JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 106 of 1997 (State vs. Shiv Sahai & Anr.), under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur, whereby accused-appellants Shiv Sahai and Smt. Savitri have been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5000/-each. In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo six months additional imprisonment. 2. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of complainant's sister Kaushalya was solemnized with accused-appellant Shiv Sahai in June 1993. Shiv Sahai was a person of doubtful character and he was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Savitri Devi. Kaushalya has seen them in objectionable condition on several occasions. Due to the above facts, relations between accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and Kaushalya were not cordial. On 07.06.1997 complainant Narain Singh and his younger brother Arvind have gone to village Itayal to bring their sister. In the evening, after taking food they slept in the outer part of the house. At about 11:00 PM, Kaushalya has seen accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and Savitri Devi in objectionable condition and on that issue, an altercation took place. Accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and Savitri Devi took Kaushalya Devi into the room and committed her murder by tiding her neck with a rope. Hearing the noise, complainant and his brother awoke but both the accused persons ran away towards jungle. 3. The complainant/PW-1 Narain Singh reported the matter to the police by filing a tahreer Ex. Ka.1 and on that basis case was registered on 08.06.1997 at 6:20 A.M. against both the accused persons under Section 302/34 of IPC vide FIR Ex. Ka. 3. 4. PW-5 K.D. Pal conducted inquest proceedings. The inquest report Ex. Ka.5 and other related documents were prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem. 5. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kaushalya was conducted on 08.06.1997 by PW-3 Dr.B.L. Kushwaha, vide postmortem report exhibit Ka-2. Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (i) A Ligature mark is present all around the neck, measuring 39.00 c.m. x 2.00 c.m. in size. 5. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kaushalya was conducted on 08.06.1997 by PW-3 Dr.B.L. Kushwaha, vide postmortem report exhibit Ka-2. Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased: (i) A Ligature mark is present all around the neck, measuring 39.00 c.m. x 2.00 c.m. in size. Horizontal in position on the front of neck it is situated on the thyroid cartilage. Ligature marks is more prominent on the front of neck & sides of neck & less marked on the back of neck. Ligature mark is abraded at places on the front of neck & sides of neck. No sick marks is seen. Following condition of body was also noted:- (ii) Female body of average built. Eyes closed & prominent. Conjvitival congested. Pupils dilated. Face congested & swollen. Mouth open. Tongue is protruding out of teeth. Dark in colour. Blood tongue tingvel throathy discharge is coming out per both nostril and side of mouth. PM staining present on the back of trunk. Rigor mortis present in lower limbs only. Abdomen distorted. Greenish discoloration present on the both illiac fossure. Breast distorted lips and nails are eyenosel. Feces are passing out per onus. Skin peeled of at places on abdomen and chest. Hands are clenched. As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. Time of death was stated 30-36 hours. 6. Inspector Pahup Singh (PW-6) conducted investigation of the case. During course of investigation, accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has got the rope recovered, which was used in the incident and it was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.Ka.12. After completion of the investigation, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. It appears that during investigation, naming of accused-appellant Smt. Savitri was found false and thus, she was not charge-sheeted. 7. Learned trial court framed charge against accused-appellant Shiv Sahai, under Section 302 of IPC. During trial accused-appellant Savitri Devi was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial of the present case along with accused-appellant Shiv Sahai by order dated 24.05.2003. Thereafter both the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 of IPC. 8. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined six witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. 9. Thereafter both the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 of IPC. 8. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined six witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. 9. In defence, the accused persons have examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1 Arjun Singh and DW-2 Bhanu Pratap. 10. After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, both the accused-appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced as stated earlier. 11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal. 12. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits: (i) That the presence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar on the spot is highly doubtful. The first information report was lodged after about 7.30 hours of the alleged incident, while police station was at a distance of 3 kms from the place of incident. Further both these witnesses were not present at the time of the inquest, as they have not been shown as witnesses of the inquest report. It was argued that if these witnesses might have witnessed the alleged incident, they must have reported the matter to the police station without any delay and they must have been present at the time of inquest. (ii) That PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar are the brother of deceased Smt. Kaushalya and thus, both are interested witnesses. It is not natural and probable that both theses witnesses might have gone to bring their sister Kaushalya as there was no such occasion. It was also not clear that for what purpose they have gone to bring Kaushalya back from the house of her-in-laws. (iii) That there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar. PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that they have gone to village Itayal on foot to bring back their sister Kaushalya, whereas PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that they have gone by a Tonga. Similarly PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that on that night, they both were lying on one cot (charpai), while PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that they were lying on separate cots (charpai). Similarly PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that on that night, they both were lying on one cot (charpai), while PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that they were lying on separate cots (charpai). It was further pointed out that there are also contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of both these witnesses regarding the time of the incident. It was further submitted that in view of these contractions, the evidence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar is not reliable. (iv) That there was no evidence of any source of light on the spot and there is no satisfactory evidence as to how theses witnesses have identified the accused persons. (v) That the marriage of the deceased with the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has taken place way back in the year 1983 and there was no motive on the part of the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai to commit the murder of his wife Kaushalya. There is no evidence to establish that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Savitri Devi. The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive. (vi) On behalf of the accused-appellant Savitri, it has been argued that she was residing separately from the family of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to why she would join in the commission of the murder of the deceased. It was further argued that she was not apprehended on the spot and the witnesses have miserably failed to show that if they have witnessed the incident, why she was not apprehended on the spot. It was further argued that it transpires from defence evidence that at the time of the alleged incident, Savitri was at the house of DW-2 Bhanu Pratap at village Barda in District Hamirpur. It was also stated that during the investigation, the involvement of Savitri was not found and thus, she was not charge sheeted but later on she was summoned by the trial court under section 319 Cr. P.C. (vii) That there is no reliable and satisfactory evidence against the accused-appellants and thus, learned trial court committed error in convicting them. 14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on the other hand, contended that there is consistent and reliable testimony of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar. They have clearly stated that at the time of alleged incident they were present on spot. 14. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on the other hand, contended that there is consistent and reliable testimony of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar. They have clearly stated that at the time of alleged incident they were present on spot. The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants are not so important and material so as to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar. He further submitted that the deceased has been murdered at her matrimonial home in the night and accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was present there, but he has failed to explain as to how Kaushalya suffered death. The burden to explain as to how deceased was done to death at her matrimonial home in the night hours, was upon the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai, but he has failed to discharge the same. It was argued that eye witnesses account as stated by PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar coupled with circumstantial evidence clearly established that deceased was done to death by the accused-appellants. It was also pointed out that there is evidence to show that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Savitri Devi and as deceased Kaushalya used to object the same, she was murdered by the accused-appellants. 15. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. In evidence, PW-1 Narain Singh has inter-alia stated that his sister Kaushalya was married with the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai in the year 1983. Shiv Sahai was a person of loose character and he was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Savitri. Deceased Kaushalya Devi has seen them in objectionable condition, due to which both the accused-appellants were having grudge against her. PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that on the night of the alleged incident, he alongwith his brother PW-2 Arvind Kumar had gone to village Itayal to bring their sister. In the evening, after taking food, they were lying at "Byara" (outer part of the house). Later on accused-appellant Shiv Sahvi came there and laid beside them. At about 11.00 P.M., PW-1 Narain Singh and his brother heard cries of their sister. Kaushalya has seen the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and Savitri Devi in an objectionable condition and on that issue, scuffle has taken place. Later on accused-appellant Shiv Sahvi came there and laid beside them. At about 11.00 P.M., PW-1 Narain Singh and his brother heard cries of their sister. Kaushalya has seen the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and Savitri Devi in an objectionable condition and on that issue, scuffle has taken place. They saw that Savitri Devi was catching hold of Kaushalya while Shiv Sahai was strangulating her neck with a rope. By the time, PW-1 Narain Singh reached there to save his sister, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai had already pressed her neck with a rope and murdered the deceased Kaushalya. PW-1 Narain Singh further stated that he has witnessed this incident in the light of lantern and several other persons have also reached there. Thereafter, PW-1 Narain Singh has reported the matter to the police by submitting Tehrir Ext.Ka-1. 17. PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that his sister Kaushalya was married with the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai in the year 1983. On the day of incident, he and his brother PW-1 Narain Singh have gone to matrimonial house of their sister Kaushalya to bring her. In the evening, after taking food, they were lying in the outer part of the house, while Kaushalya was lying inside the house. Savitri Devi and Shiv Sahai were also lying inside the house. At about 11.00 P.M. after hearing the cries of their sister Kaushalya, they woke up and saw that Savitri was catching hold of Kaushalya while Shiv Sahai was strangulating her neck with a rope. They witnessed the same in the light lantern. When PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar raised an alarm, Shiv Sahai ran away towards Jungle and their sister has died. PW-2 Arvind Kumar further stated that deceased Kaushalya was not having a son and on that account, scuffle used to take place. It was also stated that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and due to this reason, they have committed her murder. 18. PW-3 Dr. B.L. Kushwaha has conducted the postmortem of deceased vide Ext.Ka-2 and PW-4 Prem Narain Sachan has recorded FIR Ext. Ka-4. 19. PW-5, S.I. K.D. Pal has conducted inquest proceeding. 20. PW-6, Inspector Bahup Singh has inter-alia stated that during course of investigation, he has prepared the site plan of the spot as Ext.Ka-10. 18. PW-3 Dr. B.L. Kushwaha has conducted the postmortem of deceased vide Ext.Ka-2 and PW-4 Prem Narain Sachan has recorded FIR Ext. Ka-4. 19. PW-5, S.I. K.D. Pal has conducted inquest proceeding. 20. PW-6, Inspector Bahup Singh has inter-alia stated that during course of investigation, he has prepared the site plan of the spot as Ext.Ka-10. On 16.06.1997, accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was arrested and thereafter at his pointing out the rope, used in the incident, was recovered vide recovery memo as Ext. Ka-12. After completion of the investigation, the accused-appellant was charge sheeted vide charge sheet as Ext. Ka-14. 21. DW-1 Arjun Singh has stated that his house is adjoining the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai. On the night of the incident, at about 11-12 P.M. after hearing the noise, he as well as some other persons including Jamuna Das, Khem Chandra, Chiranji Lal and Indra Pal reached there and saw that one person was coming out from the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and ran away towards Jungle, but they could not recognise him. When they reached inside the house, they saw that Kaushalya was lying dead due to strangulation. DW-1 further stated that four days prior to the alleged incident, Savitri had gone to village Barda in connection with Tilak and marriage ceremony. Similarly, DW-2 Bhanu Pratap has stated that the husband of Savitri, namely Ghanaram, is his brother-in-law. He further stated that on 04.06.1997, there was a Tilak ceremony of his son Arvind and thereafter Tika ceremony has taken place on 20.06.1997. He had invited Savitri to attend the function and thereafter Savitri alongwith her husband and children went there on 03.06.1997. They returned from there on 22.06.1997 to village Itayal. DW-2, Bhanu Pratap further stated that on the night of the alleged incident, Savitri was not at village Itayal rather she was at the house of DW-2, Bhanu Pratap. 22. He had invited Savitri to attend the function and thereafter Savitri alongwith her husband and children went there on 03.06.1997. They returned from there on 22.06.1997 to village Itayal. DW-2, Bhanu Pratap further stated that on the night of the alleged incident, Savitri was not at village Itayal rather she was at the house of DW-2, Bhanu Pratap. 22. So far as this contention is concerned that PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar were not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident, it may be seen that though both these witnesses have stated that they have gone there in the evening hours and witnessed the incident, however, in his cross-examination, PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that he has got tahrir written from his relative Santosh Singh, who is resident of village Vijaygarh, but he has not explained as to how Santosh Singh has reached there. PW-1 Narain Singh has further stated that he is not aware as to which police official has reached at village Itayal and who has brought the dead body of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after hearing the cries of Kaushalya, when he reached at the room, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has ran away, but he has not seen Savitri running away from the spot. He has further stated that he is not aware as to where Savitri has gone from the spot. He has further stated that he and his brother PW-2 Arvind Kumar had gone to village Itayal on foot while PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that they have gone there by tonga. PW-1 Narain Singh has stated that they have reached at village Itayal at about 6.00 P.M. while PW-2 Arvind Kumar has stated that they have reached there at about 4-5 P.M. The most important aspect of the matter is that as per PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, the alleged incident took place at 11.00 P.M., but the first information report was lodged by P.W.-1 Narain Singh on the next day at 6.30 A.M., while the police station was at a distance of merely 3 kms from the place of incident. In the month of June, if they were present on the spot, after such an incident, the natural conduct was that they must have reported the incident to the police station without any delay. In the month of June, if they were present on the spot, after such an incident, the natural conduct was that they must have reported the incident to the police station without any delay. Further PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar have not been shown witnesses of inquest report Ext. Ka-5. As per the inquest report, the inquest proceedings were started at 8.00 A.M. on 08.06.1997, but it is not clear that why they were not present at the spot. It also appears unbelievable that PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar never tried to catch any of the accused person at the spot nor they tried to save the deceased. Both these witnesses have not clarified that if Savitri was catching hold of the deceased, how she had gone missing from the spot. All these facts raised serious doubt about the presence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar at the spot at the time of alleged incident. Considering all attending facts and circumstances and cross-examination of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, this possibility could not be ruled out that these witnesses have reached at the spot at village Itayal after hearing the incident. It appears highly doubtful that PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar have witnessed the alleged incident, as claimed by them. 23. PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar are brothers of the deceased. Though the testimony of a witness cannot be doubted merely on the ground that they are the interested witnesses or they are related to the deceased, but in the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that no person from village Itayal has been examined as prosecution witness, the evidence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar does appear reliable. As discussed above, the conduct of both these witnesses appear to be a little bit unnatural. 24. So far as the accused-appellant Savitri is concerned, DW-1 Arjun Singh and DW-2 Bhanu Pratap have stated that at the time of alleged incident, she was not present on the spot, rather about four days prior to the alleged incident, she had gone to village Barda in District-Hamirpur to attend marriage function in her relation. In this regard, the evidence of DW-1 Arjun Singh and DW-2 Bhanu Pratap appears to be clear and cogent. In this regard, the evidence of DW-1 Arjun Singh and DW-2 Bhanu Pratap appears to be clear and cogent. Though the version of DW-2 Bhanu Pratap that after incident, he has seen an unknown person running out from the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai appears to be concocted and not reliable, however, so far as this statement is concerned that about 4 days prior to the alleged incident, Savitri had gone to village Barda, it is corroborated by DW-1 Arjun Singh. This fact further finds support from the fact that PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar have failed to explain as to how Savitri has gone missing from the spot after the alleged incident. Besides these facts, it may also be observed that Savitri was named in the first information report, but during the investigation, her involvement was not found in the alleged incident, and thus she was not charge sheeted by the police. It was on the basis of statement of PW-1 Narain Singh that Savitri was summoned during trial under section 319 Cr. P.C. 25. Considering the evidence as a whole, the involvement of accused-appellant Savitri in the alleged incident appears to be doubtful. Thus, so far as the accused-appellant Savitri is concerned, she deserves acquittal. 26. As far as accused-appellant Shiv Sahai is concerned, he is the husband of the deceased. The alleged incident took place in night at 11.00 P.M. at the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai where he and deceased Kaushalya both used to reside together. As stated earlier, though it appears doubtful that PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar have witnessed the actual incident, however, from the postmortem report of the deceased, it is apparent that the deceased had suffered homicidal death. PW-3 Dr. B.L. Kushwaha, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, has stated that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. As per postmortem Ext.K-2, congvetivac and face were congested, tongue was protruding and lungs were severely congested. There was a ligature mark all around the neck situated on thyroid cartilage. All these characteristics show that the deceased was done to death by strangulation and her death was homicidal in nature. Even otherwise, it is not the case of defence that the deceased has committed suicide. There was a ligature mark all around the neck situated on thyroid cartilage. All these characteristics show that the deceased was done to death by strangulation and her death was homicidal in nature. Even otherwise, it is not the case of defence that the deceased has committed suicide. In fact, it has not been disputed by the appellant that deceased suffered homicidal death. 27. Now, the question which arises for our consideration is whether the conviction of the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai is justified in view of the fact that the presence of the PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar at the time of alleged incident appears to be doubtful. It is not disputed that the deceased was wife of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and they both were residing together at the house, where the alleged incident took place in night. Though the presence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar at the time of alleged incident has been found doubtful, but so far as this evidence is concerned that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), the same is quite consistent and cogent and there are no reasons to disbelieve the same. From the statements of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, it is established that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was present at his house. Even DW-1 Arjun Singh and DW-2 Bhanu Pratap have not stated that the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was not present at the house at the time of alleged incident. The version of DW-1 Arjun Singh is that after hearing the noise in the night, he alongwith others, went at the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and they saw that one unknown person came out from his house and ran towards Jungle. The accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has also not taken any such plea in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. that at the time of alleged incident, he was not present at his house. In view of the evidence available on record, it is quite apparent that at the time of alleged incident, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was present at his house. 28. In view of all these facts and considering the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden shifts upon the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai to explain as to how the deceased met with her death. 28. In view of all these facts and considering the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden shifts upon the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai to explain as to how the deceased met with her death. The accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has not offered any explanation whatsoever in this regard in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. No specific suggestion was made to any of the witnesses in this regard. In Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 , the Apex Court observed: "It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. (See also: Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 )." Similarly in case of Munish Mubir Vs. Sate of Assam 2013 (12) SCC 406 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is obligatory on the part of the accused to furnish some explanation with respect to incriminating circumstances associated with him. The court must take note of such explanation in case of circumstantial evidence so as to decide whether chain of circumstances is complete. It is the duty of the appellant to furnish some explanation in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. It is settled view that in cases where the accused has been seen with the deceased victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim has occurred. (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ; In the present case, as stated earlier, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has not offered any explanation as to how deceased Kaushalya has suffered death. The Apex Court in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr. (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ; In the present case, as stated earlier, the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has not offered any explanation as to how deceased Kaushalya has suffered death. The Apex Court in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr. [ (2000) 6 SCC 286 ] and Geetha vs. State of Karnataka [ (2000) 10 SCC 72 ] while explaining the law relating to circumstantial evidence has ruled that where circumstances proved are put to the accused through his examination under Section 313 of the Code and the accused merely denies the same, then such denial would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances to bring home the charge against the accused. As indicated earlier, in this case, the incriminating circumstances proved were put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he has merely denied the same. Therefore, such denial on the part of the appellant and failure to explain the circumstances will have to be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to bring home the charge against the appellant. Therefore, such denial on the part of the appellant and failure to explain the circumstances will have to be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to bring home the charge against the appellant. At this stage it would be pertinent to point out that In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006)10 SCC 681 , the Supreme Court held as under: "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." It was held that 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. 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 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. If an offence has been committed inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. In fact Section 106 of Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the said 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. In Sujit Biswas V State of Assam 2013 (12) SCC 406 , it was observed by the Apex Court that in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. In Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 15 SCC 455], the Apex Court, while dealing with a situation where the accused-husband was absconding and the husband and wife were living together and at the time of death, they were alone in the room, observed that it was for the accused-husband to explain as to how the deceased met her death. No doubt mere conjectures or suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and the large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, as observed by the Apex Court, but it is equally established that 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. If a fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If an offence has been committed inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same. 29. In the present case, as stated earlier, accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has not offered any explanation as to how deceased Kaushalya has suffered death. It would be pertinent to mention here that DW-1 Arjun Singh has stated that after hearing the noise when he along with other persons reached at the spot, they saw that one person came running from inside the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and fled away towards Jungle, but this theory appears to be improbable and concocted. It would be pertinent to mention here that DW-1 Arjun Singh has stated that after hearing the noise when he along with other persons reached at the spot, they saw that one person came running from inside the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and fled away towards Jungle, but this theory appears to be improbable and concocted. No such suggestion was made to PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar that after the incident, any such person came out from the house of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and ran towards jungle. DW-1 Arjun Singh has also not made any such statement to the Investigating Officer. Further accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has also not taken any such plea. Thus the theory put forward by DW-1 Arjun Singh is not reliable. There are certain other aspects of the matter, which indicate complicity of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai. As stated earlier though PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar might have reached at the spot after the incident, but they have consistently deposed that accused-appellant Shiv Sahai was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and on that count, often quarrel used to take place between accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and his deceased wife. This evidence indicates motive on the part of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai. Further after the incident, accused-appellant Shiv Sahai did not inform the police regarding the alleged incident nor he had lodged the FIR. It is not disputed that the FIR was lodged by PW-1 Narain Singh, who is brother of the deceased. 30. Considering the entire evidence available on record and conduct of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and placing reliance in the case of Tirmukh Maroti Kirkan (Supra), it appears that in all human probability, it was accused-appellant Shiv Sahai, who had committed the murder of his wife. 30. Considering the entire evidence available on record and conduct of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and placing reliance in the case of Tirmukh Maroti Kirkan (Supra), it appears that in all human probability, it was accused-appellant Shiv Sahai, who had committed the murder of his wife. Though the learned trial court has mainly based the conviction of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai on the basis of evidence of PW-1 Narain Singh and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, while as per opinion of this Court, at the time of alleged incident, the presence of these witnesses at the spot appears to be doubtful, but in view of the fact that deceased had suffered homicidal death in the night at 11.00 P.M. at her matrimonial home, where she was present with her husband Shiv Sahai and accused-appellant Shiv Sahai has failed to offer any explanation whatsoever that how deceased has suffered death, coupled with fact that accused-appellant was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and his conduct was also incriminating, as much as after the incident, he has not even informed the police, the complicity of the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai in the murder of his wife is established. Considering entire evidence on record, it is manifest that the prosecution has established the chain of circumstances, which consistently points to accused-appellant Shiv Sahai alone and these circumstances are inconsistent with his innocence. All the circumstances have been firmly established and when these circumstances are taken into consideration cumulatively, they conclude that, all human probability, it was accused-appellant Shiv Sahai and none else has committed the murder of the deceased. 31. Considering the entire facts and taking cumulative effect of all the incriminating evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused-appellant Shiv Sahai is based on evidence and the trial court was fully justified in convicting Shiv Sahai under section 302 I.P.C. Though Trial Court has convicted him under section 302/34 I.P.C. but involvement of accused-appellant Savitri could not be established beyond doubt, and thus accused-appellant Shiv Sahai can safely be convicted under section 302 I.P.C. However, so far as accused-appellant Savitri is concerned, as stated earlier, her conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and she deserves acquittal. 32. In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 8150 of 2008 filed on behalf of the accused-appellant Savitri is allowed. 32. In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 8150 of 2008 filed on behalf of the accused-appellant Savitri is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Savitri under section 302/34 I.P.C. is set aside and she is acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. She is stated to be on bail vide order dated 13.07.2012 and therefore, no further order is required in her respect. 33. Criminal Appeal No. 7974 of 2008 filed on behalf of accused-appellant Shiv Sahai is, accordingly, dismissed and his conviction and sentence under section 302 I.P.C. is affirmed. The accused-appellant Shiv Sahai is stated to be in judicial custody. He shall serve out the remaining sentence.