JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the trial in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2011 on the charge of committing murder of his wife, namely, Khusbu Modak @ Bulti. The appellant was found guilty and has been sentenced to R.I for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo S.I for six months. 2. Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 40 of 2011 was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of Bishu Modak which was recorded at about 11:00 PM on 19.08.2011 by Waquar Hussain, Sub-Inspector of Police/officer-in-charge of Ichagarh PS at the house of the appellant. Bishu Modak who is the father of Khusbu Modak has stated in his fardbeyan that his daughter was married with Sushen Modak in 2008 and from the wedlock two children were born. Sushen Modak was unemployed and addicted to drinking and gambling. His daughter was objecting to the bad habits of her husband but Sushen Modak would not listen to her and he used to quarrel with her. The informant has alleged that on 19.08.2011 Sushen Modak in course of a quarrel strangulated his daughter to death and falsely informed his wife that her daughter has hanged herself. The informant has further claimed that his house is near the matrimonial house of his daughter, he used to visit her frequently and on several occasions tried to reason with his son-in-law not to indulge in gambling and drinking. On such allegations, a First Information Report was lodged against Sushen Modak on 20.08.2011 and after the investigation a charge-sheet was laid in the Court. 3. By an order dated 19.01.2012, a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant for committing murder of Khusbu Modak, and to prove the said charge the prosecution has examined seven witnesses out of whom PW1-Tulu Modak, PW2-Bishu Modak, PW3-Kedar Modak, PW4-Patiwala Modak and PW5-Samar Nath Modak are intimately related to the deceased PW7-Dr. Vivhakar Kumar who conducted the post-mortem examination has rendered an opinion that Khusbu Modak has died due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan has held that credibility of the prosecution witnesses was not shaken during the cross-examination and they are reliable witnesses. Vivhakar Kumar who conducted the post-mortem examination has rendered an opinion that Khusbu Modak has died due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan has held that credibility of the prosecution witnesses was not shaken during the cross-examination and they are reliable witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has further held that the circumstances proved by the prosecution unerringly point out towards guilt of the accused. 5. The plea raised by the accused that there is no clinching circumstance; more particularly the circumstance of last-seen-together, against the accused to hold him guilty for committing murder of his wife has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in the following manner: “17. The next contention of the defence is that there is no eye-witness in this case and none of the witness have seen the accused while the accused was pressing the neck of the deceased. Further, it was contended that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be last scene theory and the accused and the deceased must be seen lastly prior to the occurrence. But in the instant case, it is lacking. He has also submitted that complicity of the accused in the said offence has not been established by the prosecution and therefore the accused is liable to be acquitted. This contention of the defence should be scrutinized in the light of the evidence. The evidence has come against the accused that he came to the house of informant prior to the occurrence and told that his daughter Khusbu has committed something. P.W.1 Tulu Modak in Para 2 has clearly stated that just after the occurrence the accused went to the house with bicycle and returned and told that his daughter has committed something. The second evidence has come that witness P.W.2 Bishu Modak, P.W.3 Kedar Modak, P.W.4 Patiwala Modak and P.W.5 Samar Nath Modak have seen the dead body of the deceased at the flour of the house of the accused. Further the evidence has come that in the said house, the deceased and accused were living together and at the time of occurrence both the children of the accused were reached at the house of informant Bishu Modak. Further the evidence has come that in the said house, the deceased and accused were living together and at the time of occurrence both the children of the accused were reached at the house of informant Bishu Modak. The I.O Haribansh Narayan Singh (P.W.6) has also found the dead body of the deceased Khusbu Modak in the house of the accused which has been stated in Para 4 of the examination-in-chief of this witness. In this way, in this case, the accused informed the informant that his wife has committed suicide by hanging herself and therefore, this fact is specially within the knowledge of the accused. The evidence on the record ruled out the possibility of any other person for access in the house of the accused. Here, it is important to mention “Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act and according to this Provision, the burden of proving upon him” In the instant case, the doctor has established the fact that death was homicidal and therefore, accused has to explain how the deceased had died. The deceased was found in her matrimonial house in dead condition. The evidence has also not come that the deceased had any enmity with other person and on the other hand, the evidence has come that there was quarrel between husband and wife and the evidence has also come that accused was in bad habit of drinking and gambling and the deceased always obstructed the accused not to do said work and due to this reason there was quarrel between husband and wife. The evidence has also come that prior to the occurrence the accused used to assault his wife daily. These circumstances indicates the guilt only towards the deceased.” 6. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that (i) the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant is broken, (ii) the prosecution has failed to prove that Khusbu Modak has suffered homicidal death, and (iii) the appellant was put on trial on suspicion and has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge by shifting the onus on him with reference to section 106 of the Evidence Act, without examining whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden to prove the charge. 7. No witness has seen the appellant committing murder of Khusbu Modak in the night of 19.08.2011. 7. No witness has seen the appellant committing murder of Khusbu Modak in the night of 19.08.2011. The prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence to prove the charge of murder against the appellant and, therefore, we need to keep in mind that in a case based on circumstantial evidence an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused, and the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. On the nature of the evidence required to prove the charge on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, we would refer to the judgment in “Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra” reported in (1982) 2 SCC 351 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9. …………When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. ……….” 9. All the material prosecution witnesses are related to Khusbu Modak and, therefore, their evidence needs to be scrutinized with the standard of care and caution indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. No doubt relationship is not a ground to discard testimony of a witness and merely because a witness has been labeled as interested witness the Court cannot start with initial distrusts or doubt. Though it needs to be kept in mind that sometimes the related witnesses may be partisan and on account of enmity, doubt or other reasons they may falsely implicate an innocent person but at the same time this also cannot be overlooked that generally a relative would not try to shield the real culprit and rope in the innocent person. 10. 10. In “Masalti v. State of U.P.” reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. ….. There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. …………… The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid rules of caution, we would now examine testimony of the prosecution witnesses to see whether they are reliable and trustworthy, and whether their evidence is sufficient to convict the appellant for murder. 12. PW1 who is the mother of Khusbu Modak has deposed in the Court that on 19.08.2011 the appellant came to her shop and asked for grocery and some kitchen provisions. He had brought rice to her shop and at that time his younger son was with him whom he left at the house of his mother. He proceeded for his house but shortly thereafter came back and told her that Khusbu Modak has committed some wrong (Aapki Beti Kuch Kar Li Hai). PW1 had gone to his house where she found her daughter lying dead on the ground. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have also visited the matrimonial house of Khusbu Modak and found her dead there. PW6-the investigating officer, who inspected the place of occurrence has also seen the dead body of Khusbu Modak lying in the house of the appellant. PW1 had gone to his house where she found her daughter lying dead on the ground. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have also visited the matrimonial house of Khusbu Modak and found her dead there. PW6-the investigating officer, who inspected the place of occurrence has also seen the dead body of Khusbu Modak lying in the house of the appellant. There seems no challenge by the defence to this fact that the dead body of Khusbu Modak was found in her matrimonial home and the prosecution has produced cogent and consistent evidence to prove this fact. 13. This is one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge of murder against the appellant. 14. There is evidence of PW1 and PW2 who have deposed in the Court that they were also residing in the village Gourangkocha where the accused was living with his wife. These witnesses have claimed that their house was in front of the house of the accused. However, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 does not support their stand and on that ground Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that evidence of PW1 that she has seen the appellant assaulting his wife must be excluded from consideration. We find that nothing much turns on the statement of PW1 that she saw the appellant assaulting his wife on the day of occurrence. There is sufficient evidence laid by the prosecution to prove that after the marriage the appellant was quarreling and assaulting his wife. PW1 and PW2 both have stated in the Court that the appellant was implicated in a case of theft and he was sent to judicial custody. The other witnesses have also spoken about gambling and drinking habit of the appellant which according to the prosecution was the main reason for quarrel between the couple. Though the prosecution has not produced documentary evidence regarding involvement of the appellant in a criminal case, PW1 has remained firmed on this issue in her cross-examination. In our opinion, it is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was constant fight between the appellant and his wife and this circumstance lends support to the prosecution case that in course of the quarrel the appellant strangulated his wife to death. 15. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is homicidal death of Khusbu Modak. 16. PW7-Dr. 15. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is homicidal death of Khusbu Modak. 16. PW7-Dr. Vivhakar Kumar was posted as Tutor in the Department of F.M.T, M.G.M Hospital, Jamshedpur. He conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Khusbu Modak identified by Hawaldar Kailash Sahi who had brought the dead body from Gourangkocha to the hospital. Dr. Vivhakar Kumar has recorded the following observations: “(a) Body was average built. Rigor mortis present all over the body. Abdomen slightly distended. Nails are cyanosed. Both eyes ecchymosed. Marbling of skin over front of chest. (b) External Injuries:- 1. Abrasion 9 cm in length and 1.5 cm in breadth over upper most part of middle of neck front. 2. 2 cm X 1 cm over left side of angle of mandible placed just superolateral to left lateral end of abrasion no.1. 3. 4 cm X 2 cm over right side of lateral aspect of upper part of neck. 4. 1 cm X 1 cm on right shoulder top. 5. 1 cm X 1 cm over left elbow back. (C) Internal Injuries:-On dissection of scalp and skull, there is contusion of scalp in left parietal and occipital area of scalp in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm. On dissection of neck, there is contusion of underneath tissue of abrasion no.1, 2 & 3. There is presence of contusion in an area of 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm over both side of lateral aspect of upper part of thyroid cartilage. There is presence of froth in trachea and mucosa found congested. Internal organs found congested. On deep dissection of extremities, there is presence of contusion of left side of lateral aspect of thigh upper part.” 17. The prosecution has laid consistent evidence that the witnesses have seen mark over neck of Khusbu Modak and a dupatta was found lying near her dead body. Since none of the prosecution witnesses has seen the occurrence some of them have claimed that the appellant strangulated his wife by pressing her neck while others have stated that he killed her by strangulation with dupatta. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that PW7 did not render a definite opinion that Khusbu Modak was murdered rather he has stated that her death may be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that PW7 did not render a definite opinion that Khusbu Modak was murdered rather he has stated that her death may be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. We have carefully analyzed the evidence of PW7 and find that the observations recorded by PW7 in the post-mortem report lead to a definite conclusion that Khusbu Modak was strangulated to death. This was not a case of suicidal hanging and the plea set up by the accused that she was mentally ill and suffering from epilepsy, and that, she has committed suicide by hanging herself is not established. There is not an iota of evidence that Khusbu Modak has committed suicide and the investigating officer has also not found any indication at the place of occurrence regarding suicidal hanging of Khusbu Modak. 18. In Medical Jurisprudence strangulation is defined as compression of the neck by force other than hanging. Strangulation can occur in two ways: (i) strangulation by ligature, or (ii) strangulation by pressure on the neck through fingers. In the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Edition), Modi writes that if fingers were used marks of pressure by the thumb and fingers tips are usually found on either side of the wind pipe – it is called throttling. PW7 has not recorded any observation regarding finger or thumb mark over the neck of Khusbu Modak and the materials available on record indicate that she was strangulated by a cloth which according to the prosecution was a dupatta. In suicidal hanging the ligature mark would be oblique and upward in the neck whereas in homicidal strangulation the ligature mark would be continuous, horizontal and lower down in the neck. In homicidal strangulation it is common that there would be abrasions and ecchymosis round about the edges of ligature marks. PW7 has found external abrasion over upper part of middle of the neck; over left side of mandible placed superolateral to injury no.(i); and over right side of lateral aspect of upper part of the neck. Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicines and Toxicology (6th Edition) also mentions that abrasions and bruises around the ligature mark are common in a case of homicidal death by strangulation. Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicines and Toxicology (6th Edition) also mentions that abrasions and bruises around the ligature mark are common in a case of homicidal death by strangulation. Parikh has further written that in case of suicidal hanging there would be a gap in the ligature mark due to position of the knot and there would be no damage to the skin over the gap, but PW7 has not found any such sign/mark over the neck of Khusbu Modak. In homicidal strangulation fracture of the hyoid bone is the most common feature but absence thereof does not establish a suicidal death. 19. The aforesaid observations of the medical man give an indication about the manner how Khusbu Modak was strangulated by the appellant – a cloth was used by the appellant from behind the neck of Khusbu Modak to strangulate her and on account of pressure over the neck she suffocated to death and that is the reason no ligature mark over back of the neck of Khusbu Modak was observed by PW7. 20. There are more indications in the evidence of PW7 that Khusbu Modak had died a violent asphyxial death. PW7 has recorded that on dissection of the scalp and skull he found contusion over left parietal and occipital area of the scalp to the extent of 6 cm x 4 cm. There was contusion of tissue underneath the injury nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) and over both sides of lateral aspect of upper part of thyroid cartilage over an area of around 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. Another important observation of PW7 is presence of froth in trachea, and congestion of mucosa as well as other internal organs. He has found external injuries over right shoulder and left elbow of Khusbu Modak, and he has also observed contusion of left side of lateral aspect of the upper part of the thigh. The aforesaid injuries which according to PW7 were ante-mortem in nature completely ruled out possibility of a suicidal death. There is no doubt that this was not a case of accidental death, yet the appellant has failed to explain how his wife has suffered those injuries. 21. There are other circumstances also which point out toward the guilt of the appellant. There is no doubt that this was not a case of accidental death, yet the appellant has failed to explain how his wife has suffered those injuries. 21. There are other circumstances also which point out toward the guilt of the appellant. On 20.08.2011, at about 10:40 AM the same day, the doctor has conducted the post-mortem examination and observed that the time elapsed since death was 12 to 18 hrs. This observation of PW7 supports the prosecution case that around the evening of 19.08.2011 Khusbu Modak was done to death. Furthermore, around the time of death of Khusbu Modak the appellant was in the village and he has failed to put forth any intervening circumstance to rule out his involvement in the crime. 22. The learned Sessions Judge has observed as under: “18. ……PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated in their evidence that just prior to the occurrence, accused had visited the house and told that their daughter has committed something and just after that both the witnesses visited the house of the deceased and found the dead body of the accused.” 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was under a legal duty to raise an inference against the appellant under section 106 of the Evidence Act. When a woman is found dead in her matrimonial home a husband living under the same roof with his wife must say how his wife has died, and where it is proved that the woman has suffered homicidal death failure of the husband to offer a plausible explanation about the death of his wife would raise not only a grave suspicion against him but also provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act are very clear and do not admit any ambiguity. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are within his special knowledge the Court can consider his failure to explain the incriminating circumstance as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 24. The appellant has not set up a plea of alibi rather the prosecution has proved that around the time when his wife has died he was in the village. 24. The appellant has not set up a plea of alibi rather the prosecution has proved that around the time when his wife has died he was in the village. The appellant seems to set up a defence that after collecting groceries from the shop of his mother-in-law when he returned home he found his wife dead, but there is no material on record to support his defence. His plea is not consistent with the evidence laid by the prosecution and he has not produced any contrary evidence. It is the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence to prove its case and that has been done by the prosecution in the present case. 25. In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was put to the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution but he has not offered any explanation – it was just a bald denial. 26. In “Pudhu Raja v. State” reported in (2012) 11 SCC 196 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “17. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 CrPC, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide, as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances.” 27. In “Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 464 , car of the accused was parked at Delhi Airport and it was found there for about three hours on the date of occurrence. The call records of his telephone established that he was present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. In “Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 464 , car of the accused was parked at Delhi Airport and it was found there for about three hours on the date of occurrence. The call records of his telephone established that he was present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it was the duty of the accused to furnish some explanation in his statement under section 313 CrPC, as under what circumstances his car was parked at Delhi Airport and it remained there for three hours on the date of occurrence, and merely making a bald statement that he was innocent and recoveries had been planted and that the call records were false and fabricated documents were not enough. 28. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the appellant has next contended that it is reflected in the prosecution evidence that in fit of rage the appellant tried to strangulate his wife and unfortunately she died. The argument is that the act of the appellant would fall at best under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, but , the materials on record indicate otherwise. There was constant quarrel between the appellant and his wife and if at all under grave and sudden provocation he has committed murder of his wife the provocation was self-sought and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit engrafted under Exception 1 or Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 29. We are satisfied that on the basis of the materials which we have discussed the prosecution has established that the chain of circumstances against the appellant was complete and thus proved the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, accordingly, we find no merit in this criminal appeal. 30. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 861 of 2013 is dismissed. 31. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned APP informs the Court that till 03.09.2021 the appellant is on Parole. 32. The appellant above-named on expiry of Parole shall report to the concerned jail authority to serve the remaining sentence. 33. Let the lower-Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 34. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.