JUDGMENT : (K.Suresh Reddy, J.) Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He was tried by the trial Court under the following three charges : I charge was under Section 498-A IPC; II charge was under Section 302 IPC; and III charge was under Section 201 IPC 2. Substance of the charges is that the accused used to harass and ill-treat his wife by name Smt. V.Deepa (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by demanding her to get additional dowry from her parents and on 27-07-2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the accused quarrelled with the deceased, beat her with hands, put a towel on her mouth and nose forcibly and pressed her nose and mouth and he tied the same towel around her neck, pulled forcibly and caused her death and in the same process, he poured kerosene on the body and set fire with a matchstick to screen away the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court by judgment dated 06-02-2017 convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court also convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court acquitted the appellant-accused of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused is none other than husband of the deceased. P.W.1 is father and P.W.2 is elder brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased were residing and P.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased. Marriage of the deceased and the accused was performed about 13 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two children. P.W.3 is owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased were residing and P.Ws.4 and 5 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased. Marriage of the deceased and the accused was performed about 13 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two children. After marriage, the accused worked in TVS Company at Hosur, Tamil Nadu State, for a period of five years and thereafter shifted to Chennai. Again, the accused shifted his residence to Renigunta. The accused used to work in a private company near Renigunta and the deceased was working in a battery manufacturing company. As both the accused and the deceased were working, P.W.1 along with his wife used to take care of the children and joined them in a school nearby their village in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu State. The accused and the deceased led happy marital life while they were residing at Hosur Town. After shifting their residence to Chennai, the accused addicted to consume liquor and used to quarrel with the deceased. The accused continued the said quarrel even after shifting their residence to Renigunta. Two days prior to the date of incident, the deceased over phone informed P.W.1 that the accused was harassing her suspecting her fidelity. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with his wife went to Renigunta on the early hours of 27-07-2014 and advised the accused to live happily with the deceased and left Renigunta by train at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day. When P.W.1 reached Chittoor at about 4 p.m., he was informed over phone that his daughter was burnt and smoke was coming out from the house. Immediately, P.W.1 returned and reached Renigunta at about 8 p.m. When P.W.1 entered into the house, he observed that the deceased was completely burnt except her left leg and her body was lying on a cot. Then, P.W.1 went to Renigunta Urban Police Station and lodged a report-Ex.P1 to police. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., P.W.11-the then Inspector of Police, Renigunta, received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No. 129 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P11. P.W.11 sent Ex.P11 to P.W.9-Village Revenue Officer, Cluster-III, Renigunta Town. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., P.W.11-the then Inspector of Police, Renigunta, received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No. 129 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P11. P.W.11 sent Ex.P11 to P.W.9-Village Revenue Officer, Cluster-III, Renigunta Town. P.W.9 received Ex.P11 sent by P.W.11 at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.9 visited the scene of offence along with one K.Subramanyam, Village Revenue Officer, Cluster-I, Renigunta Town-L.W.17. P.W.11 prepared Ex.P4-observation report in the presence of P.W.9 and another. P.W.11 also prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch and seized M.Os.1 to 6 at the scene of offence. P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P3. P.W.11 recorded statements of witnesses at the inquest and sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.10-Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 could not give his opinion as to the cause of death.P.W.10 specifically stated that the burns are post mortem in nature and involving entire body except soles. Preliminary post mortem report was marked as Ex.P7 and final opinion was marked as Ex.P9. F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P8. On 12-08-2014 at about 8 a.m., the accused approached P.W.6-Village Revenue Officer, Cluster-II, Renigunta, and made extra judicial confession admitting that he killed his wife. P.W.6 prepared his report-Ex.P2 and produced the accused before P.W.11. When P.W.11 questioned the accused, the latter confessed the commission of offence. Admissible portion of confession of the accused was marked as Ex.P5. On the confession made by the accused, P.W.11 recovered M.O.8-towel under Ex.P6-panchanama. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. P.W.11 sent material objects to R.F.S.L., Tirupati, under Ex.P14-requisition. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P8. On 13-08-2014, P.W.11 visited Fire Services Office, Tirupati, and recorded statement of P.W.7-the then Fireman, Fire Station, Tirupati, and others. After receipt of post mortem certificate and R.F.S.L. Report, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 7. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused as afore-stated. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 is none other than father of the deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that two days prior to the date of incident, having received a phone call from the deceased, he along with his wife came down to Renigunta on the early hours of 27-07-2014 and advised the accused to live happily with the deceased; that thereafter, at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day, he along with his wife left Renigunta by train and at about 4 p.m., he was informed over phone by some unknown person that the deceased was burnt and smoke was coming out from the house; that immediately, he along with his wife returned and reached Renigunta at about 8 p.m. and found the deceased completely burnt except her legs and the deceased was lying on a cot and that immediately, he went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. 10. P.W.2, who is none other than brother of the deceased, stated in his evidence about the harassment made by the accused towards the deceased. Having received information from P.W.1 over phone, he reached Renigunta at about 1 a.m. on the intervening night of 27/28-07-2014 and by that time, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Tirupati. 11. P.W.3 is none other than owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased were residing as tenants. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he came to know about the incident through parents of the deceased. Of course, P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. 12. P.Ws.4 and 5 are none other than neighbours of the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.4 and 5 in their evidence stated that they found the accused and the deceased quarrelling frequently. Of course, P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. 12. P.Ws.4 and 5 are none other than neighbours of the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.4 and 5 in their evidence stated that they found the accused and the deceased quarrelling frequently. They categorically stated that P.W.1 and his wife visited the house of the accused on 27-07-2014 and that on the night of 27-07-2014, both of them found P.W.1 and his wife at the house of the accused. 13. P.W.6 is Village Revenue Officer before whom the accused said to have confessed about commission of offence. P.W.7-Fireman, Fire Station, Tirupati, stated that on 27-07-2014 having received message from Fire Officer, he went to Rajeswari Nagar Area, Renigunta, and extinguished fire and that he also found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 is panch witness for Ex.P3-inquest report. P.W.9 is panch witness for Ex.P4-observation report. P.W.12 is Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.11 is Investigating Officer. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused strenuously contends that absolutely there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the prosecution could not able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel also contends that on the date of incident, parents of the deceased had been to the house of the accused and the deceased and stayed there for some time and it would thus show that relations between the deceased and the accused were cordial and there is nothing to show that relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained in any manner and as such, important link to complete chain of circumstances is totally absent; that when chain is not complete, failure of accused to discharge burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 1872 Act'), is not relevant and that only on the basis of post mortem report, accused could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and consequently under Section 201 IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar , [ (2021) 10 SCC 725 ] and Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra , [ (2021) 5 SCC 626 ]. 15. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar , [ (2021) 10 SCC 725 ] and Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra , [ (2021) 5 SCC 626 ]. 15. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the accused and the deceased. P.W.1 is none other than father of the deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically stated that two days prior to the date of incident, he was informed by the deceased over phone about the harassment and ill-treatment of the accused suspecting her fidelity; that having received the said call, P.W.1 along with his wife visited Renigunta on the early hours of 27-07-2014; that P.W.1 and his wife advised the accused to live happily with the deceased and left Renigunta by train at about 2.30 p.m. on 27-07-2014; that at about 4 p.m. on the same day, he was informed over phone by some unknown person that the deceased was burnt and smoke was coming out from the house; that immediately, he along with his wife returned and reached Renigunta at about 8 p.m. and found the deceased completely burnt except her legs and the deceased was lying on a cot and that thereafter, he went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 expressed his suspicion that the deceased committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment of the accused. Further, the accused absconded from the scene of offence. Even in Ex.P3- inquest report, it is indicated that the deceased committed suicide being unable to bear the harassment from the accused. It is only after receipt of Ex.P7-preliminary post mortem report and Ex.P9-final opinion, Section of law was altered to Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P12. 16. Admittedly, according to the case of prosecution, the accused and the deceased alone were residing in the said house. Except both of them, no other person was present in the house. As such, it is for the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. In the case on hand, the accused failed to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Act. As such, it is for the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. In the case on hand, the accused failed to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Act. Apart from not offering explanation as required under Section 106 of the 1872 Act, the accused gave false information that the deceased committed suicide. Further, P.W.10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the burns on the entire body are post mortem in nature, of course he could not give his opinion with regard to cause of death as the entire body was burnt. If really the deceased committed suicide, the burns received by her cannot be stated to be post mortem burns. 17. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are neighbours, in their evidence categorically stated that on 27-07-2014 at about 2 or 2.30 p.m., they heard cries of a female from the house of the accused and that having heard the cries, they came out and noticed smoke coming out from the house of the accused. They further stated that immediately, one fire engine came and extinguished fire and that at that time, they saw the accused coming out from the house and running into street. They also stated that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the accused addicted to consume liquor and used to quarrel with the deceased suspecting her fidelity. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would show that relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained. Apart from not offering a proper reasonable explanation by the accused, his conduct in absconding from the scene of offence after the incident lends support to the case of prosecution. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused are distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, apart from not offering explanation, the accused gave false explanation that the deceased committed suicide and absconded from the scene of offence. 19. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment under appeal needs no interference of this Court. 20. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 06-02-2017 in S.C.No. 305 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.