JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2011 passed by Md. Ashraf Husain Ansari, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises on the basis of the fardbeyan of Nima Mahato recorded on 28.11.2008 at 11:00 A.M., wherein it has been stated that the marriage of his eldest daughter was solemnized with Nakul Mahato (appellant) about 25 years back. She was kept well for a few years and five children were also born to her and one of the daughters has already been married. It has been alleged that for the last two years Nakul Mahato on the allegation of being promiscuous was committing assault upon her and several times she was ousted from the house. Whenever his daughter used to come home at Kasmar she used to disclose about such happenings. It has been alleged that today i.e. 28.11.2008 an information was received over telephone that his daughter has been murdered by Nakul Mahato. On such information when he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter he found her lying dead with marks of strangulation and scratches on her person. Based on the aforesaid allegations Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 113/2008 was instituted against Nakul Mahato for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 302 of the IPC against the accused pursuant to which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2009. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Paltu Mahato), P.W.2 (Rupni Devi), P.W.3 (Namita Devi), P.W.4 (Sugia Devi), P.W.5 (Gunaram Prajapati), P.W.8 (Maheshwar Mahato) and P.W.9 (Sisir Kumar Mahato) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Paltu Mahato), P.W.2 (Rupni Devi), P.W.3 (Namita Devi), P.W.4 (Sugia Devi), P.W.5 (Gunaram Prajapati), P.W.8 (Maheshwar Mahato) and P.W.9 (Sisir Kumar Mahato) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 6. P.W.6 (Ajit Kumar Singh) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Tuma Devi on 28.11.2008 and had found the following: “I. On general examination: rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Eyes partially opened; mouth partially opened; tounge-inside. II. Externally the followings were found: Abrasion on the right side of neck 1/2 x 1/2 inch, abrasion on left side of neck 3/4 x 1/2 inch, abrasion front of neck 1/2 x 1/2 inch, abrasion right side of nose 1/2 x 1/3 inch. All antemortem in nature. Ligature mark over neck well defined, slightly depressed situated low down in the neck below thyroid cartilage encircling the whole neck horizontally and almost completely. Base of ligature mark is pale white and radish echymos margin. Subcutaneous tissue of neck; recession of blood was present in the ligature mark with laceration of adjacent muscle of neck. Hyoid bone, thyroid cartilage larynx and trachea fracture and congested and containing frothy mucus, antemortem in nature.” The cause of death was opined to be on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. 7. P.W.7 (Mritunjay Kumar Mahato) is the son of the deceased who has deposed that on the date of occurrence he was sleeping in the terrace along with his brother while his parents were sleeping downstairs. When he came down at 8:00 A.M. he found his mother dead. No one else was present there. In cross-examination, he has deposed that apart from him, his brother and parents nobody was present in the house. He has further stated that the houses of Govind and Ramlal are adjacent to his house. 8. P.W.10 (Nima Mahato) is the informant of the case who had deposed that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Nakul Mahato. About 1½ years back his son-in-law had committed the murder of his daughter. He has further stated that the houses of Govind and Ramlal are adjacent to his house. 8. P.W.10 (Nima Mahato) is the informant of the case who had deposed that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Nakul Mahato. About 1½ years back his son-in-law had committed the murder of his daughter. On receiving a telephonic information, he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter where he found her dead and there were marks of strangulation on her neck. He has stated that his son-in-law is mentally dis-balanced. He has further stated that there was a quarrel between husband and wife which led to the murder. His daughter used to cook in the Anganbari which was objected by Nakul Mahato and which culminated in the incident. His statement was recorded by the Police in which he had put his thumb impression. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. He does not know the name of the person who had informed him about the incident over telephone. 9. P.W.11 (Sudhir Kumar Singh) was posted at Pindrajora P.S. as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and on 28.11.2008 the fardbeyan of Nima Mahato was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge and the investigation was handed over to him. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the accused situated at village Purnadih. After inspecting the place of occurrence, he had prepared the inquest report which has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit-2. He had sent the dead body for autopsy to Referral Hospital Chas. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statements of Sugia Devi, Namita Devi, Chatur Mahato, Rupni Devi, Maheshwar Mahato, Sisir Kumar Mahato, Gunaram Prajapati, Mritunjay Kumar Mahato, Achala Devi and Mansu Mahato. He had arrested the accused. He had also obtained the postmortem report of the deceased. He had recorded the statements of Arjun Chandra Mahato and Munu Devi. On finding the allegations to be true he had submitted charge-sheet. The witness Paltu Mahto had stated that Nakul Mahato doubted the character of his wife and he regularly used to quarrel with her and he had committed the murder of his wife by strangulating her. He never heeded the advice given by his neighbours. On finding the allegations to be true he had submitted charge-sheet. The witness Paltu Mahto had stated that Nakul Mahato doubted the character of his wife and he regularly used to quarrel with her and he had committed the murder of his wife by strangulating her. He never heeded the advice given by his neighbours. The witness Rupni Devi had stated that she was informed about the incident through telephone. She had found her daughter-in-law dead and her grandsons Gunaram and Mritunjay had disclosed that in the night their parents had slept in the same room and in the morning their father could not be located while their mother lay dead and there were signs of strangulation. Her son had a doubt that his wife was having an affair with another person and this was the cause of quarrel. The witness Namita Devi, Sugia Devi, Maheshwar Mahato and Sisir Kumar Mahato have all stated on similar lines. The witnesses Gunaram Prajapati and Mritunjay Kumar Mahato had stated that there used to be regular quarrel between their parents. Their father had a doubt about their mother having an illicit affair with another person. On the date of occurrence, their parents had slept in the same room and in the morning they found their mother dead. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3 as well as the endorsement which is in his handwriting and bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. This witness was discharged since no one turned up to cross-examine him. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied about his role in the murder. 11. It has been submitted by Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence the appellant has been convicted. It has been submitted that the learned trial court placed undue reliance on the evidence of the hostile witnesses. Mr. Sinha has further submitted that P.W.7 is the only witness who was present in the house and when he came down from the roof he saw the dead body of his mother and P.W.7 had shown ignorance regarding a quarrel between his parents. No particular motive has also come forward regarding the reason for the murder. 12. Mr. Mr. Sinha has further submitted that P.W.7 is the only witness who was present in the house and when he came down from the roof he saw the dead body of his mother and P.W.7 had shown ignorance regarding a quarrel between his parents. No particular motive has also come forward regarding the reason for the murder. 12. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P. for the State has submitted that the appellant is the husband of the deceased and he was sleeping with the deceased in the same room as per P.W.7 but he has failed to explain the circumstances leading to the murder of his wife. He has also submitted that the death was caused due to strangulation and the other aspect would be the absence of the appellant in the morning when the incident came to light. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 14. The death of the wife of the appellant in her matrimonial house triggered the initiation of the criminal law being set in motion. In course of trial 11 witnesses were examined out of which 07 witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. The prosecution case basically hinges upon the evidences of P.W.7. P.W.10 and P.W.11. Out of 07 hostile witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.8 are related to the appellant and their reason for not supporting the prosecution case is obvious. P.W.1 and P.W.9 are the co-villagers of the appellant. 15. Coming back to the evidence of the notable witnesses, we find that P.W.7 being the son of the appellant and deceased was present in the house when the incident had taken place. Though he is not an eyewitness but the circumstances elucidated from him is of great importance. P.W.7 was sleeping in the terrace with his brother while his parents were sleeping downstairs and none else were present in the house. When he came downstairs from the terrace he found his mother dead and there was no one else present. P.W.7 is a child witness and on close scrutiny of his testimony it emerges that the same is reliable and trustworthy. He has not claim to have witnessed the incident but has merely stated about the circumstances prevailing at that point of time. P.W.7 is a child witness and on close scrutiny of his testimony it emerges that the same is reliable and trustworthy. He has not claim to have witnessed the incident but has merely stated about the circumstances prevailing at that point of time. Though P.W.7 has not stated anything about the reasons for the murder but as per P.W.11 (Investigating Officer), P.W.7 had stated before him that there used to be regular quarrel as his father doubted that his mother has having an illicit affair with another person. The informant who has been examined as P.W.10 though has given a different reason for the incident as the appellant used to object to the deceased going to the Anganbari Centre for cooking. The reasons for the quarrel may be different but what cannot be ignored by us is the strained relationship the appellant was having with the deceased. 16. The most vital aspect of the case is the inability of the appellant to submit reasonable explanation about the incident which was within his special knowledge. The prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant was with the deceased on that fateful night and in the morning he was absent when the body of his wife was found lying in the room. It has also been able to prove that there used to be a regular quarrel between the appellant and his wife though the reasons are somewhat distinct. In the background of such circumstantial evidence the onus shifts upon the appellant to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of his burden placed upon him in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and his failure to provide any explanation is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The deceased was his wife, she was sleeping with him in the night, the appellant was not found present in the house and the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation; these circumstances establish the guilt of the appellant which is further intensified by the failure of the appellant to submit a reasonable explanation of the incident which was within his special knowledge. 17. As a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2009 by Md. 17. As a consequence to the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2009 by Md. Ashraf Husain Ansari, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.