JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-1-2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, in ST No. 19/2019 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 2-12-2018 Kripal Yadav (PW-4), son of the appellant and Hemin Bai (since deceased), made a report that on 2-12-2018 stating, inter alia, that when he went to meet his parents, who were residing at Mutrichapar, village Khamharipara, his father (appellant) met him and stated that on the previous night of 1-12-2018 in between 9.00 to 11.00 pm on a trivial dispute in respect of money he has assaulted his mother (deceased) and by such injury she has succumbed to death and he has covered the dead body by a blanket. Thereafter, the dehati merg (Ex.P/9) and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/10) was recorded. The dead body was sent to postmortem. Dr. S. Patel (PW-10), who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, submitted the report vide Ex.P/19 and opined that the nature of death is homicidal. During the course of investigation, the clothes of the deceased as also wooden logs, by which the assault was made, were recovered at the instance of the accused. Apart from that, the shirt and full pant of the appellant were also recovered, which were having bloodstains. 3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, received the case on transfer for trial. 4. During trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. Apart from that FSL report as Art.01 and Art.02. The accused did not adduce any evidence. 5. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned supra. Apart from that FSL report as Art.01 and Art.02. The accused did not adduce any evidence. 5. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned supra. Thus, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no direct evidence available in this case and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the appellant has been inculpated. He would further submit that the dead body was found in the field and the appellant was residing at a different place, therefore, there is no nexus to connect the appellant with the crime. Learned counsel would also submit that the wooden logs, which were alleged to be recovered, were from the courtyard of the house whereas the dead body was found in the field, therefore, the author of it cannot be attributed to the appellant. He would submit that in the FSL report the blood group has also not been established, which would lead to show that only on presumption the appellant has been inculpated. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would vehemently oppose the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He would further submit that the appellant and the deceased were inmates of the house. They were living separately, which is stated by Ku. Satya Yadav (PW-5). Apart from that extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before PW-1 Sharwan Kumar Thakur. He would submit that the shirt and full pant of the appellant, which were recovered at his instance on the very next day of the incident, were containing human blood and no plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant about presence of such bloodstains, therefore, if the circumstantial evidence is seen together, it would lead to a fact that the appellant has projected the murder of his wife. He would submit that the impugned judgment is well merited, which do not call for any interference of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. Initial report was made by PW-4 Kripal Singh Yadav, son of the appellant and the deceased. He would submit that the impugned judgment is well merited, which do not call for any interference of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. Initial report was made by PW-4 Kripal Singh Yadav, son of the appellant and the deceased. According to him earlier to his marriage in the year 2011 all were living together and after his marriage, his parents along with his sister were residing at Kamharipara and his father used to visit Mutrichapara for agricultural purpose. 10. PW-5 Ku. Satya Yadav, daughter of the appellant and the deceased, stated that after the marriage of her brother, her brother and sister-in-law, were residing at Kamharipara whereas her parents (appellant and the deceased) used to reside at Mutrichapar village wherein a house was constructed. The statement of this witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also corroborates the same fact that her parents were residing in a house constructed in the agricultural field. In the crime detail form (Ex.P/11), proved by PW-4 Kripal Singh Yadav, the situation of the house and the place of dead body is shown. Site map of the incident (Ex.P/17) also corroborates the same wherein the dead body was found. 11. Inquest form (Ex.P/4) would show that when the inspection was made pursuant to the report, the dead body was found in a pool of blood and the injuries were found over the entire body of the deceased and signs of beating by the wooden club were also seen. The postmortem report (Ex.P/19) proved by Dr. S. Patel (PW-10) whereby the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased: Abrasion present on both sides of lower limb and foot and both hip joint. Lacerated wound present on the left hand between ring finger and little finger in the size of 3 cm x 1 cm x 1.5 cm. Head injury present on mid parietal region in the size of 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Head injury present on the right side of frontal region in the size of 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm. According to Dr. S. Patel (PW-10) nature of death was homicidal and the death was due to cardio pulmonary shock as a result of excessive bleeding through severe head injury due to impact of hard object. 12. Head injury present on the right side of frontal region in the size of 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm. According to Dr. S. Patel (PW-10) nature of death was homicidal and the death was due to cardio pulmonary shock as a result of excessive bleeding through severe head injury due to impact of hard object. 12. During investigation, the appellant was arrested and on his memorandum (Ex.P/5) the wooden clubs, which were broken into three pieces, were recovered along with shirt and full pant of the appellant vide Ex.P/6. PW-2 Shyam Yadav & PW-9 Ekeshwar Yadav, who are the witnesses to the memorandum and seizure, though have not categorically supported such document, but have admitted their signatures. The said seized clothes and wooden logs were sent to FSL for examination. FSL report (Ex.P/31) would show that human blood was containing on wooden logs ‘D-1’ & ‘D-3’ full shirt ‘E’ and full pant ‘F’. The arrest memo (Ex.P/25) dated 2-12-2018, which was on the next day of the incident, does not show that the appellant has any injury whereby the presence of blood would come on the shirt and full pant. In respect of question No. 73 of the accused statement, no plausible explanation was offered by the accused as to how human blood was found on the shirt and full pant. 13. According to the statement of PW-5 Ku. Satya Yadav her parents (appellant and the deceased) were only inmates in the house wherein the dead body was found. The appellant has not offered any plausible explanation as to how the dead body of his wife was found in the house. 14. In this backdrop, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would come into play, which purport that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 15. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act 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” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J. observed as under: “11..........The word “especially” stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle vs. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) and Seneviratne vs. R. 1936 (3) ER 36.” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. 16. 16. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 17. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 18. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 18. Over all assessment would show that (i) the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; (ii) the dead body was found in the house wherein the appellant and the deceased were only inmates; (iii) the broken wooden logs, by which the injuries were caused, were recovered at the instance of the accused and the said wooden logs ‘D1” & ‘D3’ containing human blood; (iv) full shirt ‘E’ and full pant ‘F’, which were recovered immediately after the second day of the incident, were also containing the human blood; and (v) no plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant though his son PW-4 Kripal Yadav, who made the initial report, tried to project that accused and the deceased were not residing in the same place and the body was found at an isolated house constructed in the field, but the same has been negated by the statement of PW-5 Ku. Satya Yadav, which is also corroborated by the spot may (Ex.P/17). Therefore, connecting the dotted lines in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 19. In the result, the instant criminal appeal, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.