Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1014 (AP)

Malapati Venkatesu Venkatesulu, Anantapuram Dt. v. State of AP.

2023-07-06

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2016 passed in S.C.No.456 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ananthapuramu, whereby the appellant, who is the sole accused in the said case, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) for committing the murder of his wife and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: The deceased Malapati Sujatamma is the wife of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized about nine years prior to her death. For about three years, they lived happily. Thereafter, it is stated that the accused is addicted to consuming alcohol and used to visit the house in a drunken state and beat the deceased and subject her to physical and mental harassment. The accused was a driver by profession and as a lorry driver, he used to go out of station frequently. Therefore, the deceased has to live alone in the house. In the said circumstances, it is stated that the parents of the deceased brought both the accused and the deceased to their village. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased used to live separately in another house. Whenever the accused used to go out of station on duty, as a lorry driver, the deceased used to stay in the house of her parents. The accused also used to visit the house of her parents when his wife was staying in the house of her parents. But even after their residence is shifted to the village of the parents of the deceased, there is no change in the conduct of the accused and he continued to harass the deceased beating her in a drunken state. 3. While so, it is stated that on 22.03.2013, the deceased was in the house of her parents. At that time, the accused came to the house of the parents of the deceased on that evening in a drunken state and he picked up a quarrel with his parents-in-law and when his mother-in-law, who is P.W.9, questioned him in visiting the house in a drunken state, that he beat her. 4. At that time, the accused came to the house of the parents of the deceased on that evening in a drunken state and he picked up a quarrel with his parents-in-law and when his mother-in-law, who is P.W.9, questioned him in visiting the house in a drunken state, that he beat her. 4. It is stated that thereafter on the same day, after taking dinner, both the accused and his wife, who is the deceased, went into the bedroom in the house of P.W.9, to sleep. The inmates of the house i.e. P.W.9, who is the mother-in-law of the accused and others were sleeping on the pial outside the house. At about 10.00 p.m., P.W.9, who is the mother-in-law of the accused and others, who are sleeping outside the house on a pial, noticed and seen the accused going away from the house. P.W.9 and other family members thought that he was going to answer the calls of nature. 5. In the morning at about 5.00 a.m., when P.W.9 went into the room to wake up her daughter, she was found dead and she also noticed injuries on her forehead and also noticed that her hands are broken and the tongue protruding. Immediately, when she raised cries, the other family members reached the said place. Thereafter, P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged a report with the police. The said report was registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. by Atmakur Police. 6. During the course of investigation, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The Doctor held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found both external and internal injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He opined that she died on account of the pressure given on the neck. Accordingly, he has issued the postmortem report. 7. During the course of investigation, it was found that the accused is in the habit of harassing the deceased, who is his wife as he is addicted to consuming alcohol and beating her in a drunken state and that he is also suspecting her fidelity and that on the date of offence, when he was sleeping with her in a room in the house of his parents-in-law, that he has beat her and killed her and thereafter left the house and escaped. Therefore, as the postmortem report revealed that it is a case of homicidal death and as it is found after the investigation that the accused is the person, who has committed the murder of the deceased. During the course of investigation, the blood stained clothes of the deceased and also the blanket at the scene of offence etc. were seized and they were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory by giving a letter of interrogation. 8. It is stated that after the date of offence, the accused also approached P.W.11, who is Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O.) and has given extra-judicial confession admitting that he has killed his wife. Therefore, after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 9. After the charge sheet was taken on to the file by the Committal Court, after complying with the procedure prescribed under law, the Committal Court has committed the said case to the Court of Sessions Division for trial as the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. 10. The Sessions Court has framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused, read over and explained to him. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 11. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 documents and M.Os.1 to 11 material objects to substantiate its case against the accused. 12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution. The accused denied the incriminating evidence that was adduced against him by the prosecution. 13. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 14. Eventually, at the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accordingly he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- as detailed supra. 15. 15. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the conviction and sentence, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 16. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 17. As can be seen from the material available on record, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased, P.W.3 is her sister-in-law i.e. the wife of one of her brothers of the deceased. P.W.4 is the neighbor of her parents. P.W.5 is her minor daughter. P.W.9 is her mother. P.W.10 is her distant relative. Thus, these witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.9 are the family members of the deceased and P.W.10 is her distant relative. The other witnesses are official witnesses, who are all the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy and V.R.O., before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was issued and police officials. 18. P.Ws.1 to 5, who are her family members, turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the prosecution case. They have shown their volteface to the prosecution, though they are own brothers, sister-in-law and minor daughter of the deceased. For the reasons best known to them, they turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the case of the prosecution. But, that by itself is not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case when other evidence is available on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution against the accused. 19. There is evidence of PW.9, who supported the case of the prosecution. It is only P.W.9, who is the mother of the deceased, supported the case of the prosecution. Although, P.W.10, who is her distant relative, deposed in favour of the prosecution, her evidence is only relevant to consider the fact that the deceased was found dead with multiple injuries. Although, she has deposed that the accused used to harass the deceased by beating her in a drunken state, it is evident from her cross-examination that she did not actually witness the said instances and that she has only heard about the same. Therefore, obviously her evidence given to that effect is only hearsay evidence. 20. Although, she has deposed that the accused used to harass the deceased by beating her in a drunken state, it is evident from her cross-examination that she did not actually witness the said instances and that she has only heard about the same. Therefore, obviously her evidence given to that effect is only hearsay evidence. 20. However, as noticed supra, there is evidence of P.W.9 available on record, who is the mother of the deceased, which is relevant in the context to consider. 21. The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the circumstantial evidence in this case. Two circumstances are relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in committing the murder of his wife. The first circumstance is, the accused is addicted to consuming alcohol heavily and he used to beat the deceased frequently and harass her physically and mentally in a drunken state and that he also used to suspect her fidelity. The second circumstance is, on the date of the offence, the deceased was in the house of her parents i.e. P.W.9 and accused also came to the house of P.W.9 on that day and he picked up a quarrel with P.W.9 in a drunken state and thereafter, he went into the room in the house along with the deceased, who is his wife at about 9.00 p.m. to sleep on that day and thereafter, he left the house at 10.00 p.m. on that night and went away and the deceased was found dead with multiple injuries in the said room in the morning and as such, the deceased died while she was in the company of the accused and as such, the accused is only the culprit, who has killed and committed murder of the deceased. These are the two circumstances on which the entire case of the prosecution is based. 22. As regards the motive part is concerned, the case of the prosecution is twofold, that the accused is addicted to consuming alcohol and used to visit the house in a drunken state and frequently beat his wife and subject her to physical and mental harassment and that he also used to suspect her fidelity. As regards the allegation that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife is concerned, we can straight away hold that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation. As regards the allegation that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife is concerned, we can straight away hold that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation. Even the P.W.9, who is the mother of the deceased, did not depose in her evidence that the accused used to suspect her fidelity. Even though the prosecution has also relied on the evidence of the extra-judicial confession of the accused, wherein it is stated that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, the same is not proved in this case as P.W.11, the V.R.O. did not support the said version of the prosecution. Therefore, it has to be inevitably held that the said allegation of the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased is not established by the prosecution. 23. However, as regards the other part of the motive that the accused used to visit the house in a drunken state regularly as he is addicted to consuming alcohol and he used to beat and physically harass the deceased, is concerned, there is the evidence of the mother of the deceased, who is examined as P.W.9 in this case. 24. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 clearly shows that she categorically deposed in her evidence that for about three months, his daughter i.e. the deceased and the accused lived happily after the marriage and she stated that thereafter the accused started consuming alcohol and harassing her daughter by beating her. She further stated as the accused is a lorry driver, that she brought the accused and the deceased to her village and both of them used to reside separately and they used to go for work. She also stated that there is no change in the conduct of the accused even after shifting his residence and that he used to beat his wife while consuming liquor heavily. 25. Now, it is important to note that P.W.9 further categorically deposed in her evidence that even whenever her daughter was in her house, that the accused used to come to her house in a drunken state and beat her daughter and also quarrelled with P.W.9 also. Then, she stated that when she used to chastise him, that he used to beat her also. 26. Then, she stated that when she used to chastise him, that he used to beat her also. 26. Now, it is significant to note that she categorically deposed that at about 9.00 p.m. on the date of the offence after taking food, that the accused asked his wife to accompany him to sleep and accordingly, they both slept inside the house and she along with her other family members, slept in front of the house on a pial and thereafter at about 10.00 p.m., she has seen the accused coming out of the room after opening the door and going away from the house. She stated at that time he was wearing ‘lungi’ and she thought that either the accused might have quarrelled with his wife and went away or that he might have gone to answer the calls of nature. Then, she further stated that at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, when she went into the room, where the deceased and the accused slept, to wake up her daughter, that she found her dead and she noticed that her hands are broken, nose is bleeding and also her tongue is protruding from the mouth and an injury on her forehead. She stated that immediately when she raised cries, that her family members and neighbours came there and thereafter P.W.1 lodged report with the police and that inquest was held over the dead body thereafter. 27. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 clinchingly establishes that the accused was in her house on that night and that after picking up a quarrel in the evening time with her, that he had a dinner and thereafter he along with his wife i.e. the deceased, went into the room in the house of P.W.9 and slept at about 9.00 p.m. along with her daughter. Her evidence further proves that at about 10.00 p.m., that the accused came out of the house after opening the doors and went away from the house and in the morning at about 5.00 a.m., that the deceased was found dead with injuries on her body. Her evidence further proves that at about 10.00 p.m., that the accused came out of the house after opening the doors and went away from the house and in the morning at about 5.00 a.m., that the deceased was found dead with injuries on her body. The said sole testimony of PW.9 is trustworthy and can safely be relied on in proof of the fact that the accused was in her house on that night and he and the deceased slept together in a room in her house and after some time the accused left the house and thereafter the deceased was found dead in the said room with injuries. Absolutely nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony given in this regard. She has also no reason to give any false evidence against the accused. So, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds to disbelieve her testimony and to discard the same. It is settled law that it is the quality of evidence that is required and not the quantity of evidence that is required to prove a particular fact or facts or the accusation made against the accused. The legal position in this regard is clear from Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which mandates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the purpose of proving any fact. Therefore, it is settled law that even a sole testimony of a witness, if it is trustworthy and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court regarding the veracity of the testimony given by the witness, the same can safely be relied on in proof of a fact. 28. So, this evidence of P.W.9 clinchingly proves that the deceased met with a homicidal death while she was in the company of the accused, who is her husband, in a closed room. Therefore, when the deceased met with a homicidal death on account of the fatal injuries sustained by her and when the medical evidence shows that she died on account of the pressure given on the neck, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased, who is his wife met with a homicidal death, because of the said injuries found on her body when she was in his company in a closed room. The accused did not offer any explanation. The accused did not offer any explanation. On the other hand, he has taken a false plea that his wife died because of the stomach ache. 29. The said defence taken by the accused that his wife died due to stomach ache, is proved to be false from the medical evidence on record. The medical evidence on record completely belies the said explanation offered by the accused and the defence taken by him. 30. P.W.12, the Doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He stated that during the course of postmortem examination, he found both external and internal injuries over the dead body of the deceased which are described in detail in the postmortem report which is Ex.P16. He further stated that the proximate time of the death is 24 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy and that he is of the opinion that the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia, because of the pressure over her neck. 31. A perusal of Ex.P16-postmortem report clearly shows that the deceased sustained the following injuries: INJURIES: The following antemortem external & internal injuries were found over the female dead body. 1. Both upper eye lids were diffusely contused. (a) Conjuntieve congested and haemorrage. 2. Contused pressure abrasion transversely placed 1.5cms below the right eye over the right check. (a) Injury measuring 3.5 X 2cms 3. Inner aspect of the upper and lower lips were diffusely contused. (a) Frinulae of the lips were diffusely contused. (b) Gums of the teeth were diffusely contused & hemorrhagic 4. Teeth byte marks were transversely present over the anterior part of the tongue. (a) Bite marks were placed 2cms below the tip of the tongue. (b) And measuring 4cms X 0.5cms X 3mm. 5. Contusion transversely placed at the right eye lateral canthus. (a) Injury measuring 1cm X 0.5cms. 6. Contused pressure abrasion transversely placed over the right eye lateral part of the lower lid & adjacent to cheek. (a) Injury measuring 2ems X 1.5cms. 7. Contused scratch abrasion obliquely placed 4cms right lateral to chin over the right check and size 0.5 in length X 2mm. 8. Multiple contused pressure abrasions were present over the right side pre auricular (temple) region to above the angle of the mandible to the cheek. (a) Injuries placed 10cmsX7cms area and each dot shaped and round in shaped. 9. Contused scratch abrasion obliquely placed 4cms right lateral to chin over the right check and size 0.5 in length X 2mm. 8. Multiple contused pressure abrasions were present over the right side pre auricular (temple) region to above the angle of the mandible to the cheek. (a) Injuries placed 10cmsX7cms area and each dot shaped and round in shaped. 9. Contused crescentic nail scratches obliquely placed 06cms below the left side of chin over the left side front of the neck 2 in number. (a)Each measuring 1cm X 0.5cms and placed 0.5cms apart. 10. Linear Nail scratch abrasions were transversely placed adjacent to injury no: 09 over the left side front of the neck. (a) Injury placed 06cms below the left side of chin. (b) Injuries were 02 in number 0.5cms apart & one below the other. (c) Each measuring 1em & 1.5cm in length. 11. Linear Nail scratch abrasion transversely placed 2cms below the injury no : 10 over the left side front of the neck. (a)Injury measuring 3cms in length. 12. Confused crescentic nail scratch obliquely placed 2cms above the left side supra clavicular fossa over the left side of the neck. (a) Injury measuring 1cmX 3 mm. 13. Contused transversely placed over the right side front of the neck. (a)Injury placed 7cms below the chin and 5cms below the body of the right lower jaw. (b)Injury measuring 7X1 cms. 14. Contused transversely placed over the right side front of the neck 0.5cms below the above injury. (a)Injury measuring 6cms X1.5cms. 15. Contused present over the left side lower part of the neck. (a) Injury placed 8cms below the middle part body of the mandible. (b) Injury measuring 1cmX1.5cms. 16. Contusions were obliquely placed over the right side upper over quadrant of right breast. (a) Injuries were placed 1cm apart and measuring 1X1 cms and 1X0.5 cms. 17. Contusion transversely placed over the front lower part of the right arm. (a) Injury placed 5cms above the medial side of right elbow. (b) Injury measuring 6cmsX 0.5cms. 18. Contusion transversely placed 4cms below the above injury and over middle part front of right elbow. (a) measuring 6cms Xl cms 19. Contusion transversely placed 3cms below the above injury over the front of the right fore arm and measuring 1cm X0.5cm 20. (a) Injury placed 5cms above the medial side of right elbow. (b) Injury measuring 6cmsX 0.5cms. 18. Contusion transversely placed 4cms below the above injury and over middle part front of right elbow. (a) measuring 6cms Xl cms 19. Contusion transversely placed 3cms below the above injury over the front of the right fore arm and measuring 1cm X0.5cm 20. Multiple contused pressure abrasion were discretely extended from the front lower part of the left thigh and to the knee to both sides of the knee and upper part of the front of the left leg. (a) Injury placed 19cmsX 8ems area injuries were dot like and round shaped. INTERNAL INJURIES: on reflection of the scalp Left side temporo parietal region scalp contused and measuring 13emsX 12cms area. Left temporalis muscle diffusely contused. Right temporal region scalp contused and measuring 8cms X 3cms area. Right side occipital scalp contused 9cmsX4cms area. Skull: Pariosteal haemorrhage present over the left side parieto occipital bones and measuring 12cmsX7cms area. Thich layer of Pariosteal haemorrhage over the middle part of occipital bone present and measuring 7cmsX5cms area. Meninges: Intact and contested. Brain: Intact and thick layer of sub archonid haemorrhage present over the left hemisphere and measuring 14cmsX5cms area. Sub archnoid present over the right side occipital lobe and measuring 11cms X6cms area. On dissection of the brain tissue: no intra cerebral bleeding noted. Softened bluish discolorated areas were discreetly placed in the brain tissu various sizes and shapes & surrounded by congested brain tissue. Indicating hypoxic encephalophy. Circle of wills intact and congested. Base of the skull : intact. ON DISSECTION OF THE NECK: Underlying subdermal tissues & musculature platysma and sternocleido mastoid, sterno thyroid, omo hyoid and thyrohoid muscle were contused beneath the external injuries on both sides of the neck. Soft tissues were contused beneath the body of the mandible to lower en the thyroid cartilage -C3 to C6 level on right & left sides of the neck. Contused soft tissues measuring 11cmsX6cms area. Soft tissues surrounding the hyoid bone were diffusely contused. Soft tissues over the body and horn of hyoid bone left side were deeply confused and hemorrhagic. Thyroid gland and submandibular glands were contused and parotid glands Soft tissue over the posterior part of the thyroid cartilage & esophagus were congested. Soft tissue over the posterior part of the thyroid cartilage & esophagus were diffusely contused. Soft tissues over the body and horn of hyoid bone left side were deeply confused and hemorrhagic. Thyroid gland and submandibular glands were contused and parotid glands Soft tissue over the posterior part of the thyroid cartilage & esophagus were congested. Soft tissue over the posterior part of the thyroid cartilage & esophagus were diffusely contused. Jugular vessels were contused& carotid vessels were congested and expressing fluid blood. Larynx congested and heamorrhagic & thick layer of haemorrhage present besides the vocal cards. Hyoid bone: body and its horns were intact. Thyroid cartilage intact and epiglottis congested. Mucosa of the oesophagus congested. Cervical spine intact & spinal cord congested 32. Considering the said injuries sustained by the deceased and the opinion of the Doctor-P.W.12 that was given as discussed supra, it completely rules out the version of the accused that she died due to stomach ache. The said medical evidence on record clearly proves that it is a clear case of homicidal death of the deceased. It is evident from the aforesaid injuries that there are also scratch injuries on her neck. As the Doctor clearly stated that the death is due to giving pressure on her neck, it can be concluded that she was subjected to manual strangulation and was killed. As there are no ligature marks over her neck, it is not a case of strangulation by ligature. So, the only possibility of killing her is by way of manual strangulation as pressure was given on her neck, which resulted into her death as scratch marks are found around her neck. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is not clear from the medical evidence as to how she died whether because of hanging or manual strangulation or by strangulation by ligature. The said contention is devoid of merit and cannot be countenanced. Medical evidence rules out the theory of hanging and strangulation by ligature. Medical evidence only establishes that in all probability it is a case of manual strangulation. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that she died on account of the said multiple external and internal injuries caused to her and because of the pressure given on her neck. So, undoubtedly, it is a case of manual strangulation which resulted into her death and it is a clear case of homicidal death. 33. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that she died on account of the said multiple external and internal injuries caused to her and because of the pressure given on her neck. So, undoubtedly, it is a case of manual strangulation which resulted into her death and it is a clear case of homicidal death. 33. It is also relevant to note that P.W.9 also stated that when she has first seen the dead body in the house after the accused left the house on that day, that the tongue of deceased is protruding and that she also noticed injuries on her forehead and other parts of the body. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion that can only be drawn in the said facts and circumstances of the case is that she was brutally beaten and thereafter she was subjected to manual strangulation and was killed in the room, where she slept along with the accused on that night. 34. Now, in view of the evidence that was given by P.W.9, in whose house the deceased died and met with homicidal death, it is evident that the accused and the deceased slept together in the room of her house on that night at about 9.00 p.m. In the morning, she was found dead at about 5.00 a.m. and she met with a homicidal death. After the accused went into the room along with the deceased at 9.00 p.m., the accused left the house at 10.00 p.m. without informing anyone and thereafter he was only again traced when he was arrested by the police. So, this evidence clinchingly establishes that the deceased met with a homicidal death with the aforesaid injuries when she was in the company of the accused in one room. Therefore, the accused has to explain as to how the deceased met with a homicidal death while she was in his company under one roof. As noticed supra, he has offered a false explanation stating that she died due to stomach ache. Even P.W.9 denied the said suggestion. As discussed supra, medical evidence clearly rules out the said possibility. 35. Therefore, the accused has to explain as to how the deceased met with a homicidal death while she was in his company under one roof. As noticed supra, he has offered a false explanation stating that she died due to stomach ache. Even P.W.9 denied the said suggestion. As discussed supra, medical evidence clearly rules out the said possibility. 35. Considering the said conduct of the accused in offering the false explanations and that as he left the house without informing anyone suddenly on that night and thereafter he was only traced at the time of arrest by the police, this conduct of the accused also clearly proves that he is the culprit and none else who has committed the murder of his wife on that night. 36. The accused has also taken a defence that he was in Vijayawada on that night and not in the house. When there is direct evidence that is available on record i.e. the evidence of P.W.9, who has personally seen the accused going along with his wife into the room in her house at 9.00 p.m. and again that she has seen him leaving the house at 10.00 p.m. and going away, the said evidence proves that he was in the house of P.W.9 on that night and slept with his wife in a room and that thereafter he left the house without informing anyone at about 10.00 p.m. 37. The accused has only given a suggestion to P.W.9 in the cross-examination that he was in Vijayawada on the date of the incident and that on hearing the news of the death of his wife, that he came. The said suggestion was denied by P.W.9. Except giving said suggestion, which is denied by P.W.9, no other evidence or probability is shown that he was in Vijayawada on that night. Now, it is significant to note that in 313 Cr.P.C. examination, he did not state that he was in Vijayawada on that night. Contrary to the suggestion given by him to P.W.9 during the course of trial that he was in Vijayawada on that night, in 313 Cr.P.C examination, he stated that , which can be understood that he stated that he went to attend his duty as a lorry driver. But where he went is not disclosed by him. Contrary to the suggestion given by him to P.W.9 during the course of trial that he was in Vijayawada on that night, in 313 Cr.P.C examination, he stated that , which can be understood that he stated that he went to attend his duty as a lorry driver. But where he went is not disclosed by him. He did not state specifically that he was in Vijayawada on that night in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. So, these two inconsistent versions given by him in the form of suggestion to P.W.9 in cross-examination that he was in Vijayawada on that night, which fact was not stated by him in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination and as he stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination contrary to it that he went to attend his duty as lorry driver, clearly shows that he has taken a false plea of alibi that he was somewhere else on that night. It is well settled principle of law that when the accused has taken the plea of alibi, the burden is on him to establish and prove that he was not at the scene of offence when the offence took place and that he was somewhere else. No evidence is adduced to show that he was in duty as a lorry driver on that night or that he was in Vijayawada on that night. On the other hand, as his wife is staying in the house of P.W.9 on that night, which fact is not denied by the accused, the presence of the accused in the house of P.W.9 on that night is more probable to hold that he was in that house on that night. Evidence of P.W.9 also shows that whenever the deceased was in her house, that the accused used to visit her house as his wife was in the said house. 38. Therefore, the various false defences taken by the accused that his wife died due to stomach ache, which is proved to be false in this case and that he was in Vijayawada on that night and again that he was in his duty as a lorry driver etc., clearly shows his guilty conduct. To wriggle out from his liability of being prosecuted and punished for the said offences of murder, he has taken several false defences and also inconsistent versions, which clearly shows his guilty conduct. 39. To wriggle out from his liability of being prosecuted and punished for the said offences of murder, he has taken several false defences and also inconsistent versions, which clearly shows his guilty conduct. 39. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant himself, wherein the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Satpal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2018 SC 2142 , is referred and discussed, it is clearly held that when the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and the recovery of the corpse (dead body) being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for Short “I.E.Act”) with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. It is now significant to note that it is held that if the accused offers no explanation or “furnishes wrong explanation”, absconds and motive is established, that it forms a chain in the circumstances leading to the only interference of the guilty of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of his innocence. 40. As held supra by this Court, the accused has offered false explanation and he also absconded. So, it is certainly an adverse circumstance against him which points out to his guilt in committing the said offence of murder. 41. Section 106 of I.E. Act also places burden on him of proving the facts within his knowledge especially. As he was in the room along with the deceased, where she was found dead with injuries and as he was in her company on that night, what actually transpired in that room on that night could be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and it is for him to explain the same. As he failed to discharge the said burden, the only inference and conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case is that he is the culprit, who has killed her and thereafter absconded. 42. As he failed to discharge the said burden, the only inference and conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case is that he is the culprit, who has killed her and thereafter absconded. 42. In State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 , the Apex Court held that when wife was murdered and the accused/husband was last seen with the deceased/wife along with the wife and the children in the house in the evening and from the next morning the house was found locked and thereafter, dead bodies of the wife and the children were found lying inside the house and the accused remained untraceable and was arrested about two weeks later, burden lies on the accused to satisfactorily explain what happened during the period between he being last seen with the deceased and his arrest as the same was within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It is held that as the accused failed to explain the same, inference must be drawn against the accused which itself is a serious incriminating circumstance against him and this provides an additional link in the chain of proved circumstances against him. 43. Again the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211 held that when wife met with unnatural death in a room occupied by both the husband and the wife, burden of proving the fact especially within knowledge of the accused is on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence of anybody else entering the room. So, facts relevant to cause of death being only known to the accused and he did not explain the same. So, strong presumption that the accused murdered his wife arises and he is liable for conviction under Section 302 of IPC. 44) In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Apex Court held that in a case of death of wife, and when the offence was committed in secrecy inside a house, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there is a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. They cannot keep quiet on the premise that the prosecution must discharge its burden of proving the case. 45) Further held that when no explanation is given by the husband or false explanation was given and if the accused fails to offer any cogent explanation or offers an explanation, which is untrue, then it is to be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against the accused to make it complete. 46) Also held that where the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that (i) either the husband and wife were last seen together, or (ii) the offence was committed in the dwelling house, where the husband also resided, and if the accused/husband offers no explanation as to the injuries received by his wife or if the explanation is false, held that there is strong circumstance, which indicates that the husband committed the crime. 47. Therefore, considering the said strong circumstances available on record and which are proved and the law enunciated in the above judgments, as discussed in detail supra, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case is that the accused alone is the culprit, who has committed the murder of the deceased on that night. It is also relevant to note that P.W.9 also stated in her cross examination that there is only one way to her house. Therefore, there is no possibility for anyone else to enter the said house on that night and to commit the said murder. Further, the accused also did not attribute any enmity to deceased with any other person. So, considering the cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the only conclusion that can be arrived at in the case is that the accused is only the culprit, who has committed the murder of the deceased. 48. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the said circumstances, arrived at a right conclusion and found the accused is guilty of the said offence of murder and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 49. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the conviction of the trial Court. It is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this appeal. 50. 49. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the conviction of the trial Court. It is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this appeal. 50. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.