JUDGMENT : Rajesh Mazumdar, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Sessions Case no. T1/06/2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34, IPC, and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 (six) months. Facts of the case: 3. On 02.10.2018, an FIR had been lodged by the informant informing the Officer-in-charge of Salakati Police Outpost that his wife had informed him over the telephone that a quarrel had started at their rented house amongst the tenants. The informant had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of one of the tenants inside the room. He suspected that the other tenants involved in the quarrel had caused the death of the deceased. The information was thereafter forwarded to the Kokrajhar Police Station, and accordingly, Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 490/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered, and an investigation was undertaken. 4. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the three appellants herein, who were named as the accused, and the case culminated in Sessions Case No. 6/2019 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar and charges were framed on 01.02.2019. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents. On closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC; however, they did not produce any evidence in defence. The point for determination framed by the learned Trial Court was as follows:- “i) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, murdered the deceased Md. Shakil by sharp weapon?” 6 . On closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC; however, they did not produce any evidence in defence. The point for determination framed by the learned Trial Court was as follows:- “i) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, murdered the deceased Md. Shakil by sharp weapon?” 6 . After hearing the arguments made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the accused, who are also the three appellants herein, had committed an offense under Section 302/34 of the IPC, and convicted them as already stated in the foregoing paragraphs. 7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence only. He has submitted that in such circumstances, the prosecution in the present case had failed to prove a complete chain of events and therefore, the findings of the learned Trial Court deserve interference. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution and cannot be subject to probabilities. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the proceedings in the present case fail to satisfy the test of the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence. 8. He has stressed that it is an admitted position that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He has further submitted that the failure to ensure the forensic examination of the alleged weapon used to commit the crime, which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, ought to have been held to be fatal to the prosecution. He has submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed a grave error when it assumed that the version of the prosecution, that the accused had tried to flee the scene of the crime or that they had failed to offer a reasonable explanation, would be proof of guilt of the accused. He has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not consistent with regard to the commission of the crime. By referring to the evidence on record, he has submitted that the same would reveal that the accused and the deceased had a friendly relationship, they all belonged to the same locality and were staying in the same tenanted premises and in fact, the deceased was the brother-in-law of one of the accused. By referring to the evidence on record, he has submitted that the same would reveal that the accused and the deceased had a friendly relationship, they all belonged to the same locality and were staying in the same tenanted premises and in fact, the deceased was the brother-in-law of one of the accused. He has submitted that the prosecution had failed to impute any motive for the crime, and moreover, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove a common intention to commit the crime. He has accordingly prayed for interference with the order of the learned Trial Court and prayed for the acquittal of the accused. 9. He has relied upon the following judgements to substantiate his submissions: 1. S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754 2. Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725 3. Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2017) 11 SCC 31 4. Balwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2005) 11 SCC 245 5. Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam reported in (2019) 13 SCC 289 6. Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 966 7. Satye Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169 10. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP has submitted that there is no quarrel that the conviction in the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. She has submitted that the prosecution in the present case had been able to prove a complete chain of events without any missing links. She has submitted that not sending the recovered weapon for forensic examination is not always fatal to the case projected by the prosecution. She has submitted that the defence had not been able to demolish the prosecution's case that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and that the death of the deceased, by stab injuries, had occurred within such a short time thereafter that the only plausible and reasonable inference that could be drawn was that the accused was liable for the injuries received by the deceased. She has submitted that the evidence, that the accused had tried to flee from the place of occurrence and that they were restrained by the witnesses, could not be rebutted during the trial. She has submitted that the evidence, that the accused had tried to flee from the place of occurrence and that they were restrained by the witnesses, could not be rebutted during the trial. The learned counsel has submitted that the facts which led to the deceased being stabbed could only be in the special knowledge of the accused since they were with him immediately prior to the incident, but the accused had not offered any explanation. She has submitted that motive, if proved will be another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, and the absence of a proved motive cannot be a ground to reject the case of the prosecution. She has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 372 , to buttress her submission. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant records have been perused, and the judgments cited have also received due consideration. 12. PW1 was the nephew of the informant, and he testified that at about 5:30 PM on the day of the incident, his brother (PW14) had called for him to the room of the accused persons, where he saw the dead body. The accused wanted to flee, but he, along with his brother, had apprehended them. 13. PW2 deposed in similar lines when he said that PW14 had called him to his residence, where he saw the dead body of a person on the floor of a room with blood spilled around him. He saw the accused standing outside the room, and the accused wanted to flee, but they apprehended them and informed the police. 14. PW3 stated that he knew the informant and the accused person and that PW14 had informed him that a person had been murdered at the tenanted premises of the informant. He rushed to the place of occurrence and found the body of a dead person. He also found the accused persons at the place of occurrence. 15. PW4 knew the accused persons and stated that they were daily workers of NTPC Salakati, and he was their supervisor. On the day of the occurrence, the accused did not attend their duties at NTPC Salakati. He received a phone call in the evening hours that the accused persons were causing trouble, and he was required to come. 15. PW4 knew the accused persons and stated that they were daily workers of NTPC Salakati, and he was their supervisor. On the day of the occurrence, the accused did not attend their duties at NTPC Salakati. He received a phone call in the evening hours that the accused persons were causing trouble, and he was required to come. When he reached the place of occurrence, he heard that the deceased had expired. He had signed the inquest form where he identified his signature. He had seen injuries on the left side rib of the deceased. In his cross- examination, he stated that there were already 5/6 people present at the place of occurrence and that he did not notice any quarrel or conflict among the accused persons and the deceased. 16. PW5 was the informant in the case. He knew the accused person, and on the day of the occurrence, he had gone to the crematorium. While returning, his wife informed him over the phone that there was trouble going on in the rented accommodation given to the accused persons and the deceased. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of the deceased and immediately informed the in charge of Salakati Police Outpost. He Identified Exhibit - 2 as the FIR, and he identified his signature thereon. He stated that the police had seized a knife from the place of occurrence and that he had signed the seizure list. He identified the knife as material Exhibit 1. He stated that he was not present at the time of the occurrence and that he did not know how the deceased died. He had rented out four rooms to four groups of tenants, one of which was under the occupation of the accused persons and the deceased. He stated that his statement had not been recorded by the police. He confirmed that he affirmed that the knife was seized outside the room rented out to the accused persons and that the body of the deceased was inside the room. 17. PW6 knew the informant of the case, and he also knew the accused. About six months back, he had come to know that there had been a death of a person in the residence of the informant. On going to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of a person. 17. PW6 knew the informant of the case, and he also knew the accused. About six months back, he had come to know that there had been a death of a person in the residence of the informant. On going to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of a person. Later, the police came to the place of occurrence and recovered a knife outside the room. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know who found the knife. 18. PW7 stated similarly as PW6. PW7 stated that he had seen the dead body inside the room, and the police had recovered a knife outside the room where the deceased was lying. The knife was seized in his presence, and he had put his signature on the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he submitted that the accused were present when the knife was recovered, along with other villagers, and he did not know how the deceased died. 19. PW8 stated he knew the accused and the deceased, who was his brother- in-law. The incident occurred in the year 2018. The accused, along with the deceased, had come to Salakati from Begusarai in search of jobs, and all the persons stayed in one room at Salakati. After a few days, he came to know that his brother-in-law had been murdered and the present accused had been arrested. He, along with other family members, came to Salakati, and after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. He did not know under what circumstances his brother-in-law had died. 20. PW9 knew the accused persons and the deceased was his relative. He had come to Salakati along with the accused persons in search of livelihood. The accused and the deceased used to live in one common room, and after a few days, he came to know that the deceased had died. He came to Salakati, and after the postmortem, the police handed over the body of the deceased to them. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was a habituated drinker of alcohol and was in the habit of causing injuries to himself in an inebriated condition. He did not know under what circumstances the deceased had died. 21. PW10 was the mother of one of the accused, who deposed that the accused and the deceased had come to Salakati for jobs. He did not know under what circumstances the deceased had died. 21. PW10 was the mother of one of the accused, who deposed that the accused and the deceased had come to Salakati for jobs. She did not know how the deceased had died. Cross-examination was declined. 22. PW11 was the mother of another accused who stated that the accused and the deceased had come to Salakati for jobs. She didn't know how the deceased had died. Cross examination was declined. 23. PW12 was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He recorded his findings as here under: “Findings :- A stab injury seen over the left side of abdomen of approximate 4" X 1" with herniation of abdomonial fats and oozing of blood (clotted seen). On dissection perforating injury of spleen and intestines seen. There is large collection of intra abdominal seen. OPINION: - In my opinion the cause of death is hypovolaemic shock and hemorrhage caused by a sharp and pointed weapon which is ante- mortem in nature and homicidal and the time since death is 24-30 hours. Exhibit-4 is the Postmortem report and Exhibit-4(1) is my signature.” In his cross examination he stated that he did not measure the depth of the injury and he had not applied any measuring instrument to measure the breadth of the injury. He had not done any specialization course in forensic autopsy and he was an MBBS with diploma in ophthalmology. He denied the suggestion that he was not competent to conduct the postmortem examination. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a Postmortem Examination. 24. PW13 stated that he was entrusted with the remaining half of the investigation, and on finding that the investigation into the case had been completed and having found sufficient materials against the accused, he had submitted the charge sheet against them. He identified the charge sheet and his signature thereon. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded the statement of the witnesses and that he did not visit the place of occurrence, and he also did not prepare the sketch map of the area. 25. PW14 stated that he knew the informant and all the accused persons. He identified the charge sheet and his signature thereon. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded the statement of the witnesses and that he did not visit the place of occurrence, and he also did not prepare the sketch map of the area. 25. PW14 stated that he knew the informant and all the accused persons. He was staying at the rented house of the informant as a tenant and was working under NTPC He stated that all the three accused persons were also working under NTPC and they had been staying in the rented house of the informant. On the day of occurrence he had returned to his room after duty and he saw a quarrel between the three accused persons and the deceased. He had gone to the tubewell to freshen up, and after returning to his room, he saw the deceased lying on the ground near the door inside his rented room. He informed the informant. He then informed the police. The police apprehended all the accused persons and took them to the police station. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police had recorded his statement, but he denied that he had stated before the investigation officer that he saw a quarrel between the three accused and the deceased. He did not see how the deceased died, nor that there was any enmity between the accused and the deceased. He had not seen any incident of dispute or quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The accused and the deceased had been staying along with him in the rented house of the informant for a long time. The deceased had a friendship with the accused persons, and they used to roam together and also had their meals together. 26. PW15 is the wife of the deceased, who did not know much about the incident. She stated she had received information about the death of her husband in the rented house through the police. She stated that one of the accused was her real brother and the other two accused were her neighbors. All three accused persons had a cordial relationship with her husband. She did not know the cause of death of her husband and she did not know how he died. 27. PW16 was the circle officer of Kokrajhar who had conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. All three accused persons had a cordial relationship with her husband. She did not know the cause of death of her husband and she did not know how he died. 27. PW16 was the circle officer of Kokrajhar who had conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. His report was identified by him, and in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not mention the side of the belly where the injury mark was found and that he found only one injury mark on the body of the deceased. 28. PW17 was the Investigation Officer, who stated that he had visited the place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of all the witnesses. At the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body of the deceased in his rented room, lying on the floor. He had sent the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination, and he had also seized a knife from the possession of the accused persons. He had apprehended the accused who were found at the place of occurrence and had taken them to the police station. After interrogation, the accused were formally arrested. On his transfer, he had handed over the case diary to the officer in charge of the police station. During cross-examination, he stated that the informant’s statement recorded by him was not available in the case diary. The GD entry number and the police case number were mentioned in the case diary, and therefore, he had not mentioned the GD entry number or the police case number again in the sheets where he had recorded the statement of the witnesses. In the GD entry, it had been stated that all three accused persons were apprehended by the villagers on suspicion of murder. He affirmed that he had seized the knife on 1/10/2018. In the seizure list, he did not specifically mention the name of the person from whom the knife had been seized. He did not mention the place from where the knife was recovered and seized. He did not send the knife to FSL to ascertain whether it was the weapon of offense, nor did he conduct a fingerprint test to match the fingerprint of the accused with the fingerprint available on the seized knife by the expert. He did not mention the place from where the knife was recovered and seized. He did not send the knife to FSL to ascertain whether it was the weapon of offense, nor did he conduct a fingerprint test to match the fingerprint of the accused with the fingerprint available on the seized knife by the expert. He denied that he had conducted the investigation of the case perfunctorily and unnecessarily involved the accused in the alleged offense. 29. The case of the defense was one of denial. The statement of the accused under section 313 of the CRPC, after closing of prosecution evidence, had been recorded. During the recording of the statements, none of the accused offered any explanation regarding the death of the deceased. They refused to adduce any defense evidence. 30 . We have considered the evidence on record, and we have found that the facts proved beyond reasonable doubt are that the deceased and the accused had come to Salakati in search of earning a living, and they were employed in the NTPC. The accused and the deceased had hired a room in the premises owned by the informant and had been living together. There was no previous enmity or quarrel witnessed between the accused persons and the deceased. On the fateful day, when PW14 had returned from his work, he witnessed a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, and a short while later, when he returned after freshening up, he saw the body of the deceased lying on the floor of the tenanted premises. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicates that the accused persons had tried to abscond from the place of occurrence and were restrained by PW1, PW2 and PW14. The alleged weapon used to commit the offense had been seized from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. The death of the deceased had occurred due to a single stab injury to the left of the ribs. It was a homicidal death. Since none of the witnesses had witnessed the actual incident leading to the death of the deceased, the prosecution had built up the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The death of the deceased had occurred due to a single stab injury to the left of the ribs. It was a homicidal death. Since none of the witnesses had witnessed the actual incident leading to the death of the deceased, the prosecution had built up the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had been successful in bringing home the facts that the accused and the deceased persons were well known to each other, were living in the same tenanted room, that the accused had not attended office on the fateful day, that the accused were the only person who were last seen with the deceased before he met his untimely death, and that the death of the accused was homicidal in nature. 31. It has come in evidence that there was no witness to any previous enmity or quarrel between the accused and the deceased persons. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would only be the accused persons who could inform the Court as to what had happened to the deceased, between the time when they were seen quarreling with the deceased and the time when the dead body of the deceased was found a short while later inside the tenanted premises, in which all the four persons, i.e. the deceased and the accused persons were living together. 32. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides as follows: “ 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.” 33. This court is conscious of the fact that the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act are not designed to relieve the prosecution of the duty of discharging the burden of proof. As held in the case of Sambhunath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer reported in 1956 SCR 199 , the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act are designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or, at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are specially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. 34. The word “especially” stresses that. 34. In the present case, when the death of the deceased is considered in the light of the proximity of time within which the victim sustained fatal injuries and the proximity of time when the accused were last seen with the deceased, the same are enough to draw an inference that the victim's death was caused by the accused. Any deviation from the aforesaid course, would only be in the knowledge of the accused, because such deviation would have been especially within their knowledge. Since they have refused to state such facts, the inference that they had been the cause of the homicidal death of the deceased would remain undisturbed. 35. In the case of Trimuk Maruti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Apex court has held that when a murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, although the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, there would also be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the House to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the House cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation, on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution, and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. Pertinent that the defense could not demolish the case of the prosecution that the accused were last seen with the deceased in a quarrel, a short time before the body of the deceased was recovered in the tenanted premises. As the foundational facts had been proved, it was incumbent on the part of accused persons to discharge their duty in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, i.e. they were to offer proper explanation about the other facts, which were within their special knowledge, which they failed to do. 36. As the foundational facts had been proved, it was incumbent on the part of accused persons to discharge their duty in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, i.e. they were to offer proper explanation about the other facts, which were within their special knowledge, which they failed to do. 36. The “Last seen” theory, in the considered opinion of the Court would play a vital role in the present case, when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is so minute that the possibility of any person other than the accused persons being the author of the crime becomes impossible. The Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Singh versus the state of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 16 SCC 353, had explained this principle. The evidence of PW14 that he had seen a quarrel as he was going to freshen up and upon return, saw the deceased lying on the ground, evidences that the time gap between the accused and the deceased being seen alive and the deceased being found dead was such, that the interference of a third party to cause the death of the deceased would be completely ruled out. 37. In conclusion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution in this case had been able to set forth a complete chain of events and circumstantial evidence, which lead to the only conclusion that the death of the deceased, within a short span of time of being last seen together with the accused persons and in the complete absence of any explanation offered by any of the accused persons, the irresistible finding of guilt by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference. 38. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 39. Return the Trial Court Records.