JUDGMENT ON BOARD : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.71/2018, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.07.2018 at 10:30 pm, appellant went to the house of Manish Yadav (hereinafter called as 'deceased') and took him to his house. When the deceased did not return to his house till morning of 23.07.2018, then complainant-Dinesh Yadav, father of the deceased, went to the house of appellant at 6:00 am where he saw his son (deceased) lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood and the appellant was not present in the house. The incident was informed to PW-9 Yaman Yadav and one Hemant Dewangan and thereafter it was reported to the police station Chikli, Rajnandgaon where Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was registered, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-25) was lodged against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, pursuant to which, Dehati Merg Intimation was recorded vide (Ex.P-2) and spot map was prepared vide Exs.P-3 & P-4. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-19. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage following stab injuries over chest and abdomen and nature of death was opined to be homicidal. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-8, pursuant to which, one iron pipe stained with blood and half T- shirt of appellant were seized vide Ex.P-12 and vide Exs. P-12 & P-13, full T- shirt of appellant was also seized. Vide Ex.P-27, blood stained organs, hair and chilly powder, mixture of salt and clothes of deceased were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P- 32), human blood of has been found on the seized articles marked as “C-1, C-2, G, H-1, H-2, H-3 and I”. Vide Ex.P-27, blood stained organs, hair and chilly powder, mixture of salt and clothes of deceased were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P- 32), human blood of has been found on the seized articles marked as “C-1, C-2, G, H-1, H-2, H-3 and I”. Query reports have also been obtained vide Exs.P-21, P-22 & P-23 and as per the said reports, injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized iron pipe (Gupti). Accused/appellant was arrested on 23.07.2018 vide Ex.P-33. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 33 documents. In his defence, he has examined none and not exhibited any documents. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and only on the basis of last seen theory, the trial Court held the appellant guilty. She would further submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. She would also submit that there is no iota of evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. As such, his conviction is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said charge. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on the circumstantial evidence as well as the medical evidence and the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime in question. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on the circumstantial evidence as well as the medical evidence and the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime in question. On the basis of the evidence and material available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Now the first question would be whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been answered in affirmative by the trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. Nitin Barmate (PW-7) who upon postmortem examination vide report (Ex.P-19) found the 44 injuries on the body of the deceased:- 1. Incised wound present over left side of neck, laterally, upper end 9 cm below left mastoid process, obliquely placed of size 1.2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 2. Incised wound present over left side of neck, laterally, upper end 8 cm below left mastoid process, obliquely placed of size 1.8 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 3. Incised wound present over left side of neck, laterally, upper end 9 cm below left mastoid process, obliquely placed of size 2 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 4. Incised wound present over left side of neck, laterally, 10 cm below left mastoid process, obliquely placed of size 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 5. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 10.5 cm below left mastoid process, transversely obliquely of size 1 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 6. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 7 cm below chin, transversely obliquely, of size 1.2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 7. 6. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 7 cm below chin, transversely obliquely, of size 1.2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 7. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 6.2 cm below chin, transversely obliquely, of size 1 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 8. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterioly 6 cm below chin, transversely obliquely, of size 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 9. Incised wound present over midline of anterior aspects of neck, 7.5 cm below chin, transversely obliquely, of size 1.4 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 10. Incised wound present over left side of clavicular region, 18 cm below left mastoid process, transversely obliquely, of size 1.2 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 11. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 8 cm below chin, obliquely, of size 2.3 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 12. Incised wound present over left side of neck, anterio- laterally 8 cm below chin, obliquely, of size 2.1 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 13. Incised wound present over left side of chest, 4 cm above left nipple and 7 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 14. Stab wound present over left side of chest, lateral angle 0.6 cm medial to the left nipple and medial angle 8 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, medical angle acute. Track of wound: skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----4th left inter costal space--- left pleura. 15. Stab wound present over left side of chest, lateral angle 5 cm below left nipple and medial angle 9 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.7 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, medical angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----left 5th rib –- 6th left inter costal space--- left pleura lower lobe of left lung. 16. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----left 5th rib –- 6th left inter costal space--- left pleura lower lobe of left lung. 16. Stab wound present over left side of chest, lateral angle 7.5 cm below left nipple and medial angle 6 cm from midline, transversely obliquel, of size 1.9 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, medical angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----7th left inter costal space--- left pleura---- lower lobe of left lung. 17. Incised wound present over left side of chest, 6 cm below left nipple and 7 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.6 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 18. Incised wound present over midline of chest, 8.5 cm below both right and left nipple, oblique, of size 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 19. Incised wound present over left side of chest, 8 cm below left nipple and 3 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 20. Incised wound present over left side of chest, 9 cm below left nipple and 8 cm from midline, vertically oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 21. Incised wound present over left side of abdomen, 11 cm below left nipple and 8 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 22. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, lateral angle 15 cm below left nipple and medial angle 7.5 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, lateral angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----Peritoneum--- Stomach. 23. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, lateral angle 13 cm below left nipple and medial angle 4.5 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, lateral angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----Peritoneum--- left lobe of liver. 24. 23. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, lateral angle 13 cm below left nipple and medial angle 4.5 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, lateral angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----Peritoneum--- left lobe of liver. 24. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, medial angle 5 cm from midline and 9 cm above umbilicus, obliquely placed, of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, lateral angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----Peritoneum--- Stomach. 25. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, lower angle 7 cm above umbilicus, transversely oblique, of size 1 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle ----Peritoneum--- left lobe of liver. 26. Stab wound present over midline of abdomen, lower angle 4 cm above umbilicus, transversely oblique, of size 1.3 cm x 0.7 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle----rectus sheath ----Peritoneum--- Stomach. 27. Stab wound present over left side of abdomen, lateral angle 5 cm above umbilicus and medial angle 2 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. Track of wound: Skin---- Subcutaneous tissue--- Muscle--- rectus sheath ----Peritoneum--- mesentery and small intestine. 28. Incised wound present over midline of abdomen, 6cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 0.6 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 29. Stab wound present over right side of abdomen, lower angle 6cm above umbilicus and upper angle 2cm from midline, vertically oblique, of size 1cm x 0.8cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin --- Subcutaneous tissue --- muscle --- rectus sheath --- peritoneum ---- right lobe of liver. 30. Stab wound present over midline of abdomen, lower angle 8 cm above umbilicus, vertically oblique, of size 1.1 cm x 0.7 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin --- Subcutaneous tissue --- muscle --- rectus sheath --- peritoneum ---- right lobe of liver. 31. 30. Stab wound present over midline of abdomen, lower angle 8 cm above umbilicus, vertically oblique, of size 1.1 cm x 0.7 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin --- Subcutaneous tissue --- muscle --- rectus sheath --- peritoneum ---- right lobe of liver. 31. Stab wound present over right side of abdomen, medial angle 2 cm from midline and lateral angle 9 cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 1.3 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, upper angle acute. Track of wound: Skin --- Subcutaneous tissue --- muscle --- rectus sheath --- peritoneum ---- right lobe of liver. 32. Incised wound present over midline of abdomen extend towards left side, 6.5 cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 33. Incised wound present over midline of abdomen extend towards right side, 7cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 34. Incised wound present over midline of abdomen extend towards right side, 7.7 cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 35. Incised wound present over midline of abdomen, 8.3 cm above umbilicus, oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 36. Incised wound present over right side of abdomen, medial end 8.6 cm above umbilicus and 1 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 37. Incised wound present over right side of abdomen, 10.5 cm above umbilicus and 5 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 38. Incised wound present over right side of abdomen, 10 cm above umbilicus and 4.5 cm from midline, oblique, of size 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 39. Stab wound present over right side of chest, lateral angle 6 cm below right nipple and medial angle 5 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.4 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, medical angle acute. 39. Stab wound present over right side of chest, lateral angle 6 cm below right nipple and medial angle 5 cm from midline, obliquely placed, of size 1.4 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated, medical angle acute. Track of wound: Skin --- Subcutaneous tissue --- muscle --- 7th right inter costal space –- right pleura---- lower lobe of right lung. 40. Incised wound present over right side of chest, 7 cm below right nipple and 3 cm from midline, oblique, of size 1.2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 41. Incised wound present over lower 1/3rd of left arm, ventrally, 1 x 0.5 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 42. Incised wound present over lower 1/3rd of left arm, laterally, 2 x 0.8 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 43. Incised wound present over upper 1/3rd of left forearm, ventrally, 1.2 x 0.2 cm x subcutaneous tissue deep, margin clean cut and blood infiltrated. 44. Lacerated wound present over left side of occipital region, 2 cm above external occipital protrubance, 2 x 1.2 cm x scalp deep. Margins blood infiltrated. With the above injuries, he opined that cause of death of the deceased was stated to be shock and haemorrhage following stab injuries over chest and abdomen and nature of death was opined to be homicidal and clearly came to the conclusion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In our considered opinion, such a finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased was homicidal in nature is a correct 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 would be, whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question? 11. Case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence but it is based on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been narrated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which it was observed in paragraph 153 as under :- “153. The five golden principles to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been narrated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which it was observed in paragraph 153 as under :- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 12. One of the main incriminating circumstances that has been found proved by the trial Court is that appellant and deceased were last seen together by PW-1 Dinesh Yadav & PW-2 Virendra Thakur. 13. PW-1 Dinesh Yadav, father of the deceased, has stated that on 22.07.2018 at 10:30 pm, the appellant came to his house and took his son-deceased along with him. 13. PW-1 Dinesh Yadav, father of the deceased, has stated that on 22.07.2018 at 10:30 pm, the appellant came to his house and took his son-deceased along with him. He has further stated that when his son (deceased) did not return to his house throughout night, then on next day, he went to the house of appellant at about 6:00 am and saw the door got opened and called the appellant and when the appellant did not come from the house, then he went inside the house and saw his son-deceased lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. In cross- examination, this witness remained firm and supported the prosecution story. 14. PW-2 Virendra Thakur has stated that on the date of incident, he was present near betel shop and at the same time, the appellant and deceased came there and invited this witness to celebrate his birthday at his house. Thereafter, all the three (deceased, appellant and this witness) went to the house of appellant where they consumed liquor and appellant showed a sword and sword stick (gupti) which he had kept. He has also stated that after some time, he left the party and only appellant and deceased were there and consumed liquor and on the next morning, upon knowing about the murder of deceased, he directly went to the house of appellant where father of the deceased (PW-1) was weeping and after entering inside the house, he saw the dead body of deceased lying in a pool of blood. He was subjected to cross- examination wherein he has stated about the consuming liquor by all the three (deceased, appellant and this witness) at the house of appellant and after that he left the house. 15. PW-6 Amit Yadav has stated that in the morning of 23.07.2018, he came to know that someone has been murdered, then he went to the house of appellant and saw that PW-1 Dinesh Yadav was weeping and on being asked, he (PW-1) told him that deceased is lying dead, then he went inside the room and saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood and also saw injuries over the chest, left hand, neck and stomach of deceased. He has also stated that PW-1 Dinesh Yadav told him that at about 10:30 pm, appellant had come to his house and took the deceased along with him. 16. He has also stated that PW-1 Dinesh Yadav told him that at about 10:30 pm, appellant had come to his house and took the deceased along with him. 16. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would clearly reveal that on the date of incident, the deceased was seen last in the company of the appellant and the evidence of these witnesses could not be rebutted by the defence on this point. Therefore, the factum of last seen together of deceased with the appellant is proved by the prosecution. 17. Lalit Yadav (PW-5) is one of the prosecution witnesses who has stated that on 23.07.2018, upon knowing about the murder of deceased in his locality, he went to the house of appellant and saw the dead body of deceased lying on the floor in a pool of blood and in cross-examination, he has stated that PW-1 Dinesh Yadav told him that deceased Manish Yadav had gone along with the appellant to his house. Similar is the statement of PW-6 Amit Yadav. In their presence (PW-5 & PW-6), panchnama of dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-6 and they have admitted their signatures on the said document. From the evidence of PW-5 Lalit Yadav and PW-6 Amit Yadav, it is clear that deceased- Manish Yadav was lying dead in the room of the appellant, which fact was corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 Dinesh Yadav, PW-2 Virendra Thakur and PW-9 Yaman Yadav who are the residents of same locality. Thus, it is clearly established that the dead body of deceased was found in the house of appellant. 18. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and found proved by the trial Court is the recovery of iron pipe (gupti) from the appellant, vide memorandum statement Ex.P-8 & seizure memo Ex.P-12, which has been duly proved by PW-13 Inspector- Rupak Sharma, Investigating Officer. This apart, as per FSL report Ex.32, human blood has been found on the seized articles marked as “C-1 & C-2 (posters affixed at the place of incident), G (weapon of offence i.e. gupti), H-1, H-2 & H-3 (clothes of deceased) and I (cotton piece)”. Moreover, query report (Ex.P-21) also suggests that injuries found over the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized iron pipe (gupti), as is proved from the statement of PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate. Moreover, query report (Ex.P-21) also suggests that injuries found over the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized iron pipe (gupti), as is proved from the statement of PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate. As such, the aforesaid circumstantial evidence duly proved by the prosecution also establishes the complicity of the appellant in the crime in question. 19. As per the evidence of PW-1 Dinesh Yadav and PW-2 Virendra Thakur, appellant and deceased were seen together lastly at night on the date of incident and on the next morning, deceased was found dead in the house of appellant where appellant was not present. Moreover, contents of Ex.P-6, which is the inquest proceeding and duly proved by PW-1 Dinesh Yadav, also spells out that deceased was lying dead on the floor inside the room of appellant and there is blood on the floor and on the walls. The appellant was under obligation to explain as to how and in what circumstances, the deceased- Manish Yadav found dead in the room where they consumed liquor together. 20. Now, the question would be, whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable or not? Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states 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.” This provision states 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 of the Evidence Act, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act 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. 21. 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. 21. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The 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) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 ER 36 AT P. 49(B).”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. 22. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “22. 22. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. 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 I not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused. 23. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. 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. 24. 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. 24. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 25. Returning to the facts of the present case in the light of principles laid down by their Lordships in the above referred matters, it is quite clear that on the date of incident, appellant and deceased were seen together lastly as is evident from PW-1 Dinesh Yadav and PW-2 Virendra Thakur and on the next day, dead body of the deceased was found in the room where appellant and deceased were consuming liquor, as is evident from Ex.P-6 (inquest proceedings), which spells out that dead body of deceased was lying on the floor inside the room of appellant and there is blood on the floor and on the walls. Though, the appellant has taken a plea of alibi in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot and had gone to city by auto, but no cogent and clinching evidence has been adduced by the appellant to prove that he was not present on the spot on the date of incident and as per the statement of PW-2 Virendra Yadav, he along with appellant and deceased were present in the house of appellant and after staying there for some time, he left the house of appellant. This witness (PW-2) along with other prosecution witnesses have not suggested in their cross-examination that appellant had gone to city by auto on the date of incident at night. Therefore, in absence of proper and sufficient explanation given by the appellant, the trial Court has rejected the plea of alibi taken by the appellant. Thus, considering the evidence of above witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. Therefore, in absence of proper and sufficient explanation given by the appellant, the trial Court has rejected the plea of alibi taken by the appellant. Thus, considering the evidence of above witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate and his autopsy report (Ex.P-19) and also considering the memorandum statement of appellant, pursuant to which, weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe (gupti) and other incriminating articles were seized and that the injuries found over the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized iron pipe as suggested by query report (Ex.P-21), proved by PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate and also considering the FSL report (Ex.P-32) suggesting human blood on the seized articles, it is clear that the appellant is the author of the crime in question. Moreover, the appellant was under obligation to offer explanation as to how and in what circumstances the deceased found dead in his room where both of them were consuming liquor, but he has failed to offer such explanation in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This apart, a perusal of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-2) would clearly reveal that the incident occurred in the intervening night of 22-23.07.2018 in between 10:30 pm to 6:00 am and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-2) were lodged on 23.07.2018 at 6:20 am and 6:30 am respectively, which shows that without any delay both Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-2) were registered & recorded promptly mentioning the name of appellant, which was proved by PW-1 Dinesh Yadav and PW-13 Rupak Sharma, Investigating Officer. 26. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the conclusion that it was the appellant, who caused the death of the deceased and he alone committed the murder of the deceased, as the prosecution has been able to prove the five golden principles which constitute the 'panchsheel' of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and the learned trial Court, upon due and proper appreciation of the evidence led before it, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accused-appellant is the perpetrator/author of the crime in question, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 27. Resultantly, the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed.