JUDGMENT ON BOARD : Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Appellant- Prakash Kehra @ Tiggu @ Tingu has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 39/2011, by which he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 06.02.2021, complainant Chanda Bai reported the matter to the Police Station, Janjgir about murder of her daughter namely Kriti Kehra mainly on the ground that marriage of Kriti was solemnized with accused in the year 2009. Accused was confined in jail at Bilaspur due to conviction in the year 2011 and had come on parole. Day before yesterday, she had gone in the house of her nephew Ballu Kehra at village Badgaon and her deceased daughter Kriti had also come there with accused. At that time, her deceased daughter had told her about the beatings given by accused to her. Today on information of murder of her daughter Kriti Kehra, she has returned to Janjgir and come to know that accused has consumed poison after committing murder of her daughter with a sharp edged weapon in the house. Her grandson Chhatrapal (son of deceased) also informed her about murder of his mother by his father. On the basis of aforesaid facts, First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) Ex.P-18 was registered under Section 302 of I.P.C. against above named accused. 3. On registration of FIR, Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-16, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Rough site-scene was prepared vide Ex.P-19. Patwari has prepared spot map vide Ex.-21. Treatment record of accused from District Hospital, Janjgir was taken into possession, documents pertaining to the conviction and parole of accused were also taken into possession from District Jail Bilaspur, property like weapon used in crime and clothes etc. were also taken into possession and sent to FSL for chemical examination, accused was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded and on the basis of his disclosure statement articles were recovered and taken into possession. were also taken into possession and sent to FSL for chemical examination, accused was arrested, his disclosure statement was recorded and on the basis of his disclosure statement articles were recovered and taken into possession. Dead body of the deceased Kriti Kehra was sent to District Hospital, Janjgir, wherein Dr. N.K. Dhruve (PW-4) has conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-4 and found following injuries :- (i) An incised lacerated wound measuring 7cm x 2cm x bone deep over left side of head, skull bone was fractured and brain tissues were visible. (ii) An incised lacerated wound measuring 5cm x 2cm x bone deep over left side parietal prominence (head). (iii) Clotted blood was present over hairs, face, neck, right arm and her clothes like blouse & saree. The aforesaid injuries were antemortem in nature and may be caused by heavy sharp edged object and cause of death was excessive bleeding and shock due to head injury. The doctor has opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and the death was homicidal in nature. 4. After completion of investigation charge-sheet/challan under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.) was filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the present accused. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, who assigned the same to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir for trial. 5. On the basis of material placed on file, prima-facie case was found against accused, so he was charged as noted above. The accused by denying the material allegations, did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case prosecution has examined as many as 12 following witnesses :- Name of the witness Number of witness Dayaram Kehra PW1 Rajkumar PW2 Chanda Bai PW3 Dr. N.K.Dhruve PW4 Chhatrapal Kehra PW5 Vinod Kumar Kehra PW6 Pawan Kehra PW7 Sridhar Kumar Dhruv PW8 Shikha Singh PW9 Kundan Kehra PW10 SI Nagesh Tiwari PW11 Uma Rathore PW12 7. N.K.Dhruve PW4 Chhatrapal Kehra PW5 Vinod Kumar Kehra PW6 Pawan Kehra PW7 Sridhar Kumar Dhruv PW8 Shikha Singh PW9 Kundan Kehra PW10 SI Nagesh Tiwari PW11 Uma Rathore PW12 7. Beside the aforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution has tendered and exhibited the following documents and articles in its evidence :- Exhibits Description of documents P/1 & P/2 Property seizure memo P/3 Memorandum U/s 27 Evidence Act P/4 Postmortem Report P/5 Memo to M.O. for examination of seized articles P/6 Examination Report P/7 Memo to M.O. for providing of bed head ticket P/8 Indoor Patient Record of Prakash Kahra P/9 Memo to M.O. for examination of seized bottle P/10 Examination report P/11 Property Seizure Memo P/12& P13 Memo to Jail Superintendent for providing of parole register P/14 Parole Certificate P/15(1) to P/15(12) Suppression warrant and parole relating documents of the accused. P/16 Summons U/s 175 of Cr.P.C. P/17 Naksha Panchayatnama P/18 First Information Report P/18A Merg Intimation P/19 Crime Details Form P/20 Memo for providing of spot map P/21 Spot map P/22 Memo submitting spot map P/23 Application for P.M. P/24 Dead Body Supurdnama P/25 Property Seizure Memo P/26 Seizure Memo P/27 Memo to FSL for examination of seized articles P/28 Receipt of Exhibits P/29 Memo to FSL for chemical examination of seized articles P/30 Receipt of Exhibits P/31 Covering letter and FSL Report P/32 Covering letter and FSL Report P/33 Property seizure Memo P/34 Arrest/ Court Surrender Memo P/35 Information of Arrest 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 03.10.2023, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 9. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the present case, there is no eye witness and whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In this case, only on the basis of last seen theory there was creating dispute in between the appellant and his wife deceased before the incident, the appellant has been implicated in the crime in question. In this case, only on the basis of last seen theory there was creating dispute in between the appellant and his wife deceased before the incident, the appellant has been implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that chain of circumstantial evidence is not connected to each other and the entire case is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses, hence before relying upon the statement of the said witnesses, the learned trial Court Learned trial Court is required to examine the statement of said witnesses minutely with due care and caution, hence the impugned order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. On the other hand, Pankaj Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the conviction of the appellant/accused is based on direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the accused/appellant, which is concurrent evidence against the accused/appellant and thus, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Kriti Kehra was homicidal in nature ? 13. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. N. K. Dhruve (PW- 4), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kriti Bai vide Ex.P-4, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Kriti Bai was homicidal in nature. No doubt, in the postmortem report Ex.P-4, nature of death is not mention, but it does not affect the prosecution’s case because during examination of this witness, the trial Court has specifically asked the question about the nature of death and in response of said question he has disclosed the nature of death as homicidal. No doubt, in the postmortem report Ex.P-4, nature of death is not mention, but it does not affect the prosecution’s case because during examination of this witness, the trial Court has specifically asked the question about the nature of death and in response of said question he has disclosed the nature of death as homicidal. The evidence of the aforesaid witness has gone unrebutted, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve him. Even otherwise, bone deep injuries over vital part, which fractured the skull bone, itself proves the nature of injury as grievous and dangerous to life. It has not come on record that said injuries are accidental or self inflicted, therefore, it can be inferred that some other person has inflicted the injury which resulted her death. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that death of deceased Kriti Kehra is homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 14. Now the next question arises as to whether accused has committed murder of deceased Kriti Kehra ? 15. In the case in hand, there is no eye witness of occurrence and whole of the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , has framed following guidelines in respect of circumstantial evidence :- "(A) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'maybe' established. (B) The facts so established should be consistent only 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. (C) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (D) 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". 16. (C) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (D) 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". 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Chandrapal versus State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2015, Decided on 27.05.2022 has observed, “7. At the outset, it may be stated that undisputedly the entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The law on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is also well settled. The circumstances concerned “must or should be” established and not “may be” established, as held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra. The accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.” On the basis of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted cases, this Court has to see as to whether prosecution has proved complete chain of circumstances which leave no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and show that in all human probability the murder must have been done by the accused. 17. As per the facts of this case, to prove the accused guilty beyond doubt, this Court is of view that prosecution must establish following circumstances against the accused:- i. Accused was convicted in a criminal case and was on parole on the date of incident. ii. Accused was in the house (place of occurrence) iii. Accused tried to commit suicide after the occurrence. iv. Accused made a disclosure statement and recovery of article/axe was taken place in pursuance of said disclosure. v. The weapon/axe recovered was used in commission of crime. vi. Motive of accused for murder of his wife Kriti Kehra. 18. ii. Accused was in the house (place of occurrence) iii. Accused tried to commit suicide after the occurrence. iv. Accused made a disclosure statement and recovery of article/axe was taken place in pursuance of said disclosure. v. The weapon/axe recovered was used in commission of crime. vi. Motive of accused for murder of his wife Kriti Kehra. 18. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari (PW-11) has stated that he had written a letter Ex.P-13 to Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur for production of documents about confinement of accused in his jail and in response of said letter he has given him true copy of warrant of sentence, parole warrant, release order/certificate etc. The aforesaid documents were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.P-26. Sridhar Kumar Dhruv (PW-8) has duly supported him as he has also stated that on basis of letter Ex.P-12 and letter Ex.P-13, Parole Certificate and Super Session Warrant etc. Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15 (12 pages) respectively has been given by him. 19. Sridhar Kumar Dhruv (PW-8) has further stated that accused has been convicted for life in Session case No. 04/2012 on dated 08.02.2013 and after conviction, he was shifted to Bilaspur Jail on dated 10.02.2013 from Janjgir Jail. He was granted parole for 12 days on dated 27.01.2021. He had to return on dated 09.02.2021 after parole, but did not return. Thereafter, he was arrested in this case and sent to Bilaspur Jail for serving the aforesaid sentence. The aforesaid evidence produced by prosecution has gone unrebutted in lack of any cross-examination and suggestion on said facts, therefore, it is safe to infer that accused has admitted the facts as correct. 20. Further, the statements of aforesaid witnesses are duly supported by Super Session Warrant Ex.P-15, according to which present accused was sentenced for life for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, 10 years for offence under Section 376(g) of IPC, 3 years for offence under Section 201/34 of IPC and 6 months for offence under Section 120B/34 of IPC by the than learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir vide judgment and order of sentence dated 08.02.2013 passed in Session case No. 04/2012 and his conviction & sentence was maintained by Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 02.03.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249/2013. Parole Certificate Ex.P-14 also support them because as per said certificate, accused had been released on dated 27.01.2021 for 12 days in total and he had to return in jail on dated 09.02.2021. In the present case Kriti Kehra has been murdered on dated 06.02.2021. So, prosecution has successfully proved that accused was a previous convict and he was on parole on the date of occurrence. 21. Shikha Singh (PW-9) was the land lady of deceased and she has stated that there are several houses in her Nanak Chawl and she use to let out the said houses to different persons. In July, 2019 she had given a room/house to deceased Kriti Devi Kehra in monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/-. Mother of deceased Chanda Bai (PW-3) has also stated that after conviction of accused in other case, her daughter (deceased) was residing in a rented house in Nanak Chawl. Kundan Kehra (PW-10) has also stated that deceased Kriti Devi was residing in a Chawl. Uma Rathore (PW-12) has also stated that deceased Kriti Devi was her neighbour as she was also residing in Nanak Chawl. The evidence produced by the prosecution has gone unrebutted as accused has nowhere suggested that deceased was not residing in the rented house/room at Nanak Chawl. Therefore, prosecution has successfully proved that at the time of occurrence deceased was residing in a house/room at Nanak Chawl on rent. 22. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari (PW-11) has stated that on dated 07.02.2021, he has taken into possession a pillow cover with blood stains, a nighty with blood stains, a bed-sheet with blood stains and a small box of UCIDIN-20 vide seizure memo Ex.P-11. The aforesaid seizure memo is attested by witness Pawan Kehra Pw7 and Kundan Kehra Pw10 and they have duly supported the aforesaid investigating officer. As per the seizure memo Ex.P-11, the aforesaid cloths have been recovered from the place of occurrence. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari Pw11 as prepared the rough site-plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-19 and halka patwari has prepared the rough site- plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-21. As per these site-plans, place of occurrence is a room/house of Nanak Chawl. Thus, the evidence produced by the prosecution fully proves that deceased Kriti Kehra has been murdered in her house/room at Nanak Chawl. 23. Chhatrapal Kehra (PW-5) is 10 year old minor son of accused and deceased. As per these site-plans, place of occurrence is a room/house of Nanak Chawl. Thus, the evidence produced by the prosecution fully proves that deceased Kriti Kehra has been murdered in her house/room at Nanak Chawl. 23. Chhatrapal Kehra (PW-5) is 10 year old minor son of accused and deceased. He has stated that his father has murdered his mother. He was playing outside his house and his parents were at home. When he come to his house, his mother was lying on floor and his father was going to the house of his grandfather. Blood was flowing from the head of his mother. During cross-examination, he has stated that he has come to Court with his grandfather (father of accused). 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Panchhi and Others Vs State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726 has held, “the law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.” In the case in hand, the aforesaid witnesses has come to Court with his grandfather (father of accused) and it has not come on record that father of accused had any enmity or jealousy towards accused, therefore, it can not be expected that father of accused will tutor his own grandson (son of accused) for false implication of his own son (accused), so the facts narrated by a ten year old child are not tutored. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ratansingh Dalsukhbhai Nayak Vs State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64 has held, “conviction on the basis of child witness is permissible if such witness is found competent to testify and the court after careful scrutiny of its evidence is convinced about the quality and reliability of the same.” The aforesaid child witness is the real son of accused and his evidence is not found tutored, therefore, after careful scrutiny of his evidence, his trustworthiness can not be doubted. 25. Further, accused has not disputed his presence in the house/place of occurrence at the time of murder of deceased Kriti as he has neither cross-examined nor put any suggestion about the same to the aforesaid witness. 25. Further, accused has not disputed his presence in the house/place of occurrence at the time of murder of deceased Kriti as he has neither cross-examined nor put any suggestion about the same to the aforesaid witness. Further more, accused has not suggested that beside him some other person was also present in the house and he might have murdered the deceased. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2008, decided on 8 January, 2015 has observed, “when there is no cross-examination on a factual matrix and that remained unchallenged that ought to be believed by the court.” Therefore, same is taken as an admission of facts by accused. 26. Moreover, Uma Rathore (PW-12) is the neighbour of deceased and in her sworn statement she has stated that there was some dispute between the accused and deceased, so accused murdered her. Son of deceased has come to call her than she has suggested to call her grandmother, so he called her grandmother there. Deceased was no more when she reached to her house. Accused was at home prior to the murder of deceased and after murder went from there. The aforesaid witness was cross-examined by the accused, but he has not disputed his presence in house prior to murder of deceased Kriti and leaving the house after her murder. Accused has also not suggested that she has not seen the accused in the house or leaving the house by accused, therefore, it is safe to infer that he has admitted the facts as correct. Thus, the evidence produced by the prosecution fully establishes that at the time of murder of deceased in her rented house/room, only and only accused was present with deceased in the house and no other person was present there. 27. Vinod Kumar Kehra (PW-6) has stated that on dated 06.02.2021, he was in his shop than his wife informed him that accused Prakash Kehra is lying in front of house. On such information, he reached to his house and found that foam was coming out of mouth of accused Prakash, so he along with Gajju admitted him in District Hospital, Janjgir, where he come to know about consumption of poison by him. On such information, he reached to his house and found that foam was coming out of mouth of accused Prakash, so he along with Gajju admitted him in District Hospital, Janjgir, where he come to know about consumption of poison by him. Dayaram (PW-1) is the father of accused and he has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on dated 06.02.2021, he was on his duty at Government College, Janjgir than Namu Narian Kehra informed him telephonically about admission of accused Prakash in District Hospital, Janjgir, so he reached there and found that accused has consumed poison. There were blood stains over his vest. The aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined at length, but accused has neither cross-examined nor given any suggestion on said facts to the said witnesses, so it is inferred that he has admitted the facts as correct. 28. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari (PW-11) has written letter Ex.P-7 to District Hospital, Janjgir for providing the bed head ticket of accused Prakash Kehar and on the basis of said letter hospital has given the bed heat ticket Ex.P-8 (6 pages), according to which accused was admitted in hospital on dated 06.02.2021 at 5:50 PM for diagnose of unknown poison. As per postmortem report Ex.P-4, postmortem was got conducted on dated 07.02.2021 at 11:30 AM and time of death is within 24 hours from the time of postmortem. Chhatrapal Kehra Pw5 and Uma Rathore Pw12, as discussed above, have proved presence of accused on the spot at the time of occurrence, so it has been proved automatically that he was admitted in hospital after occurrence because if he would have been admitted in hospital prior to occurrence than obviously he had not be present on spot. Thus, prosecution has proved that accused was admitted in hospital for diagnose of unknown poison after occurrence. 29. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari (PW-11) has stated that on dated 10.02.2021, he has recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.P-3 in presence of witnesses, in which he has disclosed that after washing with water he had kept the tangiya (axe) used in crime under the bed (palang). On the basis of his disclosure, the aforesaid tangiya (axe) was recovered from the place disclosed by him and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P-1 in presence of witnesses. Rajkumar Pw2 has duly supported him on point of recovery of tangiya (axe). On the basis of his disclosure, the aforesaid tangiya (axe) was recovered from the place disclosed by him and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P-1 in presence of witnesses. Rajkumar Pw2 has duly supported him on point of recovery of tangiya (axe). However, in his examination-in-chief, he has denied about giving of disclosure statement by accused before him, but during cross-examination he has admitted the same. The aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined at length, but accused has not disputed the recovery of tangiya (axe) on the basis of his disclosure statement, therefore, it is safe to infer that accused has admitted the facts narrated by aforesaid witnesses about recovery of weapon at his instance as correct. 30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 1146 of 2008, decided on 20 October, 2010 has observed, “it was observed that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version”. Therefore, if it is assumed that independent witness Rajkumar (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution on point of disclosure statement in toto even than disclosure statement of accused has been proved by aforesaid police official. Thus, prosecution has proved that tangiya (axe) has been recovered from accused on the basis of his disclosure statement. 31. Axe recovered at the instance of accused is a sharp aged weapon whereas Dr. N.K. Dhruve Pw4 has disclosed an incised looking lacerated wound measuring 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep and another incised looking lacerated wound measuring 5cm x 2 cm x bone deep over head of deceased. But in response of a question asked by this Court, Dr. N.K. Dhruve (PW-4) has specifically stated that if blow is given with sharp side of a weapon whose one side is sharp and other side is blunt, like axe, than aforesaid injuries may occure. The evidence has gone unrebutted, therefore, possibility of use of recovered tangiya (axe) in murder of deceased Kriti Kehra can not be ruled out. 32. N.K. Dhruve (PW-4) has specifically stated that if blow is given with sharp side of a weapon whose one side is sharp and other side is blunt, like axe, than aforesaid injuries may occure. The evidence has gone unrebutted, therefore, possibility of use of recovered tangiya (axe) in murder of deceased Kriti Kehra can not be ruled out. 32. Investigating officer Nagesh Tiwari (PW-11) has sent the recovered articles i.e. tangiya (axe) recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-1, cloths of deceased like blouse and Saree recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-2, pillow cover, nighty, bed-sheet and a small box of UCIDIN-20 recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-11 and cloths of accused like white shirt, vest and jeans pant recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P- 25 to FSL Bilaspur through letters of Superintendent of Police, Janjgir Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-29. After examination, FSL has given its report Ex.P-31 and Ex.P-32. As per FSL report Ex.P-32, blood stains were present over pillow cover (A), nighty (B), bed-sheet (C), shirt (D), vest (E), jeans pant (F), tangiya (G), Saree (H1) and Blouse (H2). Over pillow cover(A), nighty (B), jeans pant (F), tangiya (G), Saree (H1) and Blouse (H2) human blood was present and blood group of blood found on pillow cover (A) and tangiya (G) was of “O” and blood group of other articles could not trace. 33. No doubt, blood group of accused or deceased are not proved on the case file, but it does not fatal the prosecution’s case because, as discussed and held above, occurrence has taken place in the house/room of deceased and pillow cover with blood stains has also been recovered from the said house. It has not come on record that accused had also any injury over his body, so it can be safely presumed that blood group “O” over pillow was of deceased. Therefore, blood group “O” over tangiya (axe) is also proved of deceased. 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Balwan Singh vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2015, decided on 6 August, 2019 has observed, “Sometimes it is possible, either because the stain is insufficient in itself, or due to haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the blood in question. 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Balwan Singh vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2015, decided on 6 August, 2019 has observed, “Sometimes it is possible, either because the stain is insufficient in itself, or due to haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the blood in question. However, in such a case, unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind may entertain with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed by the accused in this regard. Once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group(s) loses significance.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of John Pandian v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129 , has observed that the evidence of recovery of weapons was credible. The Forensic Science Report (FSL) report had disclosed that the blood was of human origin. The Court proceeded to conclude that since the evidence of recovery of weapon was proved to the satisfaction of the Court, it was sufficient that the prosecution had proved that the bloodstains were of human origin, even though the blood group could not be ascertained. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205 has also observed, “it was not possible to accept the submission made on behalf of the accused that in the absence of the report regarding the origin of the blood, the accused could not have been convicted, inasmuch as it was only because of the lapse of time that blood could not be classified successfully”. Therefore, prosecution has successfully proved that the tangiya (axe) recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-1 from the accused on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex.P-3 has been used by accused in murder of Kriti Kehra. 35. Learned counsel would have argued that as there was no motive for accused to commit murder of his wife, so he can not be held guilty. 35. Learned counsel would have argued that as there was no motive for accused to commit murder of his wife, so he can not be held guilty. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Prem Singh versus State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2023, decided on January 2, 2023 has observed, “If motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused”. Moreover, mother of deceased Chanda Bai PW-3 has specifically stated that accused committed murder of her daughter because of his doubt on her character and her evidence has gone unrebutted. So, the contention of accused that the motive could not prove in this case is devoid of merit because prosecution has also proved the motive of crime by accused. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of considered view that prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances mentioned in para No.16 of this judgment beyond doubt, which leaves no room for this Court except to accept that only and only accused is guilty for murder of his wife Kriti Kehra. 36. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent case Prem Singh versus State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2023, decided on January 2, 2023 has observed, “It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred”. 37. 37. Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State of Maharashtra, Appeal (crl.) 1341 of 2005, decided on 11 October, 2006 has held, “Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a 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 of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet 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 an accused to offer any explanation”. 38. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2006, decided on March 20, 2007 has observed, “It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife”. 39. In the case in hand, as discussed and held above, prosecution has established that only accused and his wife Kriti Kehra were present in the rented accommodation in Nanak Chawl and no other person was present in the said house, so it was upon accused to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed in the premises, but he has given no explanation at all, either during cross-examination of witnesses or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or by producing any evidence. Further, as discussed above, after the occurrence accused had tried to commit suicide, so it was upon him why he had tried to commit suicide, if not murdered his wife. But he has given no explanation in this respect too. So, it can be inferred that he had tried to commit suicide only because he was frightened with punishment of crime committed by him. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to held that prosecution has successfully proved beyond doubt that only accused had committed murder of his wife. 40. Learned counsel would have argued that all the witnesses are related witnesses, so can not be held reliable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 2716 , has held, “relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible”. Further, all the witnesses are not related to deceased as Rajkumar Kehar (PW-1) is the father of accused and Vinod Kumar Kehra (PW-6), Pawan Kumar Kehra (PW- 7) Kundan Kehra (PW-10), Uma Rathore (PW-12) are neighbors and not related with deceased or her family in any manner. Therefore, this Court is not convinced with this point of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 41. Considering the afore facts & circumstances of the case, material available on record, also considering the fact that circumstantial evidence has been duly proved by the prosecution against the appellant and also considering the fact that death of deceased Kriti Kehra was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 42. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant- Prakash Kehra @ Tiggu @ Tingu is dismissed. He is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the concerned trial Court. 43. 42. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant- Prakash Kehra @ Tiggu @ Tingu is dismissed. He is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the concerned trial Court. 43. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.