JUDGMENT : By The Court : Per Mehta, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.27/2012. He has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC for assailing the impugned Judgment:- Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default Sentences 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.15,000/- 6 months’ additional Simple Imprisonment 201 IPC 3 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 3 months’ additional Simple Imprisonment (Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Prakash Puri (P.W.10), lodged a written report (Ex.P./14) to the SHO Police Station, Khinwada, District Pali on 02.04.2012 alleging inter alia that his sister Madhubala Goswami had been married to Bhupesh Puri, resident of Hathi Pol, Udaipur in the year 1990. The couple got divorced in the year 2001 whereafter, Madhubala remarried Prakash Bharti (the appellant herein), resident of village Gawada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali. Two children were born from the wedlock, both of whom were being looked after by the informant and were at the relevant point of time staying in a hostel at Kanod for their studies. He alleged that Prakash Bharti regularly indulged in harassing and humiliating his sister on account of demand of dowry and money. About 7-8 years ago, Prakash indulged in violence and broke his sister’s hand. On another occasion, 3-4 years ago, Shri Prakash Bharti inflicted an injury on his sister’s head upon on which, she left the matrimonial home and started living with the informant. Thereafter, Prakash Bharti would extend threats that if Madhubala did not return to the matrimonial home, she would be killed. Prakash came to his house and told that he had sold the house in Bombay for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and got a house constructed at Gawada. He offered that he and his wife would live together at Gawada. He promised to invest a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-in the name of Madhubala and through this allurement, he took Madhubala with him on 12.10.2011. Smt. Madhubala regularly talked to their mother Radhabai (P.W.11). On 28.10.2011, Smt. Madhubala called their mother and told that she had come to Nadol to buy a door for their newly constructed house. He promised to invest a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-in the name of Madhubala and through this allurement, he took Madhubala with him on 12.10.2011. Smt. Madhubala regularly talked to their mother Radhabai (P.W.11). On 28.10.2011, Smt. Madhubala called their mother and told that she had come to Nadol to buy a door for their newly constructed house. Thereafter, no further information was forthcoming regarding Smt. Madhubala on which, the informant tried to make enquiries at his own level but did not receive any update on which, he, accompanied with Jaswant Singh (P.W.15), Umesh Giri (P.W.16) and Prahlad Puri (P.W.26) reached the house of the accused but did not find anyone present there. Foul smell was emanating from the house and thus, they started bearing a suspicion that the dead body might have been buried inside the house. He alleged that his brother-in-law Prakash Bharti and his brother Lehar Bharti, who were both missing might have hatched a conspiracy, murdered Madhubala and buried the dead body in the house. 3. On the basis of this report, an enquiry was started. Body of Smt. Madhubala’s body had been buried inside the house of her husband Prakash Bharti and was dug out and FIR No.33/2012 (Ex.P/30) came to be registered at the Police Station Khinwada, District Pali on 02.04.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC. Investigation was assigned to SHO Shri Bhabhut Singh (P.W.23). The dead body was subjected to autopsy at the hands of Medical Board, which issued a Postmortem Report (Ex.P/31), concluding that the cause of death of the victim was head injury and the probable time of death was between 3-6 months. The dead body was totally decomposed. 4. The accused was arrested and acting in furtherance of the information provided by him, the implements used to bury the dead body were recovered. The I.O. claims to have procured a certificate (Ex.P/34) to affirm the fact that the house in question had been received by the accused in a family settlement and that he was in exclusive possession thereof. Upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali, where charges were framed against the accused for the above offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali, where charges were framed against the accused for the above offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same, claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. Learned trial court, heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel; appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 which is assailed in this appeal. 6. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the appellant, contended that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was having any motive to murder his wife. The informant Prakash Puri (P.W.10), claimed in the Written Report (Ex.P/14) and in his evidence that the accused used to beat Madhubala and had once broken her hand, and on another occasion, he had caused injury on the head of Madhubala. However, neither any FIR was registered for these alleged incidents, nor was any community panchayat convened to raise grievance that the accused was indulging in beating Madhubala. Mr. Shah urged that as per the story set out in the written report, after these incidents of beating, Madhubala started residing at her brother’s house. Prakash Bharti allegedly approached Smt. Madhubala and conveyed that he had sold his house at Bombay for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-and that from this amount, he would invest a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-in the name of Madhubala and their children. Mr. Shah urged that Prakash Bharti did not allege that after the accused gave this allurement, Madhubala proceeded with the accused herein. Mr. Shah urged that Prakash Bharti did not allege that after the accused gave this allurement, Madhubala proceeded with the accused herein. He contended that as per the statement of Prakash Bharti, Madhubala allegedly called their mother on 20.10.2011 and conveyed that she had come to Nadol for procuring a gate and that her husband was at the house but no call detail records were brought on record to affirm this fact. Furthermore, no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the accused and the victim ever lived together in the house, where the dead body of Madhubala was found buried. Mr. Shah, further urged that the informant Shri Prakash Puri claimed that nearly for six months, no further information was received regarding the status of his sister who lastly talked to the relatives on 20.10.2011 but despite that, the family members did not take any step to file a report regarding her alleged disappearance nor did they try to take stock of her well being. The witness also admitted that he did not make any effort to contact Prakash Bharti or his brothers, Lehar Bharti and Gyan Bharti between 12.10.2011 to 31.10.2012. Madhubala left for Udaipur on 12.10.2011 in the day time at about 10.00 to 10.30 AM. Before that, Prakash Bharti had called Madhubala on her phone and had given her the alleged allurement. 7. Mr. Shah vehemently contended that the prosecution did not lead an iota of evidence to prove that the accused owned or had possession of the house from where the dead body was recovered. In this regard, he drew the Court’s attention to the statement of Smt. Ramu Devi (P.W.13), the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Nipal, who stated that she did not know where Prakash Bharti’s house was located. The patta of the house was not issued by her. She could not state whether Prakash Bharti and his brothers were living together in the house. She did not go to the place from where, the dead body was recovered. Mr. Shah urged that for raising reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution would have to first establish, by plausible evidence that the accused was present in the house with his wife, victim Smt. Madhubala at the time when she was murdered and the dead body was buried underneath the ground. Mr. Mr. Shah urged that for raising reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution would have to first establish, by plausible evidence that the accused was present in the house with his wife, victim Smt. Madhubala at the time when she was murdered and the dead body was buried underneath the ground. Mr. Shah urged that there is total lack of evidence to this effect and hence, the conclusion drawn by the trial court by relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused would be required to explain the circumstances under which his wife was murdered and the dead body was buried underground, is totally illegal and contrary to record. Mr. Shah contended that the call detail records were not proved as per law because the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was neither procured, nor exhibited during trial. 8. Mr. Shah drew the Court’s attention to the statement of the I.O. Shri Bhabhut Singh (P.W.23), who admitted in his cross-examination that Prakash Bharti was arrested from Karnataka and at the time of his arrest, he was in the attire of a Hermit (Saadhu) and was carrying religious books. Mr. Shah urged that as per the admitted case disclosed from the evidence of the informant Prakash Puri and as set out in the FIR, Madhubala had talked to her mother on 20.10.2011 and thereafter, no further information was forthcoming regarding her status. Mr. Shah urged that on 20.10.2011, when Madhubala called her mother, she told her that she had come to Nadol for buying a gate and that she was alone. He submitted that there is total lack of evidence on record to show that the appellant herein was present at the house at any point of time on or after 12.10.2011, and hence, he cannot be required to explain the circumstances in which Madhubala was murdered and her dead body came to be buried in the house. In support of his contentions, Mr. Shah relied upon the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2021)10 SCC 725 . He concluded his arguments urging that the prosecution has led no plausible evidence whatsoever to bring home the charges against the appellant and hence, he deserves to be acquitted. 9. Shah relied upon the Judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2021)10 SCC 725 . He concluded his arguments urging that the prosecution has led no plausible evidence whatsoever to bring home the charges against the appellant and hence, he deserves to be acquitted. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the informant Prakash Puri (P.W.10) and Smt. Radhabai (P.W.11), brother and mother respectively of the deceased, gave convincing evidence to the effect that the accused used to misbehave and maltreat Madhubala and had beaten her up on two occasions before the incident. Madhubala got fed up by the continuous maltreatment meted out to her by her husband the accused appellant and started residing with her mother. Just before the incident, Prakash Bharti approached Madhubala and, firstly he threatened her and then, gave her an allurement of getting invested significant sum of money in a Fixed Deposit for her and her sons but still Madhubala refused to go with him. Thereafter, the accused lured her away through a phone call. Madhubala called her mother and told her that she had come to Nadol to purchase gates for her house and also stated that her husband had stayed back at their home. Thereafter, no further information was forthcoming regarding the fate of Madhubala. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that, as the appellant was unquestionably staying with his wife, the deceased Madhubala in the house where her dead body was found buried, the burden of proof to explain the circumstances under which Madhubala was murdered and the body was buried, was rightly shifted by the trial court upon the accused by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Since, the accused failed to offer any plausible explanation for these gravely incriminating facts, the only consequence which would entail, would be to hold him guilty of the charges. On these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. We have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence led by prosecution. 11. On these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. We have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence led by prosecution. 11. From a perusal of the evidence of the two material witnesses i.e. the first informant, Prakash Puri (P.W.10), brother of the deceased and Smt. Radhabai (P.W.11), mother of the deceased, it becomes clear that some time before the incident, the matrimonial relations between the appellant and the deceased had run into turbulent times. There is a distinct allegation of these two witnesses that the accused repeatedly indulged in harassing and humiliating Smt. Madhubala and on two occasions, he even indulged in severe violence thereby, breaking the hand and causing injury on the head of Smt. Madhubala who left the matrimonial home and started living with her mother. It is true, that no FIR was lodged for these incidents but this omission is very well explainable because it was the second marriage of the deceased with the appellant and thus, the family members would normally try to avoid going to the police because such a course of action might have led to ruining the chances of patching up the broken relations. From the evidence of Prakash Puri and Radhabai, it is also established that the deceased was lured by the accused to join him back at the matrimonial home by giving her an assurance that he would open Fixed Deposit account with the money which he had received by selling a house in Bombay. Falling for this assurance, the deceased went back to stay at the matrimonial home. She called her mother on 20.10.2011 and told that she had come to Nadol to buy a gate, leaving her husband at their home. No significant cross-examination was conducted from Smt. Radhabai on this important aspect of her testimony. As per the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, no information was forthcoming regarding Madhubala’s status after this call. It is true, that the parental family members made no effort whatsoever to find out anything about, Madhubala’s well being after 20.10.2011, but this omission could have been due to a number of reasons. As per the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, no information was forthcoming regarding Madhubala’s status after this call. It is true, that the parental family members made no effort whatsoever to find out anything about, Madhubala’s well being after 20.10.2011, but this omission could have been due to a number of reasons. Considering the fact that it was the second marriage of Madhubala with the accused appellant and that she was trying to reconcile the differences with her husband, the family members might have thought fit to give the spouses ample time and space so as to mutually iron out their dissentions. However, merely because the family members did not care to take any action regarding Madhubala being unresponsive, that by itself, would not discredit the entire prosecution case. 12. True it is that the prosecution did not prove the call detail records by exhibiting the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, but in spite thereof, oral evidence of Radhabai, wherein she stated that Madhubala called her on 20.10.2011 and shared information regarding she having come to Nadol for buying gates for their house leaving her husband behind, can very well be considered relevant to some extent. This, conversation was held on 20.10.2011 and thereafter no further information was forthcoming regarding the fate of Madhubala. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned defence counsel urged that the accused had renounced the world before the incident and was living as a Hermit (Saadhu), but when we see the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it comes to light that he did not utter a single word to this effect. Merely from the fact that when the accused was arrested in this case, he was wearing an attire of Hermit (Saadhu), it cannot be presumed that he had, as a matter of fact, renounced the world and was not residing at the house at the time of the incident. 13. Daula Ram (P.W.7), gave categoric evidence that the house from where the dead body was recovered, was owned by the accused Prakash Bharti. The accused himself did not deny this fact in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. 14. Gyan Bharti (P.W.9), the cousin brother of the accused, also stated that the house of Prakash Bharti was adjacent to his house and construction activities were going on in the house of Prakash Bharti. The accused himself did not deny this fact in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. 14. Gyan Bharti (P.W.9), the cousin brother of the accused, also stated that the house of Prakash Bharti was adjacent to his house and construction activities were going on in the house of Prakash Bharti. Apparently, Madhubala had gone to Nadol to procure gates for their house under construction. 15. In wake of these facts, we have no hesitation in holding that the house from where the dead body was recovered, buried under the ground, was owned and was in possession of the accused. The prosecution witnesses Prakash Puri (P.W.10) and Radhabai (P.W.11) clearly stated that when Madhubala went back to live with the accused appellant, at that time, construction activities were going on in the house of Prakash Bharti. As per the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/6) a gate was affixed only on the main door of the house. The floor was kaccha and construction material was lying in the structure. The fact that there were no doors in the internal area of the house, corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses Prakash Puri and Radhabai that Madhubala called and told them that she had come to Nadol for purchasing a gate for her house. Thus, it is well and truly established that some time in the month of October 2011, the accused appellant gave an allurement to his wife Madhubala and called her to live with him in the house which was under construction. For a few months thereafter, no information was forthcoming regarding fate of Madhubala. Prakash Puri the informant (P.W.10) and his relatives reached the house of the accused and noticed foul smell emanating therefrom. The police was informed, the lock of house was broken open and Madhubala’s dead body was found buried inside the house under construction. 16. The Medical Jurist Dr. Pooranmal (P.W.24), conducted postmortem upon the dead body of Madhubala, and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/31) taking note of the marks of violence (fracture) on the temporo-parietal region and dislocation of both the shoulders. The Board clearly noted that the death took place about 3-6 months before the postmortem examination. The time of death corresponds with the version of the first informant and Smt. Radha Bai. The Board clearly noted that the death took place about 3-6 months before the postmortem examination. The time of death corresponds with the version of the first informant and Smt. Radha Bai. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he did not utter a single word that he was not present in the house when Madhubala died or her dead body was buried therein. He rather, took a defence that the house in question from where, the dead body was recovered, was not owned by him. This version of the accused is patently false in view of the evidence of the witnesses referred to supra. There is no reason to believe that the accused would not have visited his own house for a period of nearly 6 months. Furthermore, once he had called his wife in an attempt to revive their matrimonial ties, the natural human conduct required that the accused should have informed the maternal family members regarding the fate of his wife. If anyone else had murdered and buried the dead body in the house, then also, the accused should have become alarmed owing to disappearance of his wife and would be expected to report the happening to the police. However, he did not take any such measures. 17. The judgment in the case of Nagendra Sah (supra), upon which, counsel Mr. Pradeep Shah, relied upon, dealt with entirely different set of facts which are noted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- “As can be seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the in-laws of the deceased were very much staying in the same premises where the appellant and deceased were staying. PW 1 stated that he saw the father-in-law of the deceased extinguishing the fire. The learned trial Judge has specifically discarded the testimony of PWs 1 to 5. But PW 6 Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta stated that he noticed that family members of the accused were extinguishing the fire. The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that at the time of the alleged incident, there were other members of the family of the accused with the accused in his house. However, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife was strained or that the relationship between the deceased wife and the appellant’s parents was strained. However, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife was strained or that the relationship between the deceased wife and the appellant’s parents was strained. On the contrary, some of the prosecution witnesses have stated that their relationship was cordial.” Clearly, the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the case at hand and hence, the judgment in the case of Nagendra Sah (supra), is of no avail to the accused. 18. As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has proved chain of incriminating circumstances summarized below which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are totally inconsistent to his innocence :- (1) That the relations between the accused and Madhubala were strained. She was beaten up and hence, she left the matrimonial home and started living with her mother. (2) That some time in the month of October, 2011, the accused called Madhubala and offered her a reconciliation in the form of getting significant sum of money invested in the name of the lady and her children. (3) That the fact that Madhubala called her mother from Nadol on 20.10.2011 and told her that she was procuring a gate and that her husband had stayed back at the house coupled with the fact that construction activities were going on in the house of the accused. (4) That the fact that the prosecution has led clinching evidence of grossly incriminating circumstance viz. the dead body of Madhubala being found buried underneath the ground inside the house of the accused, the door whereof was locked from outside. (5) False plea taken by the accused of not being the owner of the house in question which has been well established from the evidence of Daula Ram (P.W.7) and Gyan Bharti (P.W.9). (6) That the accused failed to offer any explanation whatsoever as to the circumstances in which, his wife expired by violent means and her dead body was buried under the ground inside his own house. (7) Rank silence/ gross omission on part of the accused in taking any steps regarding the unexplained disappearance of his wife for a period of nearly 6 months. (7) Rank silence/ gross omission on part of the accused in taking any steps regarding the unexplained disappearance of his wife for a period of nearly 6 months. (8) That failure of the accused to offer any explanation of these gravely incriminating facts which were in his exclusive knowledge in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 19. The trial court discussed the evidence in an apropos manner and was absolutely justified in recording guilt of the accused by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2020, which does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference whatsoever. 20. Hence, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.