged about 24-25 years were proceeded from Banalat going to the old house at Lesligang but because of the evening, they decided to stop in the way at Banari in the night. In the way to Banari near Haka Jang river, the wife (deceased) of the Akshaywar Sao went to attend the call of the nature towards the right side of the river but appellant, Akshaywar Sao has fallen down while descending from slope. After returning he disclosed the same to his wife, upon which his wife said that why did he not die. This infuriated the appellant, Akshaywar Sao who has assaulted his wife by means of balwa (a sharp cut weapon) on her neck due to which she fell down and succumbed to the injury. The appellant has stated that he never wanted to kill his wife but because of the situation he was deeply annoyed and thus he chopped the neck and both thighs of his wife. At that time, it was a bit dark. Thereafter the dead body was concealed under the sand at a distance of 100 yards West from the place of occurrence. One of the legs was buried in Southern side of the river. Another leg was buried in Northern side of the river and the head was concealed under the sand, on the Northern side of the river at a distance of 10-20 hands West to the place where leg was buried. Thereafter the blood alongwith sand at the place of occurrence were washed away in the river. The appellant has further stated that he has sustained some blood marks on the white full shirt and black paint, which was subsequently washed in the river with soap and the said cloth is in his house at Banalat. The appellant has admitted that after committing murder he has thrown tangi near the Dumar tree at Hardag and the clothes of his wife i.e. sari, petticoat, blouse, brassiere and plastic sleeper have been burnt in Bhaiyamara forest at Tithi village on the Southern side of Haka Jang Banari Road. The appellant has admitted that after committing murder he has thrown tangi near the Dumar tree at Hardag and the clothes of his wife i.e. sari, petticoat, blouse, brassiere and plastic sleeper have been burnt in Bhaiyamara forest at Tithi village on the Southern side of Haka Jang Banari Road. The appellant has further stated that when his wife Hemwanti Devi was pregnant in the year, 1991 she has filed a rape case against him at Daltonganj, in which the appellant remained in custody and because of efforts of some persons he came out of the jail and solemnized marriage with Hemwanti Devi. From the wedlock a son was born but died in the year, 1993 and thereafter their relationship was not cordial. In the meantime, Hemwanti used to go to his brother's place at Lesliganj. The appellant has doubted that she has developed illicit relation. 6. On completion of investigation police has submitted charge-sheet vide No.22 of 1995 dated 26.06.1995 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 28.06.1995 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 29.07.1995. 7. The charge against the appellant has been framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.11.1995. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether fourteen witnesses and also exhibited seven prosecution documents and accused have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.11.1996. Ram Nath Singh has been examined as P.W.-1, Brijmohan Singh has been examined as P.W.-2, Malkan Oraon has been examined as P.W.-3, Hazari Sao has been examined as P.W.-4, Dewanti Devi has been examined as P.W.-5, Ram Ratan Sao has been examined as P.W.-6, Gangeshwar Dayal Bharti has been examined as P.W.-7, Joseph Minz has been examined as P.W.8, Sheonarayan Sao has been examined as P.W.9, Jagdish Sao has been examined as P.W.10, Lakhan Sao has been examined as P.W.11, Lila Devi has been examined as P.W.-12, Smt. Palku Devi, has been examined as P.W.13 and H.N. Saha, investigating officer has been examined as P.W.14. 9. The confessional statement of the accused has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7, pursuant to the confessional statement of the accused the piece of sari and other materials have been recovered on the pointing of the appellant Akshaywar Sao by the police. 9. The confessional statement of the accused has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7, pursuant to the confessional statement of the accused the piece of sari and other materials have been recovered on the pointing of the appellant Akshaywar Sao by the police. The seizure list was prepared by A.S.I., H.N. Sah (P.W.14) in the handwriting of A.S.I. D.K. Ghosh, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. The seizure of cloths and the money, which have also been recovered on pointing out by the appellant and the seizure list of the same prepared by A.S.I., H.N. Saha (P.W.14) has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. The seizure witnesses, Ram Nath Singh and Brijmohan Singh have been examined in this case as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and their signature on the same have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 by P.W.3 (Malkan Oraon). The signature of the inquest witnesses Ganeshwar Dayal Bharti (P.W.7) and Joseph Minj (P.W.8) on the inquest report have been proved by P.W.7, Ganeshwar Dayal Bharti, which have been marked as Exhibits-2/1 and 2/2. The inquest report has been prepared by P.W.14, A.S.I, H.N. Saha in his handwriting and signature, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The FIR in the handwriting of A.S.I., D.K. Ghosh has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4 by P.W.14, H.N. Saha and fardbeyan in handwriting and signature of A.S.I., H.N. Saha has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 30.11.1996, where he has not explained the circumstance in which his wife has been missing. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on the basis of materials available on record the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court though the sister of the victim, Lila Devi, who has been examined as P.W.12 has not stated any thing regarding commission of offence against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Hazari Sao (P.W.4), brother of the appellant and Dewanti Devi (P.W.5) wife of Ram Ratan Sao have also not supported the case of the prosecution so far mens-rea of the appellant is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that father of the appellant Lakhan Sao has been examined as P.W.11 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Though he has stated that appellant along with his wife left house about 4-5 days ago, even then this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that P.W.1 (Ram Nath Singh) and P.W.2 (Brijmohan Singh) are the seizure witnesses, P.W.3 (Malkan Oraon) is the inquest witness, P.W.6 (Ram Ratan Sao) being brother of the appellant and P.W.7 (Gangeshwar Dayal Bharti) and P.W.8 (Joseph Minz) are the inquest witnesses but they have not stated anything so far the culpability of the appellant is concerned rather Joseph Minz (P.W.8), Sheonarayan Sao (P.W.9) and Jagdish Sao (P.W.10) are tendered witnesses. Smt. Palku Devi has been examined as P.W.13 and is a tendered witness. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that postmortem report has not been brought on record to substantiate that the lady died because of the assault made by baluwa as confessed by appellant before the police on 28.03.1995 at 14 Hours. As such, in absence of any legal material against the appellant, appellant may be acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. As such, in absence of any legal material against the appellant, appellant may be acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of materials adduced before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that while the informant-cum-Officer-in-Charge, H. N. Saha of Bishunpur Police Station was on flag march with B.S.F. Force and police party on 05.03.1995, he reached the Village-Banalat and heard rumour that leg of a lady is lying in the village on the west of Haka Jang Road. The informant being a Police Officer went there and found the right leg of an unknown lady but on search, other parts of the dead body was not found. On the self-statement of the Sub-Inspector of the Police, the Police has registered Bishunpur P.S. Case No.10 of 1995 dated 06.03.1995 against the unknown person under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the Police has got information that appellant, Akshaywar Sao and his wife who had left their village on 01.03.1995, are missing. The Police has apprehended the accused subsequently on 28.03.1995 and the accused, in Police custody has confessed his guilt at 14.00 Hours on 28.03.1995. On the basis of the confession of the accused, the Police has recovered the remnants of the clothes of the deceased along with plastic chappal and cash of one five paise coin, one ten paise coin and a 25 paise coin from the place, where the same had been concealed by the appellant which have been brought on record and proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. The appellant being husband of the deceased has not explained the circumstances of missing of his wife, as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellant being husband though having special knowledge about his own wife failed to explain the circumstance regarding her missing. Such of his confessional statement which led to the recovery of incriminating articles on the basis of the disclosure is legal evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The disclosure made by the appellant leading to discovery of fact are admissible as evidence. Such of his confessional statement which led to the recovery of incriminating articles on the basis of the disclosure is legal evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The disclosure made by the appellant leading to discovery of fact are admissible as evidence. On the basis of confessional statement of the accused, blood stained lathi, blood stained banyan and blood stained blanket (woolen kambal), have been recovered from the house of this accused / appellant. As such there is sufficient legal material under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as per the case of Mehboob Ali & another Vrs. State of Rajasthan [ (2016) 14 SCC 640 ]. The relevant para 13 to 17 are quoted 5 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015 here under: “13. For application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence. 1. Section 27 of the Evidence Act refers when any “fact” is deposed. Fact has been defined in Section 3 of the Act. Same is quoted below: “‘Fact’.— ‘Fact’ means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. ‘Relevant’.—One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.” 15. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. ‘Relevant’.—One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.” 15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz and other accused, Anju Ali was arrested. The fact that Anju Ali was dealing with forged currency notes was not to the knowledge of the police. The statement of both the accused has led to discovery of fact and arrest of co-accused not known to police. They identified him and ultimately statements have led to unearthing the racket of use of fake currency notes. Thus the information furnished by the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is clearly admissible which has led to the identification and arrest of accused Anju Ali and as already stated from possession of Anju Ali fake currency notes had been recovered. As per information furnished by accused Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Exts. P-41 and P-42, the fact has been discovered by police as to the involvement of accused Anju Ali which was not to the knowledge of the police. Police was not aware of accused Anju Ali as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake currency notes which were recovered from him. Thus the statement of the aforesaid accused Mehboob and Firoz is clearly saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by Section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the instant case. The statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery of fact proving complicity of the other accused persons and the entire chain of circumstances clearly makes out that the accused acted in conspiracy as found by the trial court as well as the High Court. 16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor and held thus: (Navjot Sandhu case, SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. 16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor and held thus: (Navjot Sandhu case, SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. We are of the view that Kottaya case is an authority for the proposition that ‘discovery of fact’ cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas, J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) ‘35. … The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.’ In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression ‘fact discovered’ in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case. The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) ‘13. … Now it is fairly settled that the expression “fact discovered” includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P.).’” 17. … Now it is fairly settled that the expression “fact discovered” includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P.).’” 17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that the accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38) “35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered’. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered’. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information lead to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the investigating officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” (underline supplied not part of original text) The appellant Haider Ali, being the husband of the deceased, who was found with the deceased on the previous night has not discharged his duty as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram as reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254 it has been held para 23, quoted hereunder: “23. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act 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. 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 compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.” The aforesaid circumstances and the confession prove that appellant was initially sent to jail, in a case of rape, which was filed by the deceased (Hemwanti Devi) and thereafter he has solemnized marriage. From the said relationship, a male child has been blessed, but he also died in the year 1993 and since then their relationship was not cordial rather strained. The further act of Hemwanti Devi to go to his brother's place at Lesliganj created some doubt in the mind of the appellant, Akshaywar Sao. When Akshaywar Sao disclosed his wife that he has fallen in the river, she replied that why he has not died? This infuriated the appellant and thus, he has killed his wife and thereafter the parts of the dead body was concealed at different places in the locality under the sand. As such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court on the basis of material evidence and the instant criminal appeal be dismissed being devoid of merit. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Hadish Ansari, Advocate and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Azeemuddin for the State and perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report, evidence of all the fourteen prosecution witnesses, seven prosecution exhibits and statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. From perusal of the materials brought on record, it appears that right leg of an unknown lady was recovered by the Police, who lodged the First Information Report against unknown. During investigation, the Police came to know about missing of appellant, Akshaywar Sao and his wife, Hemwanti Devi and that prompted the Police to arrest Akshaywar Sao on 28.03.1995. Pursuant thereto, appellant, Akshaywar Sao has confessed his guilt at 14.00 Hours i.e. 28.03.1995. He has also disclosed about the place, where he had concealed the clothes of the deceased, slippers and other materials, apart from the parts of the body in river under the sand. On the next day on 29.03.1995 at around 9.30 a.m. in presence of the appellant, on pointing out of by the appellant, the Police has recovered certain materials such as, remnants of burnt clothes and plastic slipper of the deceased with some cash. Materials have been seized, in presence of the appellant and the seizure list was prepared which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6/1. The appellant being the husband has not explained the situation in which his wife has been killed or missing. During his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 30.11.1996 and confronted with prosecution materials no plausible explanation has been given by the appellant regarding missing death/killing of his wife. This Court has taken view that recovery of remnants of the burnt clothes and slipper of the deceased seized, pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant in Police custody, in his presence and marked as Exhibit-6/1 comes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of the offence, in custody of Police officer. Therefore, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused of the offence, in custody of Police officer. Therefore, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The appellant being the husband being in knowledge of special circumstances regarding the missing of his wife has failed to prove that how his wife is missing and killed. The appellant has never disclosed or even taken plea that his wife is alive. Under the aforesaid circumstances and since the leg of the deadbody of his wife, Hemwanti Devi has been recovered by the Police and the same has not been refuted by the appellant, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, who has not discharged his onus under Section 106 of Evidence Act in view of the judgment reported in (2016) 14 SCC 640 Mahboob Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan relevant Paras 13 to 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded and also in view of the judgment State of Rajashtan Vs. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 , we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence committed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, as devoid of merit and requires no interference by this Court. 14. The appellant who is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below to serve rest of the sentence awarded against him. 15. Let the lower court record be sent to the court below along with a copy of the judgment.