JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 27.01.2016 in S.C.No.92 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was performed six years ago from the date of the incident i.e., 01.10.2013. They were blessed with a male child. He was aged four (4) years as on the date of the incident. The appellant developed illicit relationship with one Geetha and started harassing the deceased, both physically and mentally to keep the said Geetha in his house. It is also the specific case of the prosecution that due to intolerable and constant harassment of the appellant, the deceased allowed the said Geetha into their house and lived together for a period of 9 months. A month back to the incident, appellant beat the said Geetha too, thereby she left the company of the appellant. Since then the appellant ill-treated the deceased and committed murder of the deceased to get back the said Geetha to his house. 5. To prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined senior paternal uncle of the deceased as P.W.1, his wife as P.W.2, P.Ws.3 to 9 are neighbors/villagers, P.W.10, elder, with whom the deceased informed the harassment and beating over phone etc. P.Ws.11 and 12 are panch witnesses for confession and seizure, P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.14, Tahsildar, Ellanthakunta Mandal, who acted as panch witness for recovery, P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ellanthakunta Police Station, who received complaint from P.W.1 and registered Ex.P8/First Information Report, P.Ws.16 and 17 are the Investigating Officers. The prosecution also marked Exs.P1 to P9 documents. They have exhibited MOs.1 to 10 including MO.10/one knife with blood stains and M.O.9/Bamboo stick with blood stains. 6. P.Ws.2 to 9, in one voice deposed that the appellant developed illicit relationship with one Geetha and killed his wife. P.W.3 specifically deposed that he got personal knowledge that the appellant developed illicit relationship with Geetha. They have exhibited MOs.1 to 10 including MO.10/one knife with blood stains and M.O.9/Bamboo stick with blood stains. 6. P.Ws.2 to 9, in one voice deposed that the appellant developed illicit relationship with one Geetha and killed his wife. P.W.3 specifically deposed that he got personal knowledge that the appellant developed illicit relationship with Geetha. He was in the habit of beating his wife-Padma. Appellant lived with Geetha and deceased-Padma in his house for five or six months. Geetha left the house of the appellant for her parents’ house. The appellant harassed the deceased insisting her to get back Geetha to his house. 7. P.W.3 further deposed that on 01.10.2013 at 8.00 p.m, when he was at his agricultural fields, he heard cries of deceased-Padma from the house of the appellant. He came near the house of the appellant and found several people gathered near the house of the appellant. The people gathered near the house of the appellant were not daring enough to enter into the house. He and P.W.4 entered into the house of the appellant and found the appellant holding a knife in one hand and a stick in another hand. He also found the deceased-Padma lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. He tried to know whether Padma was alive or not and he found that she was no more. Appellant caused injuries to the deceased to his knowledge as there was no other person at the house when he found the appellant and the deceased at the house. Appellant ran away from that place. Even then, nothing useful was elicited from him during his cross-examination, except suggesting to him that due to political rivalry and land disputes, he was implicated in a false case. 8. P.W.4, neighbor of the appellant and the deceased, deposed that he knew the appellant and the deceased. He deposed that about two years ago, at about 8.00 p.m, while she was going towards his agricultural fields located near S.C colony, Ananthagiri village, he found several people gathered near the house of the appellant. The persons gathered at a distance of 150 yards from the house of the appellant. The persons gathered near the house of the appellant informed him that they heard the cries of deceased Padma from the house of the appellant. He found the dead body of Padma lying on the ground. The persons gathered at a distance of 150 yards from the house of the appellant. The persons gathered near the house of the appellant informed him that they heard the cries of deceased Padma from the house of the appellant. He found the dead body of Padma lying on the ground. The appellant was present there holding a knife and a stick in his hands. When he questioned the appellant as to what happened there, the appellant stated that nothing has happened and that the deceased was sleeping. The persons gathered near the house of the appellant also entered the house of the appellant after he and P.W.3 entered into the house and when they all raised cries as to the blood found near the dead body of the deceased, the appellant ran away from that place. 9. P.W.5, neighbor of the appellant and the deceased deposed that the appellant developed an illicit intimacy with one Geetha of Repaka village. The appellant and Geetha lived together at the house of the appellant for seven months along with the deceased. Geetha left the company of the appellant because of some disputes with the appellant. The appellant requested the deceased Padma to get back Geetha to his house. The deceased tried to get back Geetha to the house of the appellant, but Geetha did not agree, as such, there were disputes between the appellant and the deceased. 10. P.W.5 further deposed that about two years ago at about 7.00 or 8.00 p.m, he heard cries of Padma from the house of the appellant. He went to the house of the appellant. By then, P.Ws.3, 4 and several others were present. P.Ws.3 & 4 went inside the house and peeped through the door and found Padma lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. The appellant was also found there holding a knife and a stick in his hands. The appellant left the said place. 11. P.W.6, neighbor of the appellant and the deceased, deposed that the house of the appellant is situated nearby his house. About two years ago, on one day at about 8 or 8.30 p.m, he was proceeding to his house, which is vacant, he found the appellant coming towards him holding a knife and a stick in his hands and his clothes are blood stained. About two years ago, on one day at about 8 or 8.30 p.m, he was proceeding to his house, which is vacant, he found the appellant coming towards him holding a knife and a stick in his hands and his clothes are blood stained. He questioned the appellant as to how he sustained blood stains on his clothes, for which, the appellant replied that he quarreled with his wife-Padma and beat her and killed her. The appellant further revealed that the deceased Padma was not obliging him in getting back Geetha to his village. Geetha lived with the appellant for six months in the house of the appellant. The appellant revealed that Geetha would come to him only on doing away with the life of the deceased. The appellant ran away from that place. He immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased at the house of the appellant. P.Ws.3 & 4 and several others gathered at the house of the appellant. He informed about the incident to P.W.1. 12. The appellant cross-examined PWs.4, 5 and 6 at length, but nothing useful was elicited from them. 13. P.W.7, relative of P.W.1 also deposed in the same lines as that of PW.6. 14. During cross-examination, P.W.7 categorically admitted that he knew about the illicit relationship of the appellant with Geetha since almost six months prior to the death of the deceased. He belongs to S.C community and there are 43 houses of S.C community people. P.W.3 was a Ward Member of S.C. community locality. One Galipalli Rajaiah is an elderly person in their community. The appellant also belong to S.C. Community and he did not make any attempt to refer the matter of the appellant having illicit relationship with Geetha before the elders of their community. He further admitted that he has no idea as to what is all happening at the house of the appellant about his personal life. 15. P.W.8, neighbor of the appellant and the deceased, deposed that his house is situated near the house of the appellant. He further deposed that on 01.10.2013 at about 8 or 8.30 p.m, he came out of his house and heard the cries of Padma from the house of the appellant. He went near the house of the appellant. He found the appellant with a knife and stick in his hands. He further deposed that on 01.10.2013 at about 8 or 8.30 p.m, he came out of his house and heard the cries of Padma from the house of the appellant. He went near the house of the appellant. He found the appellant with a knife and stick in his hands. He found Padma lying on the ground in the house of the appellant with bleeding injuries. P.Ws.3 & 4 and several others gathered at the house of the appellant. The appellant on seeing him and others, ran away from that place. The appellant developed an illicit intimacy with one Geetha. Geetha lived with the appellant for six months and left his house and on that the appellant insisted the deceased-Padma to get back Geetha to his house. The appellant killed the deceased-Padma with a view to live with Geetha. 16. Despite cross-examination of PW.8, nothing useful was elicited from him. 17. P.W.9, neighbor of the appellant and the deceased, deposed that on the date of incident at about 8.30 p.m, he heard the cries of the deceased-Padma from the house of the appellant. He came out of his house and found Shivateja (LW.9), son of the appellant and deceased coming to him weeping and complaining that the appellant was beating the deceased. He came to the house of the appellant along with Shivateja and found Padma lying on the ground with injuries all over the body. He also found the appellant holding a stick and knife in his hands. Several persons gathered near the house of the appellant. The appellant ran away from that place. 18. The appellant did not elicit anything useful to him during cross-examination of PW.9. 19. P.W.10, resident of Gundaram Village known to the appellant and deceased, deposed that on 01.10.2013 at 7.00 p.m, he received a phone call to his cell phone from the deceased. The deceased requested him to come to her immediately as the appellant was beating her and that the appellant was armed with a knife at that time and that he would kill her. He also deposed about the illicit relation maintained by the appellant and Geetha, harassment of the deceased by the appellant. 20. The deceased requested him to come to her immediately as the appellant was beating her and that the appellant was armed with a knife at that time and that he would kill her. He also deposed about the illicit relation maintained by the appellant and Geetha, harassment of the deceased by the appellant. 20. P.W.11, resident of the same village and she is panch witness for inquest and crime details form, deposed that about two years back, he along with G.Anjaiah (L.W.19) and K.Balavva (L.W.21) went to the house of the appellant. Police were present at the house of the appellant. Police prepared crime details form and drew rough sketch of the scene of offence in their presence. It is marked as Ex.P3. Police seized blood stained earth, control earth and broken bangle pieces from the scene of offence. She deposed that M.R.O, Ellanthakunta conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased-Padma. She found several stab injuries all over the body of the deceased. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. She further deposed that the police examined the persons gathered there and as per the information revealed by them, the appellant killed the deceased as he developed illicit intimacy with one Geetha. Police seized saree, blouse and petty coat of the deceased at the time of conducting inquest. 21. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: External injuries: 1) Stab injury 3 x 1 x ½ c.m on right parietal scalp, caused by sharp object. 2) Stab injury 2 ½ x ½ x ½ c.m on right parietal occipital scalp, caused by sharp object. 3) Stab injury 1 ½ x 1 x ½ c.m on right lower chest, caused by sharp object. 4) Laceration 3 x 1 x ½ c.m on occipital scalp, caused by blunt object. 5) Contusion 3 x 1 ½ c.m on left temporal region of scalp, caused by blunt object. 6) Incised wound 1 ½ x 1 c.m on left temple region, caused by sharp object. 7) Incised wound ½ x ½ c.m on nose, caused by sharp object. Internal injuries: 1) Haematoma present on right parietal lobe of brain, caused by blunt object. 2) Extradural haemorrhage on left temporo parietal lobe of brain caused by blunt object. 3) Extradural haemorrhage present cerebella part of brain, caused by blunt object. 7) Incised wound ½ x ½ c.m on nose, caused by sharp object. Internal injuries: 1) Haematoma present on right parietal lobe of brain, caused by blunt object. 2) Extradural haemorrhage on left temporo parietal lobe of brain caused by blunt object. 3) Extradural haemorrhage present cerebella part of brain, caused by blunt object. i) According to him, the cause of death is due to “haemorrhage and shock due to multiple head injuries”. He has issued Ex.P9 - Postmortem Examination Report. Even then, the appellant did not cross-examine P.W.13 - the doctor. 22. P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received complaint from P.W.1 and registered Ex.P8 - FIR. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer, who recorded statements of some of the witnesses and P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet after concluding investigation. Even then, nothing useful was elicited from them during cross-examination. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the prosecution did not examine the son of the appellant and the deceased, there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint, P.Ws.3 to 9 stated that their houses are one kilometer away from the house of the appellant, even then, the learned trial Court believed their version. She further submits that the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant before P.W.7 cannot be believed and it is doubtful. P.Ws.3 to 8/villagers/neighbors, are having political rivalry and land disputes with the appellant. The prosecution did not examine the person who informed P.W.1 about the alleged incident. The prosecution also did not examine the said Geetha, who is alleged to have in illegal relationship with the appellant. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed life imprisonment. 24. In paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court gave a specific finding with regard to non-examination of son of the appellant and the deceased. Learned trial Court held that as seen from the docket proceedings, dated 04.11.2015, Shivatheja, son of the appellant and the deceased, who was cited as listed witness No.19, was present in the Court hall, he is aged about six years and he was not in a position to enter the Court hall freely and speak anything and thereby, learned Public Prosecutor gave him up. Therefore, learned trial Court found no weight in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that non- examination of son of the appellant and the deceased in any way does not make the case of the prosecution weak. 25. In the very same paragraph, learned trial Court gave finding with regard to non-examination of the said Geetha and that it is in any way does not make the case of the prosecution weak and to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 26. As discussed supra, the marriage of the deceased and the appellant was performed six years ago prior to the date of the incident i.e., 01.10.2013. They were blessed with a son, who was four years old as on the date of the incident. The appellant maintained an illicit relationship with one Geetha and she has stayed with the appellant in his house for six months. The said illicit relationship created problem and disputes between the appellant and the deceased. To prove the same, the prosecution examined P.Ws.3 to 9/neighbors of the appellant and deceased. 27. To prove the recovery, the prosecution examined P.W.12/Inspector of Police, Siricilla, who recovered MO.10/one knife with blood stains and MO.9/Bamboo stick with blood stains. However, nothing useful was elicited from him during cross- examination. 28. The prosecution also filed Ex.P9 - Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report dated 13.11.2013 29. It is also apt to note that the deceased is the wife of the appellant and the place of incident is the house of the appellant. P.Ws.3 to 9, neighbors of the appellant and the deceased, in one voice deposed that the appellant was holding a knife with blood stains (MO10) and bamboo stick with blood stains (MO9) on his hands on the date of the incident. Even then, the appellant did not explain the same in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 30. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant, it is extracted hereunder: “ 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.” 31. 30. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is relevant, it is extracted hereunder: “ 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.” 31. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh , 2025 SCC Online 390 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the prosecution succeeds in establishing a prima facie case by proving the foundational facts constituting the offence, the burden shifts on to the accused to explain those facts which are especially within his knowledge, particularly events that transpired within the confines of the matrimonial home in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 32. Applying the aforesaid settled principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden by placing on record, cogent and credible material pointing towards the culpability of the appellant. The circumstances surrounding the death, having occurred within the four walls of the marital home, were matters pre-eminently within the special knowledge of the appellant. In such a situation, the failure of the appellant to offer a plausible, satisfactory, or truthful explanation as to what transpired on the date and time of his wife’s death, constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance against the appellant. The presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, though not relieving the prosecution of its primary burden, clearly operates to cast an evidentiary obligation upon the appellant, which, in the present case, remains wholly un- discharged. 33. Though the appellant contended that there is political rivalry and also land disputes between him and P.Ws.3 to 9, he has not elicited the same during cross-examination of P.Ws.3 to 9. There was no suggestion with regard to same to P.Ws.3 to 9 during cross-examination. 34. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant stated that he has not committed the offence and he has land disputes with P.W.3, therefore, P.W.3 implicated him falsely. The said version of the appellant cannot be believed. Admittedly, the appellant was in his house at the time of the incident on 01.10.2013. The police arrested him only on 04.10.2013. Thus, he has absconded for three days. The said version of the appellant cannot be believed. Admittedly, the appellant was in his house at the time of the incident on 01.10.2013. The police arrested him only on 04.10.2013. Thus, he has absconded for three days. If he was implicated in the present case falsely, he has to explain the same and he has to lodge complaint with the police about the death of his wife. However, he has not lodged complaint with the police. Ultimately, P.W.7 informed P.W.1 and on coming to know about the same, P.W.1, senior paternal uncle of the deceased lodged Ex.P1 complaint to the police, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2013 and issued Ex.P8 - FIR. In the light of the same, the appellant cannot contend that there is a delay in lodging complaint, the prosecution did not examine his son and said Geetha and also the person, who informed P.W.1. 35. As discussed supra, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.P1 to P9 and also marked MOs.1 to 10, to prove the guilt of the appellant. 36. P.Ws.3 to 9 in one voice deposed that the appellant maintained an illicit relationship with Geetha, harassed the deceased and killed her. They further deposed that they found the appellant holding MO.10/knife and MO.9/bamboo stick in his house on the date of incident. Even then, there is no explanation from him, regarding what transpired on the day of the incident. 37. Thus, the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed supra, P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found seven external injuries and three internal injuries. Appellant committed murder of the deceased, his wife, to live with said Geetha, with whom he developed an illicit relationship. It is a brutal murder. 38. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned judgment 27.01.2016 in S.C.No.92 of 2014, learned trial Court convicted him and imposed life imprisonment. It is a reasoned judgment and well founded. The appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference with the said judgment. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 39. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.