JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirmiri, District Koriya, in Sessions Trial No.23/2019, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month and RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one week. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Sangeeta Gond (PW-1) gave dehati morgue intimation to the Police Station Khadgawan Camp Kaudimar, District Koriya that on 6.1.2019 at about 9 A.M. the appellant/her father namely Gangasharan Singh has committed murder of her mother namely Kailashkunwar in their house situated in village Kaudimar due to quarrel which started when the deceased asked the appellant for getting treatment of her disease by exorcism (jhad-foonk). The appellant is alleged to have got angry and attacked the deceased with an iron jarkatti causing serious injuries and has killed her by throwing a grinding stone on her. The complainant further stated that the incident was witnessed by her alongwith Ganga Singh (PW-3), Pratap Singh (PW-2) and Pankaj Singh (PW-5) and they have snatched jarkatti from the appellant. Morgue intimation under Section 174 CrPC was registered by Police Station Khadgawan vide Ex.P-28 and on the basis of morgue intimation, FIR (Ex.P-29) in Crime No.4/2019 for offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the appellant. Inquest of dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-3A. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-4. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-7 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, jarkatti was seized from his possession in presence of the witnesses Premlal (PW-6) and Pratap Singh (PW-2) vide Ex.P-9. Bloodstains soil, plain soil and grinding stone were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8. The appellant was arrested on 6.1.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P-10. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-19. Bloodstains soil, plain soil and grinding stone were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8. The appellant was arrested on 6.1.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P-10. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-19. Dead body of deceased Kailashkunwar was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Chirmiri, where Dr.Pradip Kumar Rohan (PW-11) conducted postmortem of body of the deceased vide Ex.P-30 and found following injuries:- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 multiple incised wounds bone deep exposing brain at one place seen over occipital region (6 inch x 1 inch size), left temporal region (3 inch x 1 inch size, left shoulder 1 inch x ½ & ½ inch x 1 ½ inch vertex left size (1½ x 3 inches). 6, 7, 8 multiple linear contusion (size 5” to 6” x 1 inch size), blackish. 9 Partial amputation of right forearm (through & through cut of both bones except one edge of radial bone 10 Amputation of right little finger. Dr.Pradip Kumar Rohan (PW-11) has opined that cause of death was shock due to massive external haemmorage due to multiple wounds and death was homicidal in nature. In query report (Ex.P-31), the doctor has opined that cause of death is due to injury caused by two objects i.e. jarkatti and grinding stone. Seized articles i.e. article C grinding stone and article D iron jarkatti were sent for examination to FSL and as per FSL Report (Ex.P-25), human blood was found on both the articles C & D. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Koriya, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirmiri received the case on transfer for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents Exs.P-1 to P-32. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied guilt. However, the appellant-accused examined none in his defence nor any document has been exhibited. 5. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents Exs.P-1 to P-32. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied guilt. However, the appellant-accused examined none in his defence nor any document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18.7.2023, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein. 6. Mr.Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has mostly relied upon the statements of Sangeeta Gond (PW-1) and Pratap Singh (PW-2), who are considered to be eyewitnesses as per the finding of the learned trial Court, whereby the learned trial Court committed grave error by not considering the actuality of the depositions of the abovementioned witnesses as they themselves have stated that they didn’t saw the appellant murdering the deceased. He further submits that Sangeeta Gond (PW-1) who styled herself as eyewitness has disowned everything in her statement. The first chain of circumstances is the quarrel between the deceased & the appellant and the same is not proved by any witness. Not even any independent neighbor has supported the fact of quarrel resulting in murder. Sangeeta Gond (PW-1) and Pratap Singh (PW-2) both have turned hostile and they did not prove the seizure. Mere recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant will not connect the appellant for murder when the motive is not established. The prosecution can not take the advantage of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the motive to kill wife is established and proved. He also submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in [ (2021) 10 SCC 725 ) para-22]. 7. Hence, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in [ (2021) 10 SCC 725 ) para-22]. 7. On the other hand, Mr.H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that dead body of deceased Kailashkunwar was found lying in the courtyard of the appellant, therefore, provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable and the appellant was required to explain as to under what circumstances Kailashkunwar died in his house. He further submits that appellant has failed to explain the death of the deceased and therefore, conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the appellant is the author of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the circumstantial evidence available on record. The trial Court has convicted the appellant with the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act holding that it is house murder, which the appellant was required to offer explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he has failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance established, proceeded to convict him for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 10. 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.” 11. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Kailashkunwar took place in the house of the appellant. 12. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused was required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in their house. The unnatural death of Kailashkunwar took place in the house of the appellant. 12. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused was required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in their house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 13. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 14. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: "9. 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" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently 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." 16. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382 , the Supreme Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 17. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah (supra) 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 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 reason-able 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 estab-lished, 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.” 18. Sangeeta Gond (PW-1) (daughter of the deceased and the appellant) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, she had gone to feed the cattle near the house and when she returned home after giving the feed, she saw that her mother Kailashkunwar was lying dead in the courtyard, blood was oozing from her body. Then she called Sarpanch Premlal, Sarpanch Premlal came to her house and many people also came to the house with him. The Sarpanch called the police. He had reported the incident to the police. 19. Pratap Singh (PW-2), Jeevanlal (PW-3), Pankaj Singh (PW-5), Premlal Singh (PW-6), Lakshmaniya Bai (PW-7) and Jai Singh (PW-12) in their evidence have supported the statement of witness Sangeeta Gond and have stated that after getting the information about the death of Kailashkunwar, they went to her house and saw her. Dead body of Kailashkunwar was lying in the courtyard of the house. The police has given notice (Ex.P-3) for preparing panchayatnama of dead body of Kailashkunwar and had prepared panchyatnama of Kailashkunwar. 20. Dead body of Kailashkunwar was lying in the courtyard of the house. The police has given notice (Ex.P-3) for preparing panchayatnama of dead body of Kailashkunwar and had prepared panchyatnama of Kailashkunwar. 20. Ganga Singh (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he was going to village Kaudimar to search for labour, at that time, Pratap ran and shouted for help, then he ran inside Gangasharan’s house and saw that accused Gangasharan Singh was planning to kill Kailashkunwar, accused Gangasharan Singh was in his house and was holding a grinding stone in his hand and said that he will kill Kailashkunwar, then he tried to snatch a grinding stone from accused Gangasharan, but Gangasharan did not give it to him and Kailashkunwar was killed in front of him. The murder of wife of the accused was reported to have taken place on 6.1.2019. Similarly, Sangeeta Gond (PW-1), Pratap Singh (PW-2), Ganga Singh (PW-3), Jeevanlal (PW-4), Pankaj Singh (PW-5), Premlal Singh (PW-6), Lakshmaniya Bai (PW-7) and Jai Singh (PW-12) have stated in their statements that on 6.1.2019, Kailashkunwar was murdered in the courtyard of her house in village Kaudimar. Ganga Singh (PW-3) in his evidence has stated that accused Gangasharan had assaulted Kailashkunwar on her chest with grinding stone, due to which Kailashkunwar died. Thus, it is proved from the statement of this witness that the accused has caused death of his wife. 21. Dr. Pradip Kumar Rohan (PW-11) in his query report (Ex.P-31) made by the Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan has opined that cause of death is due to injury caused by two objects i.e. jarkatti and grinding stone. As per FSL report (Ex.P-25), human blood was found in both the articles “C” grinding stone and “D” jarkatti. 22. It is to be remembered here that homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body. The instant case is about the death of a wife committed by the husband within four walls of the house. When the assailant is the husband, it is difficult indeed to get direct evidence on the nature of injuries. It is thus concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature of death. Considering the answers given by Dr. The instant case is about the death of a wife committed by the husband within four walls of the house. When the assailant is the husband, it is difficult indeed to get direct evidence on the nature of injuries. It is thus concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature of death. Considering the answers given by Dr. Pradip Kumar Rohan (PW-11) vide Ex.P-31 to the queries made by the Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan and further considering the nature of injuries, which the deceased was found, we are of the considered opinion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. It is held accordingly. 23. In the present case, the deceased was found dead in her courtyard and at that time, only the appellant and the deceased were present in the house and as per the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of incident and he was present elsewhere is on the appellant, which he admittedly failed to prove in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. As such, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Nagendra Sah (supra) is not helpful to the appellant and is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 24. Investigating officer Om Shankar Sahu (PW-9) in his evidence has stated that on 6.1.2019, information was given by informant Sangeeta Gond that her father Gangasharan was asked by her mother deceased Kailashkunwar to get treatment for disease and exorcism at home, due to which, a dispute started between them, after which Gangasharan got angry and killed his wife Kailashkunwar by assaulting her with an iron jarkatti and grinding stone. Dehati morgue intimation No.0/32019 was recorded by him. On the same date, as per the information given by the informant Sangeeta Gond, dehati nalishi was recorded by him on the basis of dehati morgue intimation. In para 12 of his evidence, he has stated that accused Gangasharan went to the place of incident and presented an iron jarkatti, which was seized by him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9). 25. Considering the answers given by Dr. In para 12 of his evidence, he has stated that accused Gangasharan went to the place of incident and presented an iron jarkatti, which was seized by him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9). 25. Considering the answers given by Dr. Pradip Kumar Rohan (PW-11) to the queries made by the Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan, taking into consideration that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by the appellant which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him and he has not offered any plausible explanation, further taking into consideration that the appellant was required to explain as to how the deceased suffered such injuries, as the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the courtyard of the appellant, which he has admittedly not explained in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC and the material collected by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who caused death of the deceased. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record. We hereby affirm that finding. 26. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 27. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 28. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.