JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.04.2015 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in S.T.Case No.302 of 2011, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Arjun Hembram, the brother of the deceased Basi Murmu, recorded on 17.03.2011 at 8:00 A.M., in the morning, at Horebera Tola, Manikdih by S.I. N.S. Dadel PW-5 the then O/C P.S. Dumaria wherein he has stated that he is resident of Kantasola, Tola Mankidih, P.S. Dumaria, Distt. East Singhbhum. His sister Basi Murmu (deceased) was married with Karno Murmu. Karno Murmu has two other wives also so, he always used to beat his sister and was trying to drive her out of the house. On several occasion the villagers have settled the matter. On Sunday at village Horebera, Tola Manikdih there was a family picnic, in which many villagers and family members have assembled. On Wednesday at about 11.30 A.M. Jitendra Tudu PW-10 and Ram Tudu PW-9 of village Katasola came and informed them about death of his sister Basi Murmu then he with his brother Homo Hembram PW-3, Shakla Hembram PW-1 Hikim Hemram PW-2, Karsha Hembram and Charwa Hembram PW-4 came to village Horebera Tola Manikdih and had seen dead body of his sister kept on a cot having injury of lathi on her chest, back, face and arm. On enquiry he came to know that Karno Murmu at about 5.00 P.M. has assaulted her and killed her with Lathi, Danda thereafter there was a village meeting which is the cause of delay in filing of the case. On the basis of this information FIR against Karan Murmu @ Karo Murmu was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of this information FIR against Karan Murmu @ Karo Murmu was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and after commitment the case was sent to the court of Sessions. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses to prove the case against the appellant namely, PW-1 Sakla Hembram, PW-2 Hikim Hembram, PW-3 Hamo Hembram, PW-4 Charwa Hembram, PW-5 Nayan Sukh Dadel investigating officer of the case, PW-6 Arjun Hembram, PW-7 Hisi Hembram, PW-8 Barsha Hembram, PW-9 Ram Tudu, PW-10 Jitendra Tudu, and PW-11 Dr. Ramchandra Soren. The documents have also been exhibited which are Ext. 1 Inquest Report, Ext,. 2 Registration of fardbayan, Ext. 2/1 Fardbayan, Ext. 3 Formal FIR, Ext. 4 Postmortem Report, and Ext. "X" thumb impression of Arjun Hembram PW-6 on his fardbeyan marked for identification. 4. PW-1 Sakla Hembram has stated that Basi Murmu was his cousin sister and she was married with Karan Murmu (appellant). Karan Murmu has solemnized four marriages. He always used to beat Basi Murmu. He reached to Horobera village along with the villagers on information given by Ram Murmu and had seen dead body of Basi having injuries on her head, shoulder, chest and lips. He has further stated that Ram Murmu PW-9 informed him that Karan has killed his sister then they went to the house of his sister and had seen her dead body. On query Karan told that the deceased was not giving him food so he has beaten her and went to see Drama. PW-2 Hikim Hembram has stated that he was informed by the villagers of Hore Bera about murder of Basi Murmu by Karan Murmu. On this information he went to Hore Bera and had seen dead body of Basi having injuries on her head and shoulder. Karan was also present there. In cross examination, he has stated that he cannot name the person who has informed him about the occurrence. After two days of the occurrence the police was informed. He has stated that as per direction he has signed the fardbayan but he cannot say what was written on it. Karan was also present there. In cross examination, he has stated that he cannot name the person who has informed him about the occurrence. After two days of the occurrence the police was informed. He has stated that as per direction he has signed the fardbayan but he cannot say what was written on it. PW-3 Homo Hembram has stated that he was informed by the villagers of Hore Bera that Karan has killed Basi then they went there and had seen dead body of basi having injuries on her waist, back and back side of head. The police was informed. His brother-in-law had married thrice. He cannot say about the cause of assault by the accused to his sister neither the name of the villagers who informed him about the occurrence. After seeing the dead body they all returned to the village. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. PW-4 Charwa Hembram, nephew of the deceased, has stated that he was in his house and was informed about the occurrence by the villagers of Marij Dungari then he went to Marij Dungari with his uncle and had seen dead body of his aunt having injury on back side of the head and back. The villagers told that his uncle has killed his aunt. The police was informed. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence. PW-5 Nayan Sukh Dadel, the Investigating Officer, has stated that on 17.03.2011 at about 6:00 A.M. he got telephonic massage about murder of a lady in Village Marikdih, Horebera. To verify the information he reached to village Marikdih and at about 8.00 a.m. he had recorded statement of Arjun Hembram PW-6. He has prepared the inquest report and inspected the place of occurrence. There were two rooms having Veranda. In the Eastern room Basi Hembram was assaulted by Karan Murmu, after closing the door. He sent the dead body for postmortem. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. After completion of investigation he submitted the chargesheet. PW-6 Arjun Hembram, informant, has stated that the deceased Basi Murmu was his sister. She was married with Karan Murmu who had married thrice. He has stated that Jitendra Tudu PW-10 informed him about the occurrence. On receiving such information, he along with others reached to his sister’s house where he saw the dead body of his sister. PW-6 Arjun Hembram, informant, has stated that the deceased Basi Murmu was his sister. She was married with Karan Murmu who had married thrice. He has stated that Jitendra Tudu PW-10 informed him about the occurrence. On receiving such information, he along with others reached to his sister’s house where he saw the dead body of his sister. He has stated in his testimony that there were several injuries on head, chest and back of the dead body of the deceased. He has also stated that he had given his statement before the police thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem. PW-7 Hisi Hembram claims to be the witness in this case. She is mother of the deceased and at the time of occurrence she was present in her son-in-law’s house. Her son-in-law had married thrice and her daughter (deceased) was his second wife. She has stated that almost daily her son in-law used to beat her daughter. On the day of occurrence her son-in-law (accused) had beaten Basi and gagged her mouth with cloth and killed her. He has beaten her by locking the door. On that day her son-in-law was drunk. Her daughter had injuries of Lathi on her chest, knee and back. She had gone to the house of her son-in-law on Tuesday to see drama. There was drama in the village on Wednesday. There was Puja also on that day. When she went to the house of her son-in- law the occurrence did not take place. She was issue less so her son-in-law married another lady and from that lady he had two children. She claims that she is an eye witness of assault of her daughter by the accused but on earlier occasion she had not seen the occurrence. After locking the door the accused was beating her daughter (deceased) so she could not save her. When her son-in-law went to see Drama, in the morning of Wednesday the lock was opened. She has stated that she has not given any statement to the police. PW-8 Barsa Hembram is resident of Village Kota Sole and brother of the deceased. He has stated that Ram Tudu PW-9 and Jitendra Tudu PW-10 informed him about the occurrence and told that his brother-in-law has killed his sister. She has stated that she has not given any statement to the police. PW-8 Barsa Hembram is resident of Village Kota Sole and brother of the deceased. He has stated that Ram Tudu PW-9 and Jitendra Tudu PW-10 informed him about the occurrence and told that his brother-in-law has killed his sister. He has stated that when he reached to the village, house of the accused was locked and the accused was present there. Ram Tudu PW-9 and Jitendra Tudu PW-10 have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. PW-11 Dr. Ramchandra Soren had not conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased but since Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha who had prepared the postmortem report had left the job and settled somewhere else and his whereabouts and permanent address are not known, he could not be examined in this case. Dr. Ramchandra Soren PW-11 has been examined to prove the postmortem report and for opinion regarding cause of death of Basi Mrumu. He has stated that the Rigor mortis was present. The doctor had found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Basi Murmu (i) Contusion on the episternum region below left arm and on the back side. (ii) Contusion and laceration of substance of brain left side. (iii) Marbling present on the trunk. (iv) Intracranial hemorrhage on the brain. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and the cause of death was due to head injury. Time elapsed since death within 36 to 48 hrs. 5. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused has denied the manner of occurrence and further pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In defence neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been produced. 7. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubts. He has further submitted that the material witnesses including the informant reached to the place of occurrence on information allegedly given by Ram Tudu PW-9 and Jitendra Tudu PW-10 but from the testimony of both these witnesses it appears that both have not supported the prosecution version. He has further submitted that both Ram Tudu PW-9 and Jitendra Tudu PW-10 have been declared hostile as they denied to have given statement to the investigating officer that the accused has killed his second wife and they have informed the villagers about the deceased. These two witnesses are resident of village Horebera and as per prosecution case they have informed Arjun Hembram PW-6 about the occurrence but both have not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel has further submitted that the judgment is based upon eye version account of the mother of the deceased, PW-7 Hisi Hembram, who claims to be the eye witness to the occurrence but there is contradiction in her statement as would appear from paragraph 8 of her deposition where she has stated that when she went to the house of her son-in- law the occurrence did not take place whereas at paragraph 11 she has stated that she had seen the occurrence. It has been submitted that there is neither any direct nor circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the murder of Basi Murmu and, therefore, the impugned judgment requires interference by this Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution versions. They have seen the dead body of Basi Mrumu having injury of Lathi and Danda, which finds corroboration from Medical evidence. He has further submitted that the death has occurred within the four corners of the house and the appellant, being the husband of the deceased, has not explained that how the death has occurred. They have seen the dead body of Basi Mrumu having injury of Lathi and Danda, which finds corroboration from Medical evidence. He has further submitted that the death has occurred within the four corners of the house and the appellant, being the husband of the deceased, has not explained that how the death has occurred. Learned counsel has accordingly submitted that the offence is clearly made out against the accused/appellant and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. 9. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt as the case is fully supported by the eye witness, namely, Hisi Hembram, PW-7, mother of the deceased, who was present in the house of the appellant at the time of occurrence. Further, the other witnesses, except PW-9 and PW-10 who have been declared hostile, have stated about the injuries on the body of the deceased which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. The witnesses have stated that the appellant has beaten the deceased by lathi which got corroborated from the medical evidence as the doctor has also opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. 10. This Court has gathered from the testimony of the witnesses that all the witnesses except PW-9 and PW-10, who have been declared to be hostile, have stated about the injury on the body of the deceased has also been corroborated by the medical evidence. The ground has been taken on behalf of the appellant that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and, as such, it is a fit case where the judgment of conviction is to be reversed with the judgment of acquittal. But, we are not impressed with such submission reason being that all the witnesses have deposed about the commission of crime in the house of the appellant which was found to be locked from outside. 11. In this context, it also requires to refer herein that onus to disprove the guilt lies on the accused persons in view of provision as contained under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, which reads as under: 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. 11. In this context, it also requires to refer herein that onus to disprove the guilt lies on the accused persons in view of provision as contained under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, which reads as under: 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In this context, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 4 SCC 42 held at paragraphs 16, 17, 18 considering the implication of the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act has held as under: “16. In our opinion, the prosecution having established that the accused treated the deceased with cruelty and that they subjected her to harassment for dowry, the accused ought to have disclosed the facts which were in their personal and special knowledge to disprove the prosecution case that they murdered Bindula Devi. Section 106 of the Evidence Act covers such a situation. The burden which had shifted to the accused was not discharged by them. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] wherein this Court explained how Section 101 and Section 106 of the Evidence Act operate. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus : (AIR p. 406, paras 10-11) “10. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. “101.Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.? Illustration (a) says— “A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.” 11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are „especially? On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are „especially? within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.” 17. In Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar [ (1997) 9 SCC 338 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 612] the prosecution had established the cruel conduct of the accused i.e. her husband and members of his family and the sufferings undergone by the deceased at their hands. The unbearable conduct of the accused ultimately resulted in her death by drowning in the well in the courtyard of the accused's house. This Court observed that what happened on the fateful night and what led to the deceased's falling in the well was wholly within the personal and special knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect. This Court observed that it is true that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But once the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qua the deceased spread over years as was well established from the unshaken testimony of father of the deceased, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by them to disprove the prosecution case. This Court observed that the accused had not discharged the burden which had shifted to them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. While coming to this conclusion, this Court relied on Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794. 18. In the present case, the deceased was admittedly in the custody of the accused. She disappeared from their house. As to how her dead body was found in the river was within their special and personal knowledge. They could have revealed the facts to disprove the prosecution case that they had killed Bindula Devi. They failed to discharge the burden which had shifted to them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution is not expected to give the exact manner in which the deceased was killed. They could have revealed the facts to disprove the prosecution case that they had killed Bindula Devi. They failed to discharge the burden which had shifted to them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution is not expected to give the exact manner in which the deceased was killed. Adverse inference needs to be drawn against the accused as they failed to explain how the deceased was found dead in the river in one foot deep water. Further, reference, in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) reported in (2012) 10 SCC 373 at paragraph 22 held as under: “22. The evidence led in by the prosecution also shows that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was living with all the three accused. In other words, the appellants, their son A-3 and the deceased were the only occupants of the house and it was, therefore, incumbent on the appellants to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to their guilt. All the factors referred above are undoubtedly circumstances which constitute a chain even stronger than the account of an eyewitness and, therefore, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellants is fully justified.”. 12. The position of law as per the provision of Section 101 to Section 105 of the Evidence Act is very explicit wherein the burden will lie upon the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt but in certain circumstances the onus will shift upon the accused to disprove the commission of crime. 13. On perusal of evidence of the witnesses it is evident that the dead body was found in his house which was locked from outside and the appellant has given no justification about that. The witnesses have stated that the house was locked and when it was opened they found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot. 14. This Court, after considering the aforesaid fact, is of the considered view that it is not a case where the judgment of conviction requires interference because admittedly the death has occurred in the house of the accused/appellant which was found locked from outside and the aforesaid fact has all along been supported by all the witnesses save and except PW-9 and PW-10. 15. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.04.2015 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in S.T.Case No.302 of 2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. 16. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 17. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.