JUDGMENT Smt. Dubey, J.--1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.9.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 123/2009, whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, with a stipulation for one month's rigorous imprisonment in case of default. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant has caused death of his wife Kalpana by axe on account of her refusal to give money for liquor on 25.1.2009. A report to this effect was lodged by Tarachand, aged 12 years, son of deceased that on 24.1.2009, at 09.20. p.m. after having dinner, his father asked for money for liquor from his mother, who refused it. As a result, a verbal altercation ensued between them, which continued till late. At 5.30 a.m., his father hit his mother on head with an axe 2-3 times, as a result of which she fell down and died, whereafter he ran away. On hearing their hue and cry, his nani (maternal grandmother), Ram Kumar, Jagannath and other neighbours came to the spot. 3. On the basis of merg and Dehati Nalishi, criminal law was set into motion. The Investigating Officer made spot map and seized the blood stained soil and clothes of Tarachand and after recording Panchnama and the statement of witnesses, sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination. 4. Dr. R.S. Prajapati (PW9), who conducted the autopsy, found the following injuries : (1) Sharp cut 3x2x2 cm over right forearm. (2) Sharp cut 5x2x2 cm over right leg. (3) Sharp cut 2x1x1 cm over right arm. (4) Contusion 7x5 cm over right side of chest. Injury No. 1,2,3 are caused by hard and sharp object. Injury No. 4 caused by hard and blunt object. (5) Sharp cut of size 7.5x2.5x2.5 inches present over left tempo-parietal part of scalp. (6) Fracture of size 7x2.5xwhole thickness of skull present over left tempo-parietal part and occipital part of skull bone. (7) Sharp cut of size 7x2x2 inches present over left tempo-parietal and occipital part of brain. Injury number (5), (6), (7) are caused by hard and sharp object. (8) Laceration 7x5x5cm present over left cheek caused by hard and blunt object. Face stained with blood. (7) Sharp cut of size 7x2x2 inches present over left tempo-parietal and occipital part of brain. Injury number (5), (6), (7) are caused by hard and sharp object. (8) Laceration 7x5x5cm present over left cheek caused by hard and blunt object. Face stained with blood. In the opinion of the doctor, the death had occurred due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to coma as a result of injury to vital organs (brain). 5. The accused was arrested and the blood stained axe was recovered from him. His clothes and the axe was sealed and sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. 6. The accused was put to trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to substantiate the charges against accused Prahlad. The statement of accused under section 313 of CrPC was recorded. He abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 7. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing offence as aforesaid, relying on the evidence of Tarachand (PW4). The trial Court also found that the body of deceased was found inside the room, however, no explanation regarding the same was offered by the accused and even at trial he simply denied the allegations made against him. 8. Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the only eye witness Tarachand has not fully supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses have turned hostile and there is lack of independent evidence with respect to the seizure of the axe. 9. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. In the present case, the accused has taken a plea that he had gone for work (labour) on 24.1.2009 and was not at home on 25.1.2009. He came back only after he received the information about his wife's death. However, he has not produced any witness to prove his alibi. His son Tarachand, who happened to be the eye witness has deposed to the effect that he saw his father assaulting his mother with axe, however, later on, he resciled from his earlier statement and stated that he only saw his father running away with axe in his hand. However, he has not produced any witness to prove his alibi. His son Tarachand, who happened to be the eye witness has deposed to the effect that he saw his father assaulting his mother with axe, however, later on, he resciled from his earlier statement and stated that he only saw his father running away with axe in his hand. He has also stated that his father had gone to work during the day time but was at home during the night. He has further admitted in para 3 that he had informed the police that his father has killed his mother. In para 5 of his testimony, he further stated that by the time he woke up, his father had already killed his mother. The statement of Tarachand thus establishes the presence of accused at the time and place of incident. It is also evident from the testimony of Tarachand that the accused used to ask for money and beat and abuse his wife after drinking liquor. 12. The other witnesses Parikshit (PW1), Ramkumar Patel (PW2), Chandrashekhar (PW3), Chandra Rani (PW5) have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. However, these witnesses have not seen the incident and reached the spot after hearing the cries of Tarachand. So far as the recoveries of blood stained axe and blood stained shirt vide Ex. P-5 are concerned, the witnesses to the recoveries, namely, Chandrashekhar (PW3) and Sheikh Imran (PW6) have not supported the prosecution case and stated that they were made to sign on blank paper. It is also apparent from Ex. P-21 'spot map' and statement of other witnesses that the body of deceased was found inside the room. As per the FSL report, the blood found on the axe seized from accused and the hair found adhered to the axe were found of human head origin. 13. In 2014 (2) JLJ 194= 2014 CrLJ 1943 Rajkumar v. State of M.P. the Supreme Court has observed : "12. The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under section 313 CrPC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the Court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313 CrPC, is being recorded. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the Court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313 CrPC, is being recorded. However, in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law." 14. In (2012) 6 SCC 174 Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna v. State of Andhya Pradesh the Supreme Court has observed that recording of the statement under section 313 of the CrPC is not a purposeless exercise. It serves a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. The Supreme Court has referred to the judgment in the case of (2008) 16 SCC 328 Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, wherein it has been held : 21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. 22. The object of section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State ( AIR 1976 SC 2140 ), while dealing with section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to section 313 of the Code). Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State ( AIR 1976 SC 2140 ), while dealing with section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to section 313 of the Code). Non-indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facts by the trial Court to the accused adds to the vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under section 313 is not a purposeless exercise." 15. The medical evidence on record clearly proves that the death of deceased Kalpana was homicidal, caused by injuries on head. It is also established that the relationship of accused with his wife was not cordial and they were frequent fights on account of his drinking habits and that the body of deceased was found inside the room and was last seen alive with the accused, whose presence in the room in the night was established and proved by his son Tarachand (PW4). The accused neither at the time of arrest nor during investigation nor before the Court has given any explanation in this regard. These incriminating circumstances in our view are consistent with no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused-appellant. 16. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC is accordingly upheld and affirmed. It is submitted that appellant is in jail. He shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence. Abhay Gupta for appellant; Vaibhav Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondent/State.