JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was staying along with this wife Devi (kept) at Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Quarter No.S-340, Police Station Jamul, Durg, Distt. Durg and on 24-5-2012, he assaulted her by hands & fists and thereby strangulated her by the sari which she was wearing at that time and thereafter, in order to screen himself from the offence, he lodged report that she died on account of high fever, and thereby committed the offence. It is the further case of the prosecution that since the wife of the appellant had absconded leaving him, the appellant had kept Devi Telugu as his wife for last six months and they were living together at Quarter No.S- 340, Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, and on 24-5-2012, at 11.10 p.m., he reported the matter to the police station that morning he had gone for earning his livelihood by rickshaw pulling and when he reached home at 4.30 p.m., his wife was found to be suffering from high fever, thereafter, he took her to the hospital where she was declared dead, as such, his wife died on account of high fever. On the basis of the information given by the appellant, the police registered morgue intimation No.37/2012 vide Ex.P-18 pursuant to which FIR was registered at Police Station Jamul for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC vide Exs.P-16 & P-17. Thereafter, dead body was sent for inquest. Several injuries/abrasions were found on the body of the deceased and there was swelling near eyes and on neck. The body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Badri Narayan Dewangan (PW-6) vide Ex.P-10. Cause of death was asphyxia due to airway obstruction caused by antemortem strangulation. 3. Thereafter, dead body was sent for inquest. Several injuries/abrasions were found on the body of the deceased and there was swelling near eyes and on neck. The body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Badri Narayan Dewangan (PW-6) vide Ex.P-10. Cause of death was asphyxia due to airway obstruction caused by antemortem strangulation. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The accused/appellant was arrested and thereafter, his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-7 and on that basis, the sari used in the commission of offence was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-8. A query was also made to the doctor who opined that strangulation can be caused by the sari which has been seized. 4. After completion of investigation, the accused/appellant was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC and chargesheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC and sentenced him for the period aforesaid against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that only on the basis of memorandum statement of the accused and seizure of sari pursuant to the said memorandum, the appellant has been convicted, motive of the offence has not been established and even there is no evidence connecting the appellant herein to the offence in question and therefore the impugned conviction recorded and sentences awarded must be set aside. 7. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and would submit that it is a house murder where the appellant has to explain how his wife died and who caused the death of the deceased which he has not explained. Even the sari used as the weapon of offence by which strangulation has been made, has been seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant and the injuries have been established through the memorandum witnesses and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Even the sari used as the weapon of offence by which strangulation has been made, has been seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant and the injuries have been established through the memorandum witnesses and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The trial Court upon consideration of postmortem report in which cause of death has been held to be asphyxia due to airway obstruction caused by antemortem strangulation and nature of death is homicidal and further taking into consideration, the statement of doctor who has conducted autopsy i.e. Dr. Badri Narayan Dewangan (PW-6), has clearly come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. As per the statement of Dr. Badri Narayan Dewangan (PW-6), (injury No.6) ligature mark has been found on down side of neck in the size of 12 c.m. x 1.5 cms. and just below the mark, blood was also deposited apart from other injuries. On that basis, the trial Court has held the nature of death to be homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court holding the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature considering the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 10. Now, the question is, who is the author of the crime in question? 11. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove all the circumstances and then has to link the circumstances to form a chain which leads to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused. If there is any chance of the accused having not committed the offence or there be any chance of any other person committing such an offence then the accused has to be given benefit of doubt. 12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute and fully established from the evidence on record that in Quarter No.S-340, Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, the appellant was staying with his wife (kept but not married) and earning his livelihood by rickshaw pulling. 12. In the instant case, it is not in dispute and fully established from the evidence on record that in Quarter No.S-340, Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, the appellant was staying with his wife (kept but not married) and earning his livelihood by rickshaw pulling. It is also not in dispute that the appellant’s legally wedded wife had already left him and on that count, he had kept deceased Devi along with him in his Quarter No.S-340, Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Durg. This fact is duly established from the statement of Smt. Sharada Gedam (PW-2). In paragraph 2, she has clearly stated before the Court that the appellant used to stay along with his wife (deceased), who has died, in Bombay Awas after 2-3 rooms of her quarter and this statement has not been controverted on behalf of the accused. 13. Smt. Parvati (PW-4) is the elder sister of the deceased. She has stated before the Court that one or two days prior to the date of incident, she has gone to the house of the accused and the deceased where she found that they both were quarrelling with each other and this statement of Smt. Parvati (PW-4) has also not been controverted on behalf of the accused/appellant. Thus, it is quite established that on the date of incident, both the appellant and the deceased were living together in the said house. 14. Apart from this, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P-7, sari used in strangulation has also bee seized from the possession of the appellant vide Ex.P-8 which has been proved by D. Krishna (PW-5) and which has not been contradicted on behalf of the appellant. 15. The place of incident is the house of the appellant. It is established that on 24-5-2012, the deceased suffered injuries on her neck and ligature marks and other injuries were also found on her body, and her death was homicidal in nature as held herein-above. The appellant was her husband though not married but both were living together. The appellant was required to explain how his wife Devi sustained injuries and died as a result of asphyxia due to airway obstruction caused by antemortem strangulation as stated above, as he was the only person in the house on the date of incident, which he has not explained. 16. The appellant was required to explain how his wife Devi sustained injuries and died as a result of asphyxia due to airway obstruction caused by antemortem strangulation as stated above, as he was the only person in the house on the date of incident, which he has not explained. 16. In the matter of Harijan Bhala Teja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2016 SC 2065 , the Supreme Court has held that where the postmortem report establishes homicidal nature of death and since the accused only was staying with his wife at time of her death, it is for the accused to show has to in what manner she died and relying upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in paragraph 19 of the report it was held as under: - “19. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Since it is proved on the record that it was only the appellant who was staying with his wife at the time of her death, it is for him to show as to in what manner she died, particularly, when the prosecution has successfully proved that she died homicidal death.” 17. Likewise, in the matter of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 1255 , where the accused (Gajanan Dashrath Kharate) alleged to have killed his father and accused has not offered any explanation for homicidal death of his father, conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court by holding as under in paragraph 14: - “14. Upon appreciation of oral evidence and the circumstance of the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and the conduct of the accused in not offering any explanation for the homicidal death of his father, by concurrent findings, the trial court and the High Court rightly convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.” 18. Similarly, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Patchimala Vigneswarudu alias Vigganna alias Ganapathi, (2016) 4 SCC 611 , the Supreme Court having found that there is an evidence of last seen and where the motive and homicidal death are proved by medical evidence, restored the conviction. 19. Similarly, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Patchimala Vigneswarudu alias Vigganna alias Ganapathi, (2016) 4 SCC 611 , the Supreme Court having found that there is an evidence of last seen and where the motive and homicidal death are proved by medical evidence, restored the conviction. 19. Reverting to the facts of the case, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved the homicidal nature of death of the deceased and has also successfully proved by circumstantial evidence that the deceased was the wife/kept of the appellant and they both were staying together on 24-5-2012 in Quarter No.S-340, Bombay Awas, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, and the deceased was found dead in the said house and the appellant has falsely made report to the police vide Ex.P-18 that the deceased was suffering from high fever and thereby she died. Nature of death of the deceased was homicidal and cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. It is the case of house murder and the appellant has failed to explain as to how his wife died. In our opinion, the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who caused the death of the deceased and he alone committed the murder of deceased Devi. The view taken by the learned Court of Sessions that the chain of circumstances is complete is correct and he has properly analyzed medical evidence and circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that death of deceased Devi was homicidal in nature. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.