1 2026:CGHC:20396-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1165 of 2021 1 - Omprakash Deshmukh S/o Late Mohan Lal Deshmukh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Gormarra, Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chunni Bai Deshmukh W/o Late Mohan Lal Deshmukh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Gormarra, Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Suregaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 01/05/2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.05 11:49:23 +0530 2 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 39/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 302/34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 201/34 IPC, with default stipulation of further simple imprisonment of 30 days each for non-payment of fine, and it has been further directed that all sentences shall run concurrently. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, as per the prosecution story, on 09.05.2019 at about 10:50 AM, the appellant Omprakash Deshmukh gave information to Police Station Suregaon, District Balod (C.G.) that on the intervening night of 08/09.05.2019, he along with his family members including his mother Chunni Bai Deshmukh and father Mohanlal Deshmukh had gone to the house of one Manthir Lal Deshmukh for dinner and thereafter returned to their house and slept in their respective rooms. It is further stated that in the early morning at about 05:00 AM, when Chunni Bai tried to wake up her husband Mohanlal Deshmukh, he did not respond, upon which the appellant was informed and thereafter other family members and villagers were called, who suspected that Mohanlal Deshmukh had died. On the basis of said information, merg intimation was recorded as Merg No. 10/2019 3 and thereafter FIR was registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. Inquest report of the dead body of the deceased Mohanlal Deshmukh was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem was conducted by the concerned medical officer, who opined the cause of death to be homicidal in nature. 3 During investigation, the investigating officer reached the spot and prepared the spot map Ex.P/1. Blood-stained and plain floor pieces along with a blood-stained bedsheet were seized from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded. The appellants were arrested and their memorandum statements Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 were recorded. On the basis of disclosure statements, articles allegedly used in the commission of offence and for wiping blood were seized at the instance of the accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination and as per the FSL report, presence of human blood was found on the seized articles. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC. 4 Since the offences were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Balod, from where it was made over to the learned trial Court for its adjudication and trial in accordance with law. 4 5 The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 6 In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The accused persons further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present offence and have not committed any crime as alleged by the prosecution. 7 After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants before this Court. 8 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which 5 render the entire prosecution case doubtful and cannot form the basis for conviction of the appellants for the alleged offences. It is further submitted that at the time of incident, the appellants were not present in the house and had been falsely implicated in the case. The case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence and the complete chain of circumstances has not been established. There is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the appellants as the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove their presence in the house at the relevant time. The learned counsel further submits that the FSL report is not conclusive in nature as there is no matching of blood group between the seized articles and the blood allegedly found at the spot as well as on the alleged articles of the appellants. Therefore, it is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain the conviction and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there is ample evidence available on record to sustain the conviction of the appellants for the alleged offences. It is submitted that minor omissions or contradictions in the statements of witnesses are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case, and the evidence of the material witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. It is further submitted that it is 6 not in dispute that the deceased was the father of accused Omprakash and husband of accused Chunni Bai, and from the spot map as well as other evidence, it has been clearly established that the dead body of the deceased was found within the premises of the house of the accused persons. It is also submitted that several injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which are consistent with homicidal death by strangulation, as opined by the medical officer. The prosecution further submits that human blood was found on the seized articles including the cloth (lungi/underwear) and other items recovered at the instance of the accused persons, and there is no satisfactory explanation in their statements under Section 313 CrPC regarding the same. 10 It is further submitted that the accused persons took the plea of alibi, stating that they were not present in the house at the time of incident; however, they have failed to prove the same by leading any cogent evidence or examining any witness in support of their defence. From the evidence of PW-1 (wife of accused Omprakash), PW-3, PW-4 and other witnesses, it clearly emerges that the deceased and the accused persons were residing together in the same house and were present in the house during the relevant time. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased occurred inside the house during the night, and the accused persons have failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how and in what manner the incident occurred in their exclusive 7 knowledge. Therefore, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act squarely applies against the accused persons. It is thus submitted that there is overwhelming evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty of the offences alleged. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference, and therefore the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 12 In the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra' (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence, which states as under :- "(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not "may be" established; (2) the facts so established should 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; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 8 (5) 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” 13 The first question for consideration would be the nature of death of the deceased as to whether he died due to homicidal death or not? 14 PW-2, Devprakash Devdas, who was the Kotwar of the village, has stated in his evidence that when he received information about the death of the deceased Mohanlal, he went to his house and saw his dead body lying in the verandah of his house. He saw injuries on his body and then informed the police about the incident, thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The other witness, Kalyan Singh Deshmukh (PW-3), who is a witness of inquest Ex. P/17, has stated in his evidence that when he received information about the incident and went to the house of the deceased, he saw the dead body on which a ligature mark was visible on the neck. 15 PW-7, Dularuram Bhandekar, is also a witness to the inquest Ex. P/17 and has stated that when he saw the dead body of the deceased, blood was oozing from his mouth and had spread on the floor. The homicidal death of the deceased Mohanlal has further been proved by Dr. N.S. Bhandari (PW-6), who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body and gave his report Ex. P/19. While conducting the post-mortem, the doctor noticed multiple small abrasions over the front of the neck (12 in number, 9 crescentic in shape), two abrasions on the upper part of the chest (crescentic in shape), two abrasions on the chin (crescentic in shape), hematoma present in the underlying muscles of the neck, rupture, and abrasions on the right knee (8 in number), and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia, which might have been due to throttling, and that it was homicidal in nature. In the query Ex. P/20, he opined that the throttling could have been caused by the seized lungi. In his cross-examination, the defence tried to establish the fact that the deceased died by committing suicide and, in that process, he fell down on the floor and the asphyxia might have been caused thereby. But the doctor denied that during the attempt of committing suicide, the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused. The defence could not extract that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but due to some other reason. The defence has also tried to bring forth the fact that the deceased was an unknown patient of epilepsy, by which the injuries may have been caused on his body during an epileptic attack, but they could not succeed in establishing the said fact or even create probable suspicion regarding the homicidal death of the deceased, and thus the prosecution has duly proved that the deceased died a homicidal death. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Those circumstances are that the deceased and the appellants were 10 residing in the same house, the death of the deceased occurred in the night inside the house, and the conduct of the appellants is suspicious as they have failed to explain how the deceased died a homicidal death. Further, the broken piece of bangle of appellant No. 2 matched with the bangle worn by appellant No. 2. Further circumstances are the FSL reports Ex. P/55 and Ex. P/57. 16 PW-1, Smt. Indubai Deshmukh, is the wife of appellant No. 1, Omprakash, and the daughter-in-law of appellant No. 2, Chunni Bai Deshmukh. She stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident, she, her husband, her mother-in-law, and her father-in- law had gone to the house of one Manthir. At about 9:30 at night, she, her husband, and her mother-in-law came back, and her father-in-law stayed there. In the morning, her mother-in-law informed her that her father-in-law was not responding. When they went to his room, they saw that the deceased was lying on the floor and a ligature of a lungi was tied around his neck. When he was not responding, they took him to the veranda. Thereafter, the Kotwar and other villagers came, and the police were informed. This witness was thereafter declared hostile, and she denied the incident. In cross-examination, she admitted that her father-in-law used to consume liquor. She also admitted that since her father-in-law had not returned from the house of Manthir, the main door of the house remained open. She did not know as to when her father-in-law returned. She further admitted that in the morning, her mother-in-law had seen that the deceased was not 11 responding and was lying on the floor. When they entered his room, she saw that the lungi was tied to the leg of the cot and also around the neck of her father-in-law. When the deceased was not responding, they called the persons from the vicinity. 17 From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that the deceased was in the house on the night of the incident, and his dead body was seen by appellant No. 2, who then called the persons from the vicinity, including PW-1. It transpires from the evidence of PW- 1 that, though she had seen the incident of marpeet with the deceased, she turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. However, the presence of the deceased and the appellants in the same house during the night could not be rebutted by the defence. Being the wife of appellant No. 1, Om Prakash, she may not have supported the actual incident of assault, however, from her evidence, it has been proved that on the date of the incident, the family members of the deceased were in the same house, where the deceased was found dead in an injured condition in the morning. 18 PW-2 Devprakash Devda is the Kotwar of the village. He also went to the spot after receiving information about the incident. He saw injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Appellant No. 1, Om Prakash, did not disclose anything as to how his father had died or when he had returned from the house of Manthir. On seeing the condition of the dead body and on suspicion, it was decided to inform the police, and accordingly, the police were 12 informed. He is a witness to the inquest (Ex. P/17), spot map (Ex. P/1), memorandum of the accused persons (Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3), and seizure memos (Ex. P/4 to Ex. P/8). This witness was also declared hostile and did not support the further case of the prosecution, and he denied the seizure of articles from the accused persons. In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor and also had a tendency to commit suicide. Though this witness gave information to the police and saw injuries on the dead body of the deceased, he denied the material evidence regarding the memorandum and seizure from the accused persons; therefore, the subsequent part of his evidence does not carry much significance. 19 PW-3, Kalyan Singh Deshmukh, is another villager. He also reached the spot after receiving information and saw the dead body of the deceased, which had a ligature mark around the neck. Thereafter, he returned to his work. He is also a witness to the memorandum and seizure made from the accused persons, however, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He also admitted that the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor and had a tendency to commit suicide. Thus, since this witness has also turned hostile, not much support can be drawn for the prosecution case from his evidence. 20 PW-4, Lokeshwar Kumar Deshmukh, is the uncle of appellant Om Prakash, the brother-in-law of appellant No. 2, Chunni Bai, and the real brother of the deceased Mohanlal. He stated in his 13 evidence that upon receiving information about the incident, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body. Thereafter, he became busy informing his relatives. He is a witness to the inquest (Ex. P/17) and seizure memo (Ex. P/6). Thereafter, he was also declared hostile, however, after being declared hostile, he admitted that the police had seized a piece of flooring from the house of the deceased having bloodstains on it. Thus, he has not fully supported the prosecution case. In cross- examination, he admitted that there had been a partition among the family members about 10 - 5 years ago and they were residing separately. He further admitted that in the house of the deceased Mohanlal, his wife Chunni Bai, his son Om Prakash, and his daughter-in-law Indu were residing. All of them used to go to work at 6:00 a.m. daily and return at about 4:00 p.m. After work, the deceased Mohanlal used to consume liquor. He further stated that, considering the injuries on the body and his tendency to commit suicide, they decided to lodge the report and did so. He also admitted that at the time when the police personnel were investigating the case, the appellants Om Prakash and Chunni Bai were present in the house. 21 PW-5, Smt. Rameshwari Deshmukh, who is the real sister of the deceased Mohanlal, has stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident she had already proceeded to her work at Abis Dairy. On the way, she received information about the death of her brother and then returned midway. When she reached his house, 14 she saw the dead body of her brother Mohanlal, with numerous injuries on his neck and other parts of the body. When she suspected the cause of his death and made inquiries, appellant Chunni Bai replied that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor. When the police arrived and got the body turned, blood was found to have oozed out. When the police inquired from appellant Chunni Bai, she admitted that she had committed the murder of her husband by throttling him. She also disclosed that the blood which had oozed out was wiped with an underwear, and that the said underwear had been thrown onto the roof tiles. On the instance of Chunni Bai, the police seized the said underwear and also seized the clothes of the deceased. There used to be frequent quarrels between Chunni Bai and Mohanlal, and earlier Chunni Bai used to reside at her parental house. The lungi was also seized from appellant Chunni Bai. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had also claimed partition from Om Prakash after the death of their father. She further admitted that she did not visit the house of Om Prakash due to the behaviour of appellant Chunni Bai. She stated that the police inquired from appellant Chunni Bai in the presence of other family members and villagers. She denied the suggestion that since Om Prakash had not given her partition, she had falsely implicated him. In cross-examination, she supported the prosecution case regarding the inquiry conducted by the police and the interrogation of accused Chunni Bai. 15 22 From the evidence of this witness, it further transpires that when she reached the spot and saw the dead body in an injured condition, she raised suspicion. Appellant Chunni Bai tried to explain that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor. However, if the death had occurred due to consumption of liquor, the presence of injuries on his body remains unexplained, which amounts to giving a false explanation and concealing the actual cause of death. 23 PW-7, Dularuram Bhandekar, is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He received the merg intimation at Police Station Suregaon and prepared the inquest of the dead body (Ex. P/17). He sent the dead body for post-mortem and seized the blood- stained floor tile and bedsheet vide seizure memo (Ex. P/16). He also registered the FIR (Ex. P/30). Being a procedural witness, he supported the documents prepared by him during the investigation. PW-8, Satyendra Kumar Thakur, is the Patwari who prepared the spot map (Ex. P/13) and proved the same. 24 PW-9, Khemlal Gautam, is a villager who also reached the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. He also saw marks on the neck of the deceased, and they informed the police. He is also a witness to the inquest (Ex. P/17). 25 PW-10, Loknath Yadav, is the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Investigating Officer. He stated in his evidence that he prepared the spot map (Ex. P/1) and recorded the memorandum statements of the accused (Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3). Based on the 16 memorandum statements of the accused persons, he seized one blood-stained underwear from appellant Chunni Bai, 11 pieces of broken bangles, and two pieces of dark maroon colour from the spot, which were kept at a place made of soil (earthen place) in order to conceal the evidence, vide seizure memos Ex. P/5 and Ex. P/7. 26 On the memorandum statement of accused Om Prakash, he seized a lungi vide seizure memo (Ex. P/8). Two bangles worn by appellant Chunni Bai were also seized from her in order to match them with the broken pieces of bangles, which she produced before the police. He arrested the accused persons. In cross- examination, the defence tried to extract discrepancies in the investigation conducted by him, but he remained firm and supported the proceedings conducted by him during the investigation. 27 PW-11, Loknath Yadav, is the Station House Officer of Police Station Suregaon, who conducted part of the investigation. He stated in his evidence that he sent the seized articles to the doctor for query reports, and the doctor furnished the query reports (Ex. P/20 to Ex. P/25). He issued notices to the witnesses for recording their statements and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also sent the seized articles for chemical examination to the State FSL, Raipur, from where report Ex. P/55 was received. Another FSL report (Ex. P/57) was also received 17 from FSL, Raipur. He remained firm in respect of the part of the investigation conducted by him. 28 In the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under: “23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances.” 29 In the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) Live Law (SC) 861 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 33 and 34 has held as under: “33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: "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. Illustration (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre- eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to 18 meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience.” 30 A false unsubstantiated defence of alibi is an additional incriminating factor against the appellant. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681, it was observed as follows :- “22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed 19 suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by thewife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” 31 From the evidence of all these witnesses, it has come out that on the date of the incident, the deceased and the accused persons were in the same house. They were residing together, and in the morning, appellant Chunni Bai informed PW-1, Indu Bai, that the deceased was not responding. When PW-5, the sister of the deceased, inquired, the appellant replied that the deceased had died due to consumption of liquor. It has been proved from the evidence of all the witnesses that when they visited the house, they saw injuries on the dead body, particularly on the neck. The doctor also found neck injuries and opined that the death was due to asphyxia, possibly caused by throttling, and that the death was homicidal in nature. Since the accused persons and the deceased 20 were present in the same house at the relevant time, particularly during the night, and in the morning the dead body was found in an injured condition, the burden shifts upon the accused persons to explain how the deceased sustained such injuries inside the house. In the present case, the accused persons have failed to explain the injuries found on the body of the deceased. Their defence that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy and had a tendency to commit suicide, and that he died in such an attempt, has not been substantiated so as to create any reasonable doubt regarding the cause of death under the facts and circumstances of the case. 32 It further transpires that the accused persons tried to conceal the offence by wiping bloodstains from the floor tiles and removing incriminating material, which was later seized by the police. As per the FSL report (Ex. P/55), blood was found on the bedsheet (Article B), the underwear seized at the instance of appellant Chunni Bai from the roof tiles (Article E), and the lungi seized from appellant Om Prakash. Human blood was detected on the said underwear. Another piece of evidence is the FSL report (Ex. P/57), wherein the broken pieces of bangles seized at the instance of appellant Chunni Bai from an earthen place were sent along with the bangles worn by her for examination, and it was found that both matched in physical characteristics and were of the same set. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons failed to explain the incriminating circumstances 21 appearing against them and simply denied the allegations. When they were present with the deceased in the house during the night and, in the next morning, the deceased was found dead in an injured condition, and bloodstained articles were recovered at their instance, the circumstances clearly point towards their involvement. Their explanation that the deceased died due to consumption of liquor is found to be false, as no liquor was detected in the stomach of the deceased during post-mortem. This false explanation constitutes an additional circumstance pointing towards their guilt. 33 Another defence taken by the accused persons is that, during the night, the door was open and anyone could have entered the house and committed the murder. This is an inconsistent defence, and no evidence has been led by them in support of this contention. 34 In view of the aforesaid considerations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants, namely that they committed the murder of the deceased Mohanlal and attempted to cause the disappearance of evidence of the offence. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the said offences. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 22 35 Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants fails and hereby dismissed. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 10.05.2019. They shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 36 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 37 The records of the case along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok