JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. 2. Informant of the case is the father of the deceased, who was married to the appellant two years before the incidence. As per the FIR dated 02.01.2007, deceased was at her parental home and the appellant took her from there on 27.12.2006 at 5.30 in the morning on the pretext of getting her treated. At that time, his daughter was carrying a pregnancy of four months. On 01.01.2007, it was rumored that his daughter’s dead body was in a well in Village Manjhigama. The dead body was in a decomposed condition. It was suspected that the appellant had committed her murder and thrown the dead body in the well. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Manjhiyaon P.S. Case No. 02/07 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC against the appellant. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet and the appellant was put on trial. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including post mortem examination report and FIR, have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1-7. 4. Judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the homicidal death which is fundamental ingredient for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. In the present case, as per the post-mortem examination report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore, the homicidal death has not been proved by the prosecution. Specific plea of defence is that death was accidental and suggestion to this effect was given to the mother of the deceased (PW-3). Allegation of previous harassment is not substantiated as no complaint was lodged in this regard before any competent authority. 5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. 6. It is not in quarrel that the deceased was the legally married wife of the appellant. Evidence of the dead body of the deceased being found in a well in a decomposed state, is also beyond reproach. These facts have come in evidence, both, oral and documentary. 7. The Doctor (PW-6), who conducted post-mortem on 03.01.2007 examination on the dead body, found the following: (i) Body was swollen, foul smelling, tongue protruded. Evidence of the dead body of the deceased being found in a well in a decomposed state, is also beyond reproach. These facts have come in evidence, both, oral and documentary. 7. The Doctor (PW-6), who conducted post-mortem on 03.01.2007 examination on the dead body, found the following: (i) Body was swollen, foul smelling, tongue protruded. (ii) Bleeding of skin was found at place. (iii) Blood mixed froth coming from both the nostrils and nose. (iv) On dissection, trachea was found to be congested, lungs, liver spleen and kidney all were congested and decomposition started. Rectum and bladder was empty, semi digested ‘bhat dal’ was present in the stomach. (v) No ante mortem injuries were detected on the body. (vi) Part of viscera was preserved for chemical analysis (vii) No definite opinion could be given regarding cause of death as the dead body was in a decomposing state. 8. There cannot be any dispute with the legal proposition urged on behalf of the appellant that prosecution in order to succeed in a case under Section 302 of the IPC, has to establish the homicidal death which is its fundamental ingredient. It need however to be noted that post-mortem examination report being in the nature of an expert opinion, and not a substantive piece of evidence, cannot be said to be the only mode to establish homicidal death. Such an evidence assumes significance when there is reasonable doubt as to its cause. Hon’ble Supreme Court in appropriate cases has accepted homicidal death in the absence of post-mortem report [Kehar Singh & Others vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 ; Banwari Ram & Others vs. State of U.P. (1998) 9 SCC 3 ]. As per the characteristics signs of drowning noted by Modi (a text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 27th Edition, Page 606) includes the following: (a) The bulky and oedematous water-logged lungs, which exude cupoious, frothy blood-stained fluid on section. (b) The presence of water, mud or weeds in the stomach or small intestine or both. 9. As noted in the post-mortem examination report, rectum and bladder was empty, semi-digested food was present in the stomach. Thus, water which should have been found in the stomach or the lungs in case of drowning, were conspicuous by its absence. This to some extent discounts the possibility of death by drowning. 10. 9. As noted in the post-mortem examination report, rectum and bladder was empty, semi-digested food was present in the stomach. Thus, water which should have been found in the stomach or the lungs in case of drowning, were conspicuous by its absence. This to some extent discounts the possibility of death by drowning. 10. From the prosecution evidence, the following circumstances emerge: (I) There was marital discord and the deceased used to be assaulted by the appellant. PW-3 and PW-4, who happen to be mother and brother of the deceased have consistently deposed about this. (II) On 27.12.2006, in the morning at 5.30, appellant brought his wife along with him from the matrimonial home on the pretext of getting her treated. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have proved this part. (III) Dead body was found on 01.01.2007 from a well which is at a distance of 1½ Km. from the house of the appellant, as per the deposition of IO. (IV) Appellant did not inform about this, neither to the family members of the deceased nor to the police. In normal course of human conduct, it was expected from the appellant being the husband of the deceased to have made search for his missing wife who was brought by him from her parental home. (V) After the appellant left with the deceased from her parental home, it has not been stated that when he parted company with her. (VI) Appellant was arrested on 14.01.2007. 11. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. no plausible explanation has been put forward. With regard to the death of his wife he has only stated, that he had heard that she had died of drowning, but he did not inform about this to anyone. It has been pleaded by him that he was under psychiatric treatment by Dr. P.K. Choudhary, but not a chit of paper has been filed in this regard. Investigating officer in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that appellant was suffering from mental illness. 12. When the proved circumstances are put together, the picture that is conjured is that there was history of marital discord and the appellant used to assault her. On 27.12.2006 at 5.30 in the morning, appellant takes his wife from her parental home. Her dead body is found floating in a well on 01.01.2007. 12. When the proved circumstances are put together, the picture that is conjured is that there was history of marital discord and the appellant used to assault her. On 27.12.2006 at 5.30 in the morning, appellant takes his wife from her parental home. Her dead body is found floating in a well on 01.01.2007. Her dead body was taken out from the well in a semi decomposed condition. As per the post-mortem report, time elapsed since death was 24 to 48 hours. Appellant has nothing to say as to how his wife, who was carrying four months of pregnancy, reached the well after she was brought from her parental home. No effort was made by him to search for his missing wife and when she was found in the well he takes no initiative to inform the police or her family members. Appellant being the husband of the deceased, there was onus on him to state what happened to her after he brought her from the parental home. These are facts which were within the special knowledge of the appellant and he could have only thrown light over it. Section 106 of the Evidence Act precisely applies in such a cases. His failure to answer these questions is sufficient to raise presumption of fact under Section 114, Illustration (h) of the Evidence Act that, answer given in this regard would have been unfavorable to him. Law in this regard has been succinctly summed up in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 : “The statement of law made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid decision has been extracted by us in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516. It is useful to extract a further portion of the observation made by us in the aforesaid decision: (SCC p. 392, Para 33) “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 reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. 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 reaches 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 the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 13. From the above proved fact, the logical inference that can be drawn is that the appellant had strained relationship with his wife and was in the habit of assaulting her. On the pretext of getting the deceased treated, he brought her from her parental home and after committing murder, threw the body in the well. There is no infirmity in the Judgment of conviction and sentence which is accordingly affirmed. 14. Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 15. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. 16. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. I agree - ANANDA SEN, J.