Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 68 (TRI)

Babul Sabdakar v. State of Tripura

2020-05-26

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in case No. S.T. (T-1) of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section-302 of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer RI for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulations. 2. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 30/31.05.2014 at night about 2.00 am the informant Shri Pramode Sabdakar heard shouting from the house of his daughter situated at eastern side of his house and after hearing shouting, he along with his wife, sons and neighbours rushed to the house of his daughter, Bina Sabdakar. After entering into the house of his daughter, he saw his daughter lying dead on the bed with bleeding cut injury over her neck and also saw his son-in-law Babul Sabdakar inside the hut. The informant alleged that prior to the said occurrence several times his son-in-law Babul Sabdakar tried to kill his daughter by throttling. But due to their resistance she was saved, and on yesterday in the evening his son-in-law Babul Sabdakar quarrelled with daughter on the issue of family matters. As such, he suspected that his son-in-law Babul Sabdakar had killed his daughter by sharp weapon. Stating this fact, he lodged written ejahar with the police officer of Khowai Police Station. Being endorsed, Sub-Inspector Shri Ranjit Debbarma started investigation and forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge of Khowai police station and the case was registered as Khowai Police Station Case No. 56 of 2014 under Sections-302/120(B) of IPC. 4. During investigation, S.I. Mr. Debbarma had prepared the inquest and seized one bloodstained "katha", one bloodstained napkin, two nylon ropes, one pillow cover with bloodstain, one bloodstained bed sheet and some bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence under seizure list. During post-mortem, the conducting Medical Officer of Khowai hospital collected some samples of internal organs of the deceased and handed over those to the investigating officer who seized these materials and also seized wearing apparels of the deceased under separate seizure lists. Subsequently, Officer-In-Charge of Khowai police station Inspector Mr. During post-mortem, the conducting Medical Officer of Khowai hospital collected some samples of internal organs of the deceased and handed over those to the investigating officer who seized these materials and also seized wearing apparels of the deceased under separate seizure lists. Subsequently, Officer-In-Charge of Khowai police station Inspector Mr. Narayan Chakraborty had carried out the investigation and during investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand sketch map with separate index of the place of occurrence, re-seized the articles on production by SI Mr. Ranjit Debbarma, recorded the statement of available witnesses under Section-161 of Cr.P.C., seized the weapon of offence i.e. the 'Dao' and one 'bati' (one type of dao) under seizure lists, seized sample of blood of the accused collected by medical officer under seizure list and sent those seized materials including the seized Dao and Bati to TSFSL for forensic examination and collected the SFSL report of these materials and also collected post-mortem report of the deceased. Thereafter, on completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused Babul Sabdakar under Section-302 of IPC before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai, who, after taking cognizance of the police report committed the case to the Court of trial. After receipt of the records, charge was framed against the accused Babul Sabdakar under Section-302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife. 5. During trial, prosecution had examined as many as 26 witnesses and introduced some documents and material objects. After completion of recording of the evidence, the accused was examined under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. to which he pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned trial Judge had formulated two points to determine whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant viz. (a) that the accused in between 30/31.05.2014 at night, about 0200 hours intentionally caused the death of his wife Bina Sabdakar; and (b) that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant under Section-302 of IPC for committing murder to his wife, had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant under Section-302 of IPC for committing murder to his wife, had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. We have perused the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the evidence and materials on record. 8. PW-1, Shri Pramode Sabdakar, the father of the deceased Bina Sabdakar deposed that the house of his son-in-law Babul Sabdakar was situated just after one house of his house. He stated that about 9/10 months ago one day at midnight he heard shouting "killed killed and dacoits arrived (Myralaishe myralaishe dacoit aiche)" from the house of Babul Sabdakar, they woke up and immediately rushed to the house of the appellant accompanied by his son Babul Sabdakar, his brother Makhan Sabdakar and his wife Chaya Rani Sabdakar with some other local persons. After arrival, they saw hands, legs and mouth of the appellant were tied by clothes and rope and also found his daughter Bina Sabdakar was lying dead with bleeding cut injury around her neck. 8.1. He further deposed that according to their belief, the appellant had killed his daughter on that night. This witness stated that prior to the said occurrence, one night about three months ago the appellant had tried to kill her by throttling. PW-1 identified his signature in the ejahar which was written by one Sujit Pal as per his version. 8.2. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the house of Rajani and Mithun Sabdakar, were close to his house. To a question, PW-1 had answered that he had seen the appellant being tied off his mouth by a napkin. He also stated that he had seen mark of cut bleeding injury over one hand of the appellant. He further stated in his cross-examination that when they arrived in the house of the appellant they saw that the door of the house was open and the appellant was lying on the floor. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was killed on that night by dacoits. 9. PW-2, Babul Sabdakar, brother of the deceased Bina Sabdakar. He further stated in his cross-examination that when they arrived in the house of the appellant they saw that the door of the house was open and the appellant was lying on the floor. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was killed on that night by dacoits. 9. PW-2, Babul Sabdakar, brother of the deceased Bina Sabdakar. He stated that after hearing shouting of Anju Sabdakar, who was the sister of the accused-appellant, as "save, save, dacoits arrived" etc., he along with his father and others woke up and rushed to the house of the appellant. He further deposed in the same terms as that of PW-1. 9.1. In cross-examination he denied that his father i.e. PW-1 had lodged a false complaint against the appellant on mere suspicion. 10. PW-10, Smti Chaya Rani Sabdakar, mother of the deceased also deposed in the same terms as that of PW-1 and PW-2. 11. PW-4, Smti. Rina Sabdakar is the cousin sister of the appellant and she deposed that having heard the shouting of Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the appellant saying "come come, dacoits arrived and beating" they immediately rushed towards the house of the appellant. They found that the hands, legs and mouth of the appellant were tied by rope and lying on the floor inside the hut and also saw his wife Bina lying dead in the cot with bleeding injury around the neck. He also found Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the accused-appellant in the house. This witness further stated that the appellant was a poor man and he had no landed property in his name. He further deposed that his father had no landed property except that house where they stay and further stated that on their arrival, Anju told that dacoits came and nothing more. 12. PW-5, Shri Rajani Sabdakar, a close door neighbour of both the complainant and the appellant. He deposed that having heard the shouting of Anju, the sister of the accused-appellant, they rushed to the house of the appellant and found that the wife of the appellant died and the hands, legs and mouth of the appellant were tied by rope and clothes. 12.1. More importantly, PW-5 stated inter alia, as under: "Accused Babul Sabdakar is a very poor man. So, in my belief no dacoity was held on that night. 12.1. More importantly, PW-5 stated inter alia, as under: "Accused Babul Sabdakar is a very poor man. So, in my belief no dacoity was held on that night. Since on that night both accused Babul and his wife were in his house except accused Babul Sabdakar none is responsible for killing his wife. His sister Anju was in the hut of western viti in the same house on that night and at that relevant time of occurrence parents of Babul Sabdakar, the appellant herein were in GB Hospital." 13. PW-6, Promode Sabdakar is the elder brother of the deceased Bina Sabdakar and was declared as hostile. 14. PW-7, Shri Hariananda Biswas @ Babul is also a close door neighbour of both the complainant and the accused-appellant. He deposed that having heard the shouting of Anju, by saying 'Dacoits arrived' etc.", he did not go to the house. He further deposed that he was present in the house of the appellant on the next day when the police had recovered the 'Dao' from the house and seized the same. He put his signature in the seizure list which he identified as (Exbt. 2). This witness also identified the Dao (Exbt. MO. 1). 15. PW-8, Shri Jatan Sabdakar is a resident of that locality. He deposed that he heard from others that the appellant had killed his wife. This witness further deposed that the appellant was a day labour and a poor man and in his presumption no dacoity was held in the house of the appellant. 16. PW-9, Shri Jatnidra Sabdakar is a resident of that locality who also deposed that he rushed to the house of the appellant having heard the shouting of Anju Sabdakar. PW-9 further deposed that the appellant being a day labour was a poor man and according to him, there was no reason for committing dacoity by the dacoits in his house on that night. 17. PWs-10 and 11 Shri Mithun Sabdakar and Shri Kanu Mahissyadas deposed that the appellant was a very poor man. They also witnessed the recovery of the dao Exbt. MO-1. The signature of the witnesses on the seizure list was marked as Exbt. 2/1. In cross-examination, they denied the suggestion put by the defence that dacoity was held in the house of the appellant on that night. 18. They also witnessed the recovery of the dao Exbt. MO-1. The signature of the witnesses on the seizure list was marked as Exbt. 2/1. In cross-examination, they denied the suggestion put by the defence that dacoity was held in the house of the appellant on that night. 18. PW-12, Shri Utpal Chakma at the relevant point of time was posted as Deputy Collector and Magistrate in the office of Khowai. He deposed that as per instruction of SDM, he went to the khowai police station and in the police station he found the appellant and in his presence the appellant told that he had killed his wife. He further deposed that his sister Anju Sabdakar was also present at that time. He further deposed that he went to the house of the appellant along with the investigating officer and with other police officials. He further deposed that daroga babu and the police staffs went to the house of the accused Babul Sabdakar taking him and his sister Anju Sabdakar along with them. He also went to the house of the accused by separate official vehicle and in their presence Smti. Anju Sabdakar handed over the 'bati dao' on which some blood stain was there and then daroga babu seized the said 'boti" under seizure list in his presence and he put his signature on the said seizure list as witness. The signature of the witness on the seizure list was marked as Exbt. 4. The witness identified the seized 'boti dao' marked as Exbt. MO-2. 18.1. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant did not confess in the police station in his presence that he killed his wife. 19. PW-13, Shri Chandan Paul, is also a neighbour. He deposed that having heard the shouting of Anju as "dacoits arrived" he rushed to the house of the appellant and found that the wife of Babul Sabdakar lying on the cot with bleeding cut injury around her neck. Thereafter, after 4/5 days, daroga babu and police staffs again came to the house of the accused Babul Sabdakar and he also came to his house and found that some other persons along with police staffs in the house and also found the 'boti dao' on the courtyard of the house of the accused Babul Sabdakar. 20. Thereafter, after 4/5 days, daroga babu and police staffs again came to the house of the accused Babul Sabdakar and he also came to his house and found that some other persons along with police staffs in the house and also found the 'boti dao' on the courtyard of the house of the accused Babul Sabdakar. 20. PW-14, Shri Nani Sabdakar deposed in his evidence that having heard the shouting of Anju, the sister of the accused-appellant, he along with other neighbour rushed to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of Bina Sabdakar and found the hands, legs and mouth of the appellant were tied with rope and clothes. In his presence police had seized one blood-stained katha, two numbers of nylon rope, one napkin, one pillow, one bed cover and small quantity of bloodstained soil under two separate seizure lists dated 31.05.2014 which were marked as Exbt. 5 and 6. 20.1. PW-14 further deposed that after few days the investigating officer and police staffs again came to the house of the appellant. PW-14 along with other localities also went there and in their presence Anju Sabdakar had given the "bati dao" to the investigating officer which was seized under the seizure list. This witness identified his signature in the seizure list marked as Exbt. 4/2 and the "bati dao" being identified was marked as Exbt. MO. 2. 20.2. PW-14 further stated that the appellant is a day labour and in his presumption the appellant had killed his wife and no dacoity was held in his house on that night. In cross-examination, however, this witness stated that Anju Sadbakar had given the boti Dao before his arrival. 21. PW-15, Dr. Arnab Debbarma who posted as Medical Officer of Khowai Sub-divisional hospital deposed that he accompanied by Dr. Arindam Debbarma, Dr. Debasish Saha conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. He further deposed that on examination of the dead body they found deep cut injury on the throat of the deceased and the said injury was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report was marked as Exbts. 7/1 and 7/2. 21.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that on 31.05.2014 he examined Babul Sabdakar, the deceased herein, at Khowai Sub-Divisional Hospital and found multiple liner scratch marks present in both upper limbs, lower limbs and trunk in both interior and posterior aspect. The post-mortem report was marked as Exbts. 7/1 and 7/2. 21.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that on 31.05.2014 he examined Babul Sabdakar, the deceased herein, at Khowai Sub-Divisional Hospital and found multiple liner scratch marks present in both upper limbs, lower limbs and trunk in both interior and posterior aspect. He also prepared the injury report of the appellant and found that the injury was slight in nature and was fresh. He put his signature which was marked as Exbt. A in whole. 21.2. More importantly, PW-15 categorically stated that the injuries found over the body of the appellant "might be caused by sharp cutting object like blade, knife, etc., but, not by dao." The Court put a question to PW-15 which reads as under: "(By Court-Question: Whether the injuries sustained Babul Sabdakar may be caused by nail scratching? Answer: Yes." 22. PW-16, Dr. Arindam Debbarma and PW-17, Dr. Debasish Saha were the doctors who accompanied PW-15 and deposed in the same term as that of PW-15 in their examination-in-chief. 23. PW-19, Shri Sukanta Debnath, a constable of Khowai police station was also a seizure witness of Exbts. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. 24. PW-20, Shri Anukul Sabdakar, is the elder brother of the deceased Bina Sabdakar. He deposed that on the fateful night he along with his father accompanied by the inmates of the house and the villagers rushed to the house and found the dead body of his sister. According to him, the appellant was very poor and there was no reason to organize any dacoity in the house of the appellant. 25. PW-23, Shri Biju Debbarma is a formal witness. 26. PW-24, Shri Ranjit Debbarma, is the SI of Khowai police station. He deposed that on 31.05.2014 at night about 0245 hours on receipt of a telephonic information from one Jatan Sabdakar that a dacoity was held in the house of Babul Sabdakar and dacoits also had killed the wife of Babul Sabdakar. He brought the matter to the officer-in-charge and being instructed, rushed to the spot and thereafter made GD Entry No. 1673 dated 31.05.2014. The said witness deposed that on his arrival he saw the dead body of a woman lying on a cot with cut injury on her neck. He also found many persons had gathered in the house. He brought the matter to the officer-in-charge and being instructed, rushed to the spot and thereafter made GD Entry No. 1673 dated 31.05.2014. The said witness deposed that on his arrival he saw the dead body of a woman lying on a cot with cut injury on her neck. He also found many persons had gathered in the house. He stated that before his arrival one SI Shib Shankar Tripura was at the place of occurrence who, brought Babul Sabdakar to the Khowai Hospital. He further deposed that on his arrival he started spot investigation and seized one blood-stained katha (blanket) made by printed saree, one napkin with bloodstain, two numbers of nylon rope having length 8/9 yards, one bloodstained pillow cover, some bloodstained soil. He prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses and these were marked as Exbts. 5/1 and 6/1. 26.1. PW-24 identified the seized materials which were marked as Exbt. MO. 3 series. He further deposed that one Promode Sabdakar lodged a written ejahar to him which he forwarded to the OC Khowai police station through constable Sukanta Debnath. He had given necessary endorsement (Exbt. 8/2). He prepared the inquest report of the deceased in the house of the appellant in presence of the witnesses and put his signature therein. The inquest report was marked as Exbt. 3/1. He sent the body for post-mortem examination which was conducted by a team of doctors and he collected some samples of internal organs of the dead body which were seized and being kept in a jar under a seizure list Exbt. 16. He further stated that after post-mortem examination the wearing apparels i.e. one saree, one blouse and one petticoat of the deceased were also seized by him under seizure list which was marked as Exbt. 17. Later on, being produced these seized articles before the officer-in-charge, Inspector Narayan Chakraborty who re-seized those materials by preparing a seizure list where he put his signature marked as Exbts. 9/1, 10/1, 11/1 and 12/1 respectively. 27. PW-25, Shri Narayan Chakraborty, was the Officer-in-charge of Khowai police station. He deposed that being forwarded with a copy of the written ejahar made by one Promode Sabdakar, he registered Khowai Police Station Case No. 56 of 2015 under Sections-302/120(B) of IPC. PW-25 made spot investigation, prepared the hand sketch map with separate index, Exbt. 19 and 19/1 respectively. 27. PW-25, Shri Narayan Chakraborty, was the Officer-in-charge of Khowai police station. He deposed that being forwarded with a copy of the written ejahar made by one Promode Sabdakar, he registered Khowai Police Station Case No. 56 of 2015 under Sections-302/120(B) of IPC. PW-25 made spot investigation, prepared the hand sketch map with separate index, Exbt. 19 and 19/1 respectively. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of 9(nine) witnesses, seized the weapon of offence 'Dao' under the seizure list in presence of the witnesses marked as Exbt. 20. 27.1. PW-25 identified the Dao Exbt. MO. 1. He further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 01.06.2014 he recorded the statements of three more witnesses under Section-161 Cr. P.C. On 02.06.2014 he arrested the appellant in connection with the case. The Court allowed five days police custody. During police custody he interrogated the appellant where he confessed that he killed his wife and also stated that he could show the place where he had thrown the dao after murder. This confessional statement was typed in a paper. He obtained thumb impression of the appellant in presence of the Executive Magistrate who also signed on the said disclosure statement made by the accused which was marked as Exbt. 22. For the purpose of reference, the disclosure statement made by the appellant is reproduced here-in-below: "I Sri Babul Sabdakar age about 28 years son of Sri Girish Sabdakar of Choto Bagai, P.S. Khowai voluntarily disclosed without any fear and any pressure that I am the inhabitant of choto Bagtai, North Singhi cherra under Khowai P.S. Further state that at about 04(four) years back I marriage Bina Sabdakar (25) D/O Sri Promode Sabdakar of our village at Choto Bagai, North Singhi Cherra under Khowai P.S. My wife suspects me that I have love affairs with a lady and centering the issue she used to tease me and she used to leave the house without my knowledge. On 30.05.2014 afternoon I was suffering from headache and that time I saw my wife leaving the house. I objected her not to go outside but she denied and left the house. Around in the evening she came back and while I asked her why she came late and then she fell in quarrel with me and she threatened to kill me. I objected her not to go outside but she denied and left the house. Around in the evening she came back and while I asked her why she came late and then she fell in quarrel with me and she threatened to kill me. Night at about 0900 hours myself along with my wife take dinner and my wife slept on the bed on a wooden cot and I slept on the floor of our dwelling hut. My elder sister Smti Ajana Sabdakar @ Anju along with her two children came to our house from Kulai Sudanshu Ghose para hearing the news of illnesses of my father and they slept in the western viti hut. My father undergoing treatment at GB hospital and my mother with him at GB. Night around 0200 hrs I suddenly decided to kill my wife Bina Sabdakar and I taken up a sharp cutting dao under the pillow of my wife which she always kept with her and then I chopped with a sharp cutting dao on her neck of my wife while she was sleeping. I did not saw again to her and came out from my hut and taking the dao I went to the nearby pond and thrown the sharp cutting dao in the pond and came back to my house. I called my elder sister Anjana Sabdakar @ Anju and she came out from her hut and I disclosed to her about my commission of murder to my wife. I pleaded her to save me and we chalked plan of a Dacoity incident and we went in my hut and i and my sister made some cut mark with a bled on my body and my sister tie my mouth and face with a napkin and also tie my hands from back side and also tie my legs with ropes. Accordingly she did so and as per pre-plan she raised alarm with high volume while the neighbours came at spot and they presumed the fact of Dacoity and informed to police station. After that I was shifted to Khowai SD hospital for treatment by the local public. I confirmed that I will show the place in which place of the pond I thrown the sharp cutting dao. If I will be shown I would be able to identify the aforesaid place where thrown the sharp cutting dao." 27.2. After that I was shifted to Khowai SD hospital for treatment by the local public. I confirmed that I will show the place in which place of the pond I thrown the sharp cutting dao. If I will be shown I would be able to identify the aforesaid place where thrown the sharp cutting dao." 27.2. PW-25 further stated that on that day after recording the confessional statement he brought the appellant to his house along with the Executive Magistrate Mr. Utpal Chakma, but, the appellant could not show the investigating team the exact place where he had thrown the dao. Thereafter, he was brought back to the police station. Next day i.e. on 04.06.2014, the sister of the appellant came to the police station and she stated that she knew the entire incident and also had seen the occurrence. Her said statement was recorded by PW-25. The statement of Anju Sabdakar (Exbt. 13) was confirmed by PW-25 and she was produced before the Magistrate and the Magistrate recorded her statement under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. 27.3. PW-25 further stated that Anju Sabdakar again came to the police station and stated that the weapon of offence i.e. the 'boti dao' by which her brother had killed his wife, it was in the hut of her brother. PW-25 again had recorded her statement under Section-161 of Cr. P.C. PW-25 again had given a requisition to the SDM to depute one Executive Magistrate and accordingly, the DCM Mr. Utpal Chakma had arrived at the police station and after that, the team of police officials accompanied by the said DCM and Smt. Anju Sabdakar went to the house of the appellant where Anju brought out the "boti dao" in presence of DCM and other two witnesses namely, Chandan Paul and Nani Sabdakar. Being seized under a seizure list PW-25 obtained the signature of Anju and the said two witnesses including the DCM which is marked as Exbt. 23. Later on, being allowed by the Court, the blood sample of the appellant was collected by the medical officer. PW-25 had seized the sample under seizure list (Exbt. 24) and it was sent to the SFSL for expert opinion. He collected the report of the forensic expert (Exbt. 25 series). PW-25 had identified the "boti dao" Exbt. MO. 2 which was seized under the seizure list Exbt. PW-25 had seized the sample under seizure list (Exbt. 24) and it was sent to the SFSL for expert opinion. He collected the report of the forensic expert (Exbt. 25 series). PW-25 had identified the "boti dao" Exbt. MO. 2 which was seized under the seizure list Exbt. 23 and after completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet. 28. PW-26 Smti. Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the accused-appellant was declared hostile. In her cross-examination by the side of the prosecution, she stated that she could not recollect what statement she made before the Magistrate under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C., when the same was read over to her. 28.1. But Anju Sabdakar PW-26, while adducing evidence before the trial court, had retracted from the statement. In her examination-in-chief she totally denied the contentions of her recorded statement under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. However, in cross-examination, she had admitted that so far her memory was concerned, after few days of the occurrence, she was brought to the Court where she had made the statement but at the time of adducing the evidence she could not recollect what she stated to the Magistrate before the Court. She further stated in her cross-examination that "the statement of the witness recorded by the learned SDJM, under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. read over to the witness and she stated now she cannot say whether she has made the said statement to him. Before my production before the Court on that day for giving my statement I was assaulted by a woman police officer in Khowai police station. The said woman police officer has told me not to tell that she assaulted me in the PS". It is settled proposition of law that the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. is not sufficient evidence but it can be used for corroboration and contradiction. Though PW-26 had denied the contents of the statement which she made before the learned SDJM but in her cross-examination she, at least, admitted that she appeared before the Magistrate and made some statement which she could not recollect at the time of her deposition before the Court. In cross-examination she stated that she was assaulted by a woman police officer has not been substantiated by any sort of evidence. 28.2. In cross-examination she stated that she was assaulted by a woman police officer has not been substantiated by any sort of evidence. 28.2. According to us, though she denied the contents of the statement which was recorded under Section-164(5) of the Cr. P.C. but her admission in cross examination that she appeared before the Court to give statement is relevant as her conduct under Section-8 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, this statement recorded under Section-164(5) of Cr.P.C. has been supported by the evidence of PW-22, V.P. Debbarma, learned SDJM, Khowai, who recorded her statement. The contention of the statement recorded under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. has further been corroborated by PW-25, the Investigating Officer. 28.3. In furtherance thereof, her shouting "come come dacoits arrived" heard by all the neighbouring prosecution witnesses and all of them unequivocally adduced in course of trial that it was the shouting of Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the accused-appellant that forced them to rush to the place of occurrence at that moment itself. 29. Now, if we read her statement under Section-164(5) of the Cr. P.C. together with the disclosure statement of the appellant, then, the said disclosure statement also supported the statement of Anju Sabdakar recorded under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. If we carefully read the contents of the disclosure statement, then, it would reveal that his wife used to suspect him that he had a love affair with another lady. From the disclosure statement it is also revealed that on 30.05.2014 in the afternoon there was a quarrel between him and his deceased wife. After taking the dinner at about 9.00 pm they went to sleep. His wife had slept on a wooden cot and he slept on the floor of their dwelling hut. His elder sister Anju Sabdakar along with two children came to their house to enquire about the illness of their father and they slept on the western viti of the hut. These are the statement which has no relation to the discovery of the weapon of offence, are not admissible in evidence as barred by Section-262 of the Cr. P.C. read with Sections-24 & 25 of the Evidence Act. But, these statements are relevant under Section-8 of the Evidence Act to collate the accused to his conduct to the commission of crime. P.C. read with Sections-24 & 25 of the Evidence Act. But, these statements are relevant under Section-8 of the Evidence Act to collate the accused to his conduct to the commission of crime. It also throws a light about the motive behind the crime and motive plays a vital role in a case which is solely based on circumstantial evidence and in absence of any eye witness. It has been further stated by the accused-appellant that at night around 0200 hours he suddenly decided to kill his wife Bina Sabdakar and took up the sharp cutting dao under the pillow of his wife, which she always kept with her and then he blew her with that sharp cutting dao on her neck while she was sleeping, is also not admissible in evidence as this statement does not distinctly rely to the discovery/recovery of weapon of offence. 30. PW-22 Shri V.P. Debbarma, was posted at the relevant point of time as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai. In his deposition he has stated that being forwarded, recorded the statement of one Anju Sabdakar under Section-164 of Cr. P.C. He deposed that after recording the statement, it was read over to her and she admitted that it was correctly written as per her version and correctly recorded. PW-22 has confirmed the statement which was recorded in two pages by him. He also obtained the signature of Smti. Anju Sabdakar in both the pages of the statement, then, he put his signature on the statement. The statement in two pages with the signature of the witness marked as Exbt. 14 series. In his examination he denied the suggestion that Anju Sabdakar did not make the statement voluntarily. From the evidence of PW-25, the investigating officer, it reveals that Anju Sabdakar in course of investigation made a confessional statement before the SDJM Mr. V.P. Debbarma under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. For the purpose of reference her statement may be reproduced hereunder: "Accused Babul Sabdakar is my younger brother. At about 14/15 days ago after hearing illness of my father I came to the house of my father along with son and daughter and my father is now undergoing treatment at GB Hospital. My mother is with my father at GB Hospital to look after him. At about 14/15 days ago after hearing illness of my father I came to the house of my father along with son and daughter and my father is now undergoing treatment at GB Hospital. My mother is with my father at GB Hospital to look after him. On last Friday when I was sleeping along with my children adjacent hut at night about 1 a.m. my brother called me from the door of his hut then I went to her hut and saw him to tied his legs and when i asked about his wife he told me not to talk more and threatened me that he would kill me and my children. Keeping up the mosquito net I saw the dead body of my brother's wife with cut injury on her neck. My brother Babul confessed that he killed his wife by dao by giving blow on her neck. Giving threatening to kill me and my children, my brother told me to shout saying 'dacoits arrived, dacoits arrived.' Accordingly, out of fear of my life I also started shouting saying 'dacoits arrived, dacoits arrived'. My brother also told me to tie his two hands then in the meantime within short while people of the locality gathered in the house and within an hour police staff also came. The weapon 'dao' is still in the house." 31. At this stage, we have thought it fit to take note of the statement made by the appellant during his examination under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. The relevant portion of the statement of the appellant is reproduced herein below: "Q. 42. What have to say about the case of the prosecution? Ans: Prosecution case is totally false. About 2/3 days ahead of occurrence I have taken a loan Rs. 20,000/- from Bandhan Co. And sent my parents to GB Hospital for treatment. On that night of occurrence 3/4 person suddenly forcefully entered in my house covering their faces by clothes and started assaulting me as a result I lost my sense and next day morning in hospital I know that they killed my wife." 32. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties to the lis. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case and the appellant had falsely been implicated with the case. Mr. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the parties to the lis. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case and the appellant had falsely been implicated with the case. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel strongly argued that the deceased Bina Sabdakar, wife of the appellant was killed by the Dacoits, when the appellant also suffered injuries. According to him, the injury as suffered by the appellant proved that the appellant did not kill his wife, Bina Sabdakar. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawing our attention to the examination of the appellant under Section-313 of the Cr. P.C. tried to persuade us that the appellant had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as loan from the Bandhan Bank. The Dacoits had entered into the house only to snatch away the said amount and in that process they killed his wife, Bina Sabdakar as well as caused grievous injuries to the various parts of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the confessional statement as relied upon by the prosecution should not be used against the appellant as it was made in the police custody and also barred by Sections-24 & 25 of the Evidence Act read with Section-162 of the Cr. P.C. 33. On the other hand, Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that the story of dacoity was a complete eyewash and was falsely projected to misdirect the investigation. Learned P.P. relying upon the prosecution witnesses has submitted that it was revealed that the appellant was a very poor man being a day labour and there was no reason for the dacoits to make dacoity in his house. Learned P.P. further submitted that the story of taking loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the Bandhan Bank was not proved by the appellant since the appellant did not adduce any evidence in this regard. He contended that from the evidence it came to light that his parents were at GBP Hospital for treatment at that point of time and there was none except the appellant and his wife at the house. In that situation, burden was with the appellant to explain how the incident occurred. 34. He contended that from the evidence it came to light that his parents were at GBP Hospital for treatment at that point of time and there was none except the appellant and his wife at the house. In that situation, burden was with the appellant to explain how the incident occurred. 34. Next, learned P.P. submitted that PW-15 in his cross-examination by the defence categorically stated that the injury as suffered by the appellant was slight in nature and it might be caused by sharp cut objects like blade, knife etc., but not by dao. Answering to a question PW-15 has deposed that the injury could be caused even by nails scratching. Lastly, learned P.P. has supported the findings of the learned trial Judge and urged for maintaining the conviction and sentence as declared by the learned trial Judge. 35. The present case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness, but one fact is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and his wife Bina Sabdakar were alone in the room and it is evident from the conduct of the appellant himself when his hands, legs and mouth are tied with clothes and rope, apart from the fact that the body of his wife was found on the cot of the bed closed to him as he was on the floor. In these circumstances, naturally, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to collect direct evidence of the incident. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , it was observed as under: "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence 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 either 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. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court." 22. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court." 22. 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.xxxxx" 36. In the instant case, there was none inside the dwelling room except the appellant. In this situation, it would be the duty of the accused to give reasonable and plausible explanation when the incriminating circumstances is put to the accused. The accused may offer no explanation, however, there may be a case when he offers an explanation but in that case he has to establish his explanation by cogent and credible evidence. If he fails to discharge to prove his explanation, then, it would be treated as false and lack of any truth. In that event, failure of his satisfactory explanation becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances towards the commission of the crime, drawing the presumption that he has committed the crime. The fact that how the death of his wife occurred, it would be within the special knowledge of the husband and none else because there was no one present in the said house at the time of commission of the crime. 37. In the instant case, what we find that it is the specific statement of the appellant that his parents were in GB Hospital at Agartala for treatment. As we discussed earlier, in the instant case, the appellant had given an explanation in his examination under Section-313 Cr. P.C., which we reproduced herein above. Explaining the circumstances, the appellant told that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Bandhan Bank for the treatment of his parents at GB Hospital at Agartala and they were sent to GB Hospital. His further explanation is that to rob the said money on the fateful night, the dacoits had entered into his house and killed his wife. 38. 20,000/- from Bandhan Bank for the treatment of his parents at GB Hospital at Agartala and they were sent to GB Hospital. His further explanation is that to rob the said money on the fateful night, the dacoits had entered into his house and killed his wife. 38. It is to be seen as to whether the accused has been able to establish this explanation. In his examination under Section-313 Cr. P.C. he has specifically stated that he did not want to adduce any evidence on his defence. It has also been revealed that the accused-appellant has also suffered some injuries at his person. In these circumstances, we are to undertake a very difficult task to evaluate and assess the extent of injury and the probable cause of such injury as suffered by him and for this, we definitely would be bent upon the evidence of the doctor which we shall examine later on. 39. Before we delve into the merits of the case, we may take note of some of the authorities in this regard. In the case of Nika Ram v. State of H.P. reported in (1972) 2 SCC 80 , the Apex Court while deciding the criminal appeal had observed that the accused was alone with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "Khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt and in this circumstance, it was held that in the absence of any cogent explanation by the accused husband, the circumstance points towards the guilt of the husband-appellant (Para-16). 39.1. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , it is observed by the Apex Court that in a case "where the bride is found to be killed due to the dispute of husband and wife, then, generally these crimes are committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member but it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished."[see P-689, 690 Para-13]. In the said decision (supra), the Apex Court had observed thus: "14. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member but it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished."[see P-689, 690 Para-13]. In the said decision (supra), the Apex Court had observed thus: "14. 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. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 ). 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 which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy 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. 16. A somewhat similar question was examined by this Court in connection with Section 167 and 178-A of the Sea Customs Act in Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormull, AIR 1974 SC 859 and it will be apt to reproduce paras 30 to 32 of the reports which are as under: 30. It cannot be disputed that in proceedings for imposing penalties under Clause (8) of Section 167 to which Section 178-A does not apply, the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Department. This is a fundamental rule relating to proof in all criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, where there is no statutory provision to the contrary. But in appreciating its scope and the nature of the onus cast by it, we must pay due regard to other kindred principles, no less fundamental, of universal application. One of them is that the prosecution or the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree; for, in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth, and as Prof. Brett felicitously puts it - "all exactness is a fake". El Dorado of absolute proof being unattainable, the law, accepts for it, probability as a working substitute in this work-a-day world. The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. 31. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. 31. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered-to use the words of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer (1774) 1 Cowp. 63 at p. 65 "according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to prove, and in the power of the other to have contradicted". Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden. 32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the Preventive Department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and if he falls to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in 'Law of Evidence', (12th Edn. Article 320, page 291), the "presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumptio juris; but every day's practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from the recent (unexplained) possession of stolen property", though the latter is only a presumption of fact. Thus the burden on the prosecution or the Department may be considerably lightened even by such presumption of fact arising in their favour. Thus the burden on the prosecution or the Department may be considerably lightened even by such presumption of fact arising in their favour. However, this does not mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution or the Department altogether of the burden of producing some evidence in respect of that fact in issue. It will only alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight evidence may suffice. (Emphasis supplied)" 40. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, if we come to the merits of the instant case then, as we have stated in the preceding paragraphs that in the instant case the accused-appellant and his wife Bina were found in the same room of the house. Evidence as led on is that having heard the shouting of the sister of the accused Anju Sabdakar as "come, come, dacoits arrived", etc., the parents, brothers and sister of deceased Bina Sabdakar had immediately rushed to the house of the appellant. The neighbours, villagers also after hearing the large shouts of Anju had arrived at the house of the appellant. All of them found that the deceased Bina Sabdakar lying dead on the cot of the room. They noticed that the neck of Bina was cut off and they found the appellant near to the bed where his hands, legs and mouth were tied with clothes and rope. They also noticed some injuries on some parts of the body of the appellant, particularly, at hands. It is pertinent to mention herein that the house of the parents of Bina Sabdakar is only intervened by one house i.e. very close to the house of the appellant. 40.1. They also noticed some injuries on some parts of the body of the appellant, particularly, at hands. It is pertinent to mention herein that the house of the parents of Bina Sabdakar is only intervened by one house i.e. very close to the house of the appellant. 40.1. Now, if we try to picturize the entire scenario of the episode that dacoits came to the house, attacked the appellant and his wife coupled with shouting of Anju, then, what transpires is that due to the result of such attack, the wife of the appellant i.e. Bina Sabdakar was killed by sharp cutting injury on her neck; the hands, legs and mouth of the appellant were tied by clothes and rope and most curiously, the natural presumption is that Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the accused-appellant was also present in the said house at that moment when dacoits attacked in the house, but, surprisingly, though Anju Sabdakar was shouting as "come, come, Dacoits arrived, Dacoits arrived" the dacoits did not cause any harm to her. Further, the dacoits must have been resisted by the appellant and his wife Bina, which prompted the dacoits to kill Bina and tiding her husband, if the alleged story is at all a true story. 40.2. Next sequence would be when they heard that Anju was shouting then they must try to flee away and most importantly, just immediately after hearing the shouting of Anju, the parents of the deceased Bina Sabdakar and other neighbours had reached to the place of occurrence and even the villagers from a distance of about half km also came to the house immediately. But strange enough, neither the parents nor the neighbours/villagers ever had seen any of the dacoits. Though, according to the version of the appellant, they were of 3/4 in numbers and the most important aspect is that to commit this crime, naturally, sufficient time was required for the dacoits. 40.3. In furtherance thereof, according to the explanation given by the appellant that the dacoits came to rob the money which he had withdrawn from Bandhan Bank, this leads a reasonable presumption that the dacoits had no intention to kill the wife or the appellant. It leads to us another presumption that the dacoits must have been resisted by the appellant and his wife for which they were attacked by the dacoits. It leads to us another presumption that the dacoits must have been resisted by the appellant and his wife for which they were attacked by the dacoits. In that situation, there must be grievous cut injuries over the persons of both the appellant and the deceased. Here, in the instant case, we found that the deceased Bina Sabdakar was killed by one blow by a sharp cutting object, i.e. the "bati dao", and surprisingly, no other injuries were found in her body as would be evident from the post-mortem examination report. Another question for consideration is that why the dacoits had tied over the body of the appellant? And why there was no mark of grievous injury on any parts of his body? Further, why there were several pointed cutting marks on different parts of his body? 41. In course of investigation, PW-15 opined that all the injuries as suffered by the appellant were of simple in nature caused by sharp cutting instrument like blade, knife etc. and even these injuries could be caused by nail also. So, from the evidence of PW-15 particularly, in his remarks he has stated that the sharp cutting injury on the neck of the deceased was caused by a sharp weapon like dao. The forensic report sent by the forensic expert has corroborated this evidence. The deceased was having blood Group-A and the blood sample taken from the dao was also found to be Group-A. This evidence conclusively proves that it is the dao (Exbt. MO. 1) which was used for committing the crime. At this juncture, a question has come up in our mind that had the dacoits inflicted the blow of dao to the neck of the deceased by their own weapon, then, why they had left the dao in the house of the appellant? It appears to be highly improbable to us. 41.1. Thus, the question again hinges to us who tied the body of the appellant with rope and clothes, if the dacoits did not trespass into the house of the appellant? There is overwhelming evidence as led on by all the prosecution witnesses including the neighbours that they reached to the place immediately after hearing the shouts of Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the appellant. There is overwhelming evidence as led on by all the prosecution witnesses including the neighbours that they reached to the place immediately after hearing the shouts of Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the appellant. Here, the role of Anju Sabdakar appears to be very suspicious if we give a conscious thought to the entire evidence and it leads us to criticise the role of investigating agency. When the investigating officer did not trace out an iota of evidence whether there was any attack of dacoits on that fateful night and came to the conclusion that it is the appellant who committed the murder to his wife, then, naturally, they must have investigated who had tied down the body of the appellant. But, at this stage we cannot make any comments on it, that who had tied down the accused-appellant. However, according to us, this circumstance would not help the appellant to absolve him from the charge of committing murder to his wife. We repel the hypothesis as projected by the appellant that on that fateful night the dacoits had trespassed to his house and killed his wife and tied him down by the rope and clothes. 41.2. Next plank of explanation of the accused-appellant in his examination under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. is that he had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- about 2/3 days back from the date of occurrence from Bandhan Bank. If the appellant had at all withdrawn the said amount, then, it could not be very difficult for him to produce all those documents or to bring the bank authority as his witness in course of trial to adduce the evidence to substantiate this plea. When he was asked that whether he wanted to adduce any evidence on his defence, the appellant refuted the offer given by the Court. Mere statement that he had withdrawn some money from the bank, would not suffice and would not lead the Court to believe the same unless and until the said explanation of withdrawing money of Rs. 20,000/- from Bandhan Bank has been established by cogent evidence and in absence of any cogent evidence, such statement would be found to be false and untrue and it is the strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for committing murder to his wife. 41.3. 20,000/- from Bandhan Bank has been established by cogent evidence and in absence of any cogent evidence, such statement would be found to be false and untrue and it is the strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for committing murder to his wife. 41.3. Another important aspect which has come to light in course of evidence that the relations between the appellant and his deceased wife, Bina Sabdakar was strained and one night about 3/4 months ago prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant had tried to murder Bina by throttling with the intention to kill her. In a circumstantial evidence, sometimes motive plays an important role to prove the prosecution case linking the accused with the crime. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the accused had a history of making attempts to kill the deceased on earlier occasions, the accused in his disclosure statement has stated that his deceased wife used to suspect him with another lady and on the fateful day the deceased did not take care of him while he was suffering from headache. Though, this statement is barred by Section 162 CrPC read with Sections 24, 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act, but, can be used as evidence of relevance as to the conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 42. Now, again proceeding to the story of dacoity what we gather that if the appellant and his deceased wife had really tried to resist the dacoits, in that event, a question naturally would arise, why there was single injury and that also was only pointed to the neck of the deceased. This is another reason as to why we reject the theory or hypothesis of dacoity attack to the premise of the appellant. For the same reason, we are unable to accept the explanation as provided by the accused that the dacoits had entered his house to rob the money which he had withdrawn from the bank. Furthermore, in case of dacoity attack there must have been multiple grievous injuries on the persons of both the appellant and his deceased wife. The post-mortem report only reveals that there was no intercourse that means, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the dacoits had any intention to kill the wife of the appellant. We have noticed the injury report (Exbt. The post-mortem report only reveals that there was no intercourse that means, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the dacoits had any intention to kill the wife of the appellant. We have noticed the injury report (Exbt. A) where the doctor has opined against the column, "by what kind of weapon inflicted", it was remarked "probably sharp pointed objects". The nature of injury suffered by the appellant as stated by the doctor in the injury report (Exbt. A) is multiple scratch marks in the person in both upper wrist and lower wrist and trunk (anterior and posterior respectively). 43. An overall assessment of the evidence as encrypted here-in-above has proved the following circumstances beyond any shadow of doubt: (i) there was strained relation between the appellant and his deceased wife; (ii) the appellant was alone with his wife inside the room of his house where they slept on that night; (iii) the wife was found dead lying on the bed inside the room; (iv) only one cut injury was found and that was at the throat of her neck; (v) the wearing apparels, the cot, the bed and the pillow cover of the deceased were of blood-stained having blood group-A has been established by the forensic report; (vi) there was not at all any incident of dacoity because the adjoining neighbours and the villagers including the parents, brothers of the deceased had reached to the spot immediately after hearing the shouts of Anju Sabdakar, the sister of the appellant; (vii) the incident occurred at about 2.00 am on the intervening night of 31.05.2014; (viii) the door of the room must have been closed from inside; and there is no evidence that the door was broken. 44. The explanation as has been given by the appellant in his examination under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. is that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Bandhan Bank, has not been proved and it appears to be false and the concocted story which leads to provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances indicating that he is responsible to the commission of the crime and finally to complete the chain. P.C. is that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the Bandhan Bank, has not been proved and it appears to be false and the concocted story which leads to provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances indicating that he is responsible to the commission of the crime and finally to complete the chain. Failure to give any cogent explanation by him, leads us to make only inference that it was the appellant and none else who committed the murder to his wife Bina Sabdakar on that fateful night by a "bati dao" (heavy sharp cutting weapon). For the reason that the prosecution has been able to prove its initial burden to establish the case, but, the appellant has miserably failed to establish his explanation about the theory of dacoity in his house. At this situation, he has failed to establish the facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. 45. The injuries as suffered by the appellant were of very simple in nature and can be said to be of some simple scratch marks which were caused by some pointed objects as opined and confirmed by the doctor and with this, if we link all the circumstances, in sequence, then, we find that chain of circumstances is proved to establish the charge levelled against the accused-appellant under Section-302 of IPC for committing murder to his wife beyond reasonable doubt. 46. In the above conspectus, we find no merit to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence as declared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, and accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.