Failure to explain homicidal death of wife in matrimonial home attracts Section 106 Evidence Act presumption.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife, Mecho Diggi, following a judgment by the Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 24.10.2014, the appellant, in an intoxicated state, assaulted his wife with a wooden stick (‘Danta’), fists, and slaps after she refused him money for ‘Haria’ (liquor).

PW-2 (sister-in-law) testified that the appellant confessed to the killing the next morning.

The appellant pleaded alibi, claiming he was in Chennai at the time and returned four days after her death.

The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's guilt in the absence of eye-witnesses.

2. Whether the burden of proof shifted to the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the unnatural death of his wife within the privacy of their home.

3. Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi was substantiated by sufficient evidence.

The court applied Section 302 of the IPC regarding punishment for murder.

It relied on the "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence established in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*, requiring a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

The court further invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, which places the burden of proving facts "especially within the knowledge" of a person upon that person, as interpreted in *Joshinder Yadav v. State of Bihar* and *Satpal v. State of Haryana* regarding the "last seen" theory and deaths in matrimonial homes.

As the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the Court examined the links: (i) the deceased died a homicidal death in her matrimonial home due to internal injuries (ruptured spleen and fractured ribs) consistent with assault by a stick.

(ii) PW-1 and PW-2 established the appellant's habit of assaulting his wife while drunk.

(iii) the appellant was arrested at the scene on the day the body was discovered, which contradicted his plea of alibi.

The Court held that since the death occurred in the privacy of the home where the appellant resided, Section 106 of the Evidence Act mandated that the appellant offer a plausible explanation.

His failure to do so, combined with a "false plea of alibi," served as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

The medical evidence (PW-5) corroborated the use of a ‘Danta’ (Material Exhibit-I) recovered based on the appellant's disclosure.

The court rejected the plea of alibi due to lack of evidence and the proximity of the appellant’s arrest to the crime scene.

The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.