JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Ragini Kumari and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin and Mrs. Priya Shrestha. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2017, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, which have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court in fact, as per the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, when there are no eye witnesses to the said occurrence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the chain of the circumstances should be complete and each of the circumstances should be conclusive in nature which should only point towards the guilt of the appellant. Only on the ground that there was marital discord between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted in this case. Suspicion cannot be a ground however strong it would be, to convict the appellant in absence of any corroborative evidence to suggest that the appellant was involved in the occurrence. On these grounds, he prays to reconsider the judgment passed by the Trial Court and set aside the same. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant is admittedly the husband of the deceased and there is overwhelming evidence that he was torturing and assaulting the deceased. Just the night before the day when the deceased was murdered, the brother of the deceased had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased to pacify the matter with appellant. The murder had taken place between the four corners of the wall of the house of this appellant. Thus, save and except this appellant, none could have committed the same. The appellant was found sitting beside the dead body of the deceased on the next morning. The appellant has taken the plea of alibi, but the same has not been proved. The special circumstance has not been explained by the appellant. Thus, save and except this appellant, none could have committed the same. The appellant was found sitting beside the dead body of the deceased on the next morning. The appellant has taken the plea of alibi, but the same has not been proved. The special circumstance has not been explained by the appellant. Further, the incriminating evidence against the appellant has not been explained by him while he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds he submitted that the appeal should be dismissed. 5. The F.I.R., which was registered on 28.07.2014 is based on the farbeyan of informant (Sunil Oraon), P.W.-3, who had stated that his sister- Karmi Devi (deceased) was married to this appellant in June, 2011. The deceased was residing in the matrimonial home, but she was being assaulted and tortured by this appellant. A meeting was held on 02.07.2012, which was attended by this appellant, his sister and other co-villagers wherein it was decided in the panchayati that the appellant will not behave cruelly and will maintain his wife properly. After few days, again the torture started thus, on 27.07.2014, the deceased again complained this informant when he visited her house. The informant tried to reason with the appellant and returned home, but on the very next day about 06.00 A.M. in the morning, he was informed by his co- villager- Sanjay Oraon (P.W.-9) that his sister has been killed by her husband and getting such information, he reached the matrimonial house of his sister and saw the dead body lying on the bed and blood was oozing from her mouth and nose. He believes that his sister has been murdered by throttling. 6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Ghaghra P.S. Case No.53 of 2014 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC and he was put on trial. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC and he was put on trial. Eleven witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- P.W.-1 Sahrangia Devi P.W.-2 Sukhnath Oraon P.W.-3 Sunil Oraon, informant of this case P.W.-4 Jitni Oraon P.W.-5 Sawani Oraini P.W.-6 Lal Mohan Oraon P.W.-7 Mahipal Oraon P.W.-8 Tetru Oraon P.W.-9 Sanjay Oraon P.W.-10 Rajendra Rajak, Investigating Officer of this case P.W.-11 Dr. Saurav Prasad 8. The following documents were also exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 signature of informant on his fardbeyan Exhibit-1/1 fardbeyan Exhibit-2 carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit-2/1 signature of another witness Lal Mohan Oraon (P.W.-6) on carbon copy of inquest report, Exhibit-3 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 Carbon copy of inquest report. Exhibit-5 Memo of arrest Exhibit-6 Postmortem report 9. To prove a case under Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death to be homicidal which amount to murder. To prove the aforesaid fact the prosecution has examined as P.W.-11, who is the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on 28.07.2014 at 04.15 P.M. of the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which was marked as Exhibit- 6. He stated that he has found ligature mark present on the neck completely encircling the neck below thyroid cartilage. Abrasions found on ligature mark, hyoid bone were fractured. Blood-tinged secretion coming out from the nose and mouth. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. As per the Doctor death has taken place between 12-24 hours. He stated that there was 95% chance that the death was caused by strangulation, using rope etc. On a Court question the Doctor categorically stated that this type of death cannot be due to epileptic fits. In epileptic fits, there cannot be fracture of hyoid bone and there cannot be ligature mark. Doctor also admitted that from the body, no sign of struggle was found and stated that only insane person can caused such injury unto himself or herself by tying rope in his or her neck. 10. In epileptic fits, there cannot be fracture of hyoid bone and there cannot be ligature mark. Doctor also admitted that from the body, no sign of struggle was found and stated that only insane person can caused such injury unto himself or herself by tying rope in his or her neck. 10. From the aforesaid evidence, I find that the death is unnatural and definitely homicidal, which can be said to be murder. The death is due to strangulation and all the characteristic of strangulation is present, which is apparent from the statement of the Doctor. The ground of the defence that the deceased died due to epileptic fits, has also been outrightly negated by the Doctor. Thus, I find that the prosecution is able to prove that the deceased was murdered. 11. So far as the place of occurrence is concerned, I find that P.W.-3, who is the informant, in his evidence has stated that after he received the information, of death of his sister, he reached her matrimonial house and found the dead body in the house of this appellant. In examination-in-chief, he stated that the body was in the room of the house of this appellant. P.W.-1 the mother of the deceased also stated in the similar lines to that of the informant and stated that she had seen the dead body of the deceased lying on the bed in the room of the appellant. P.W.-6 is the co-villager of the informant, who went to see the dead body after getting the information of death of the deceased. He also stated that dead body was found on cot in the room of this appellant. He is signatory to the inquest report and his signature was exhibited on the said report as Exhibit-2/1. Thus, all these witnesses have proved the place of occurrence, which is the house of the appellant rather, the room inside the said house. It is neither the case of the prosecution nor the case of defence that the deceased was murdered by someone else nor her body was brought to the said room, thus, I hold that the deceased’s murder had taken place within corner of four walls of the house of this appellant. 12. This case is a case of circumstantial evidence where no one had seen the appellant committing the murder. 12. This case is a case of circumstantial evidence where no one had seen the appellant committing the murder. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete and there should be sufficient evidence to complete the chain. The motive plays an important role in circumstantial evidence. In this case when, I go through the evidence, led by the parties, I find that prosecution has led cogent evidence that there was strong marital discord between the appellant and the deceased. The deceased was often tortured and assaulted by this appellant. P.W.-3 in his evidence had stated that the deceased was being tortured and assaulted by this appellant. The deceased had fled to her matrimonial home because of the said assault. P.W.-3 had also gone to the house of this appellant to reason with him and make him understand, but the torture and the assault continued. It has also come in evidence of P.W.-3 that just on evening before the occurrence i.e. on 27.07.2014, he went to the house of this appellant, after getting information that the deceased was being assaulted by this appellant. There he tried to make the appellant understand, and thereafter, he returned in the evening, but on the next day in the very morning at 06.00 A.M. he received information that the deceased died. P.W.-1 the mother of the deceased also stated that the deceased was being tortured and assaulted by the appellant. She also stated that the deceased use to flee from the matrimonial home to save herself from the assault and torture. Both the witnesses have stated about the panchayati which was held in the village because of the attitude and behavior of this appellant. P.W.-2 who is the maternal uncle of the deceased had also stated that this appellant used to torture the deceased. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid statement, the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant was torturing and assaulting the deceased and there was strong motive of the appellant to commit the murder. Though these witnesses are close relative to the deceased, but merely having relation with the deceased will not neutralize or negate what they had stated on point of the occurrence. The defence could not prove that they are not trustworthy. Merely because there are related to the deceased is not a ground to discard their evidence. Though these witnesses are close relative to the deceased, but merely having relation with the deceased will not neutralize or negate what they had stated on point of the occurrence. The defence could not prove that they are not trustworthy. Merely because there are related to the deceased is not a ground to discard their evidence. In these types of cases where there is torture by the husband upon the wife, the best witness is the relatives of the wife. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gumansinh v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 767 is held that mere having some relationship does not make a witness unreliable. It is necessary to quote para 20 of the said judgment, which is hereinbelow:- “20. Most often the offence of subjecting the married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent witness is available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interested witness.” 15. Further, from the evidence adduced, I find that P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.,-7, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 have been declared hostile. Since the witnesses have become hostile it does not mean that entire evidence should be scrapped. From the evidence of P.W.-9, we can get that death of the deceased had taken place on 27.07.2014 at about 11.00 P.M. when he got information that the deceased is dead. He stated that he received the information at night, but as it was night, he did not divulge the same and only on the morning, he divulged the same to the informant. She stated that Virendra had informed him about the occurrence. He stated that he received the information at night, but as it was night, he did not divulge the same and only on the morning, he divulged the same to the informant. She stated that Virendra had informed him about the occurrence. Thus, even if he was declared hostile his statement is sufficient to prove that the death has occurred on 27.07.2014 itself some time about 11.00 P.M. or earlier. 16. From the evidence of P.W.-3, I find that on 27.07.2014 after receiving information about the fact that this appellant was assaulting the deceased, he went to the house of the deceased and tried to reason with this appellant. He requested him to keep her sister properly and in the evening at about 05.00, he returned. As per P.W.-9, the deceased was murdered on 27.07.2014 at 11.00 P.M. There is neither any evidence to suggest that the appellant was present there, nor there is any evidence that after P.W.-3 left the matrimonial house of the appellant, this appellant left the house and gone somewhere. In absence of the aforesaid evidence a strong presumption arise that the appellant was present in the house with the deceased. The time when the P.W.-3 had left the house of this appellant and the time of death which is about 11.00 P.M. is only less than 06.00 hours. The Doctor had stated that the deceased died between 12-24 hours from the time of conducting the postmortem. Thus, this time also matches with the actual time of death, which has been informed by P.W.-9. 17. D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 had stated that in the morning they saw the cattle was not removed, they entered the house after breaking open the door and found the deceased lying dead. This evidence of the defence witness cannot be believed as the I.O. had not stated that he has found the door to be broken. They have further stated that the informant has taken money from this appellant, which had not been returned thus, he has been falsely implicated in this case. This is bereft of any evidence. In cross-examination, D.W.-2 stated that he had not seen any blood either from the nose and mouth of the deceased, but this fact is totally demolished by the medical evidence. Further the defence had tried to project that the deceased died because of epileptic fits. This is bereft of any evidence. In cross-examination, D.W.-2 stated that he had not seen any blood either from the nose and mouth of the deceased, but this fact is totally demolished by the medical evidence. Further the defence had tried to project that the deceased died because of epileptic fits. This is also totally demolished by the evidence of the Doctor. False plea of alibi is also one of the circumstances which will strongly go against the appellant. All these evidences clearly suggest that there was strong motive of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. The deceased was being tortured and assaulted often and just when the informant left the house of the appellant after making him understand not to assault the deceased, the death occurred soon thereafter. Investigating Officer also stated that during investigating he had got information about the assault by the witnesses. 18. The prosecution has also been able to prove that the appellant was arrested from the house itself which is apparent from the statement made in paragraph 11 of the Investigating Officer. He stated that he arrested the appellant from his house. The arrest memo is Exhibit-5. In column- 2, it has also been mentioned that this appellant has been arrested from his house. This also proves the presence of this appellant at the place of occurrence. The appellant has not denied that he was not present. All these evidences unequivocally point towards the guilt of the appellant that he has committed the murder. I find that prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of this appellant and all the circumstances are against him. The chain is also complete. In the scenario when the murder has been committed within the corner of four wall of the house of this appellant, in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act it is for the appellant to explain the cause of death of the deceased. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANEES VS STATE GOVT. OF NCT, reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 757 has held that the Section 106 of the Evidence Act can only be applied when the prosecution has prima facie able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANEES VS STATE GOVT. OF NCT, reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 757 has held that the Section 106 of the Evidence Act can only be applied when the prosecution has prima facie able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, since I have already held that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant, section 106 of the Evidence Act is attracted. In this case, I find that the appellant has totally failed to explain the cause of death rather has given a misleading and false plea that the deceased died due to epileptic fits, which I have already brushed aside, in view of the medical evidence. 20. Thus, from what has been held above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant. 21. Accordingly, the instant criminal application stands dismissed. 22. The judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No.331 of 2014 needs no interference, thus, is affirmed. 23. Interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of. 24. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.-I agree