ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                    [2012] 12 S.C.R. 299


            ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR                          A
                             v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
              (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 201 O)
                       JULY 26, 2012
                                                                 B
    [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
             IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

    Penal Code:
                                                                 c
     ss. 302134 and 201134 - Murder - Circumstantial
evidence - Appellant stated to have killed his first wife - Trial
court convicting him and his brother - High Court upholding
the conviction of appellant but acquitting his brother - Held:
The circumstances are consistent leading to the hypothesis
                                                                  0
of guilt of the appellant alone and none else and excluding
every other hypothesis - The motive along with the chain of
circumstances stood proved against the appellant go to show
that the appellant alone was responsible for the killing of the
deceased.
                                                                 E
    Evidence:

       Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Conditions to be
fulfilled in a case of circumstantial evidence - Reiterated.

     The appellant along with his brother (A-2) was F
prosecuted for causing the death of his first wife. The
case of the prosecution was that in the morning of
6.12.2001, the appellant and his brother were seen by PW-
1 and PW-6 going along with the deceased; that in the
evening the two accused returned alone and their clothes G
were found to have been blood stained. On the following
day, i.e. 7.12.2001, the appellant was stated to have
proclaimed that the deceased had run away from home.
In the morning of 8.12.2001, it was noticed that the
                            299                           H
    300      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012) 12 S.C.R.


A appellant along with his family was in the process of
  leaving the village. On information, the police reached the
  village. The appellant informed the 1.0. that he had killed
  his wife. At his instance, a blood stained knife was
  recovered and the dead body was fished out which was
B found to have been partly eaten out by aquatic animals.
  At the instance of A-2 the blood stained clothes were
  seized. The trial court convicted both the accused u/ss
  302/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to
  imprisonment for life. The High Court acquitted A-2, but
C maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1 This Court in the case of Sharad
  Birdhichand Sarda* has held that in a case of
D circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be
  fulfilled:

       (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
  guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; the
E circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may
  be' established; it is a primary principle that the accused
  must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
  convict him.

      (2) the facts so established should be consistent only
F 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
G nature and tendency;
        (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
    except the one to be proved.

          (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
H
     ARVINDKUMARANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF             301
                 MAHARASHTRA

not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion         A
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused." [para 11] [311-A-H; 312-A-B]

     *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1985
                                                              8
(1) SCR 88 =1984 (4) SCC 116; and Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCR 489 = 1973
(2) sec 793 - relied on

     1.2 In the case on hand, the conviction of the
appellant I based on circumstantial evidence. The C
circumstances stated by the trial court and concretized
by the High Court, in the instant case were: the deceased
and the accused were last seen together on 06.12.2001
as per the version of PWs 1 and 6; the body of the
deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant D
as stated by PW-7; the recovery by the 1.0. of the weapon,
namely, the knife, from the place of occurrence, the knife
containing blood stains; the nature of injuries found on
the body of the deceased; as per the version of PW-5, the
doctor who .conducted the post mortem, the death was E
homicidal and the injurie~ could have been caused with
the weapon marked in the case; frequent quarrels
between the deceased and the accused as stated by PWs
1 and 2; the theory of the deceased having run away
from the matrimonial home not properly explained by the F
appellant apart from the fact that no steps were taken by
him to trace his wife; the appellant wanted to flee from
the town itself and the clothes seized from the appellant
were found containing human blood. These
circumstances, as held by the courts below, were all
established without any doubt and were conclusive in G
nature. They were not explainable with any other
possibilities. [para 11-13] [312-H; 313-A-E]

    1.3 The circumstances are consistent which lead to
the only hypothesi~ of the guilt of the appellant alone and   H
    302    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012) 12 S.C.R.

A none else and exclude every other hypothesis. They
  show that in all probabilities, the killing of the deceased
  could have been done .only by the appellant. The
  deceased was the first wife of the appellant and he had
  a clear motive to eliminate her since there were constant
8 fights between the deceased on the one side and the
  appellant and his second wife on the other, which he
  could not tolerate. The motive along with the chain of
  circumstances, which stood proved against the appellant,
  only go to show that the appellant alone was responsible
C for the killing of the deceased. The appellant has
  miserably failed to show any missing link in the chain of
  circumstances demonstrated by the prosecution for the
  offence alleged against him. He did not dispute the
  identity of the body at any point of time nor did he state
  anything in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, about the running
0 away of his wife. If according to the appellant the
  deceased ran away from the matrimonial home he should
  have established the said fact to the satisfaction of the
  court as it was within his special knowledge. This Court
  is in full agreement with the conclusions of the High Court
E and there is no reason to interfere with the same. [para
  13 and 14] [313-E-H; 314-A-C]

        Rukia Begum & Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2011 (4)
     SCR 711    = 2011 (4) SCC 779; Hanumant Govind
F · Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952
             =
    SCR 1091 1952 SC 343; and Prithipal Singh & Ors v. State
    of Punjab 2012 (14) SCR 862   =2012 (1) SCC 10 - relied
    on.
       Govinda Reddy Krishna & Another v. State of Mysore -
G AIR 1960 SC 29; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration
  1974 (2) SCR 694 = 1974 (3) SCC 668; Mustkeem @
  Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan 2011 (9) SCR 101   =
                                                      2011
  (11) sec 724 - referred to.

H
     ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF                303
                      MAHARASHTRA
                      Case Law Reference:                         A
     1952 SCR 1091             relied on             para 11
    AIR 1960 SC 29             referred to           para 11
     1974 (2) SCR 694          referred to           para 11      B
   . 1985 (1) SCR 88           relied on             para 11
     2011 (9) SCR 101          referred to           para 11
     2011 (4) SCR 711          relied on             para 11
                                                                  c
     2012 (14) SCR 862         relied on             para 14
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 53 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2008 of the High        o
Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2006.
    Gopal Prasad for the Appellant.

    Sachin Pitale (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for the Respondents.
                                                                  E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered

      FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1.
Accused No.1 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against
the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal F
No.564 of 2006 dated 24.4.2008. By the judgment of the trial
Court dated 25 & 28.11.2005 the appellant was convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart from imposition
of fine along with accused No.2 for offences under Section 302
read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and for causing
disappearance of evidence under Section 201 read with G
Section 34, IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-each was also imposed
and in defauli to suffer further rigorous imprisonment in custody.
Both the accused preferred appeals before the High Court and
the appeal preferred by accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal
                                                                   H
    304      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A No.563 of 2006 was allowed and he was acquitted of the
  charges punishable under Section 302 and 201, IPC while the
  appellant's appeal came to be dismissed confirming the
  conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned
  Sessions Judge.
B
       2. The case of the prosecution was that deceased Sita
  Devi was the first wife of the appellant, that on the date of
  occurrence, namely, on 06.12.2001 at 8 a.m. the appellant was
  seen going along with the deceased Sita Devi and accused
  No.2, who is none other than his brother. According to
C Sachidanand Baleshwar (PW-1) who is closely related to the
  deceased, the appellant told him that he is going with his wife
  for a stroll. It was stated that the appellant and A-2 were seen
  in the evening and the deceased was not with them at that time
  while their clothes were blood stained. On the next day, i.e. on
D 07.12.2001, appellant stated to have proclaimed that the
  deceased ran away from the matrimonial home.

        3. On 08.12.2001, it was noticed that the appellant and his
  family were in the process of leaving the village by packing all
E their materials, the same was informed to Malvani police
  station, that PW-3 Sub-Inspector of Police of Malvani police
  station went to the residence of the appellant by around 12
  noon when he was informed that the deceased was missing
  for the last two days and that the appellant and his second wife
F were planning to run away from the village. According to PW-
  3 the appellant informed that he took the deceased on
  06.12.2001 in the morning to Gorai Creek where she was killed
  by him with the aid of a knife. PW-3 stated to have forwarded
  the complaint based on the information gathered by him to
G Borivali police station since the place of occurrence fell within
  their jurisdiction. All the papers stated to have been transferred
  around 1-1.30 p.m. along with the accused to the said police
  station.

          4. Subsequently, at the instance of PW-4, A-2 was also
H
         ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF         305
      MAHARASHTRA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

     stated to have been apprehended through whom the clothes               A
     were also seized. At the instance of the appellant, the dead
     body of the deceased Sita Devi was stated to have been fished
     out from Gorai Creek and the same was found to have been
     lying entangled in the weeds and parts of the body were <1lso
     found to have been eaten away by aquatic animals. PW-1                 B
     stated to have identified the body with the aid of toe ring and
     the petticoat of the deceased. The motive for the alleged
     offence was stated to be that both the wives of the appellant
     were indulging in frequent fights which irked the appellant and
     this ultimately resulted in the killing of his first wife Sita Devi.
                                                                            c
           5. The appellant and his brother A-2 were tried for
      offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC as well
      as Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC. As stated earlier
      while the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
      came to be confirmed by the impugned common order of the              D
      High Court, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
      second accused came to be set aside for want of proof. For
    · the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exhibits 1-
      26 were marked. W11en the accused were questioned under
      Section 313 Cr.P.C. they simply denied the offence alleged            E
J     against them. None was examined on the defence side. It was,
      therefore, based on the circumstances which linked the
      appellant to the death of the deceased, the conviction and
      sentence came to be imposed on him.
                                                                            F
           6. Assailing the judgment im~ugned in this appeal the
     learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the body
     of the deceased was found in mutated condition; half of which
     was eaten away by aquatic animals, the identification of the
     same was not proved. Learned counsel, therefore, contended
     that the conviction of the appellant b<!_sed on such slender           G
     evidence cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also
     contended that there were very many-missing links in the chain
     of circumstances a'nd, therefore, the conviction imposed on the
     appellant is liable to be set a~ide.
                                                                            H
    306     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A       7. As against the above submissions, learned counsel
  appearing for the respondent State submitted that the appellant
  was last seen with the deceased on 06.12.2001 by PW-1, that
  he was also seen on the same evening with blood stained
  clothes when the deceased was not found along with him, that
B at ·the instance of A-2 blood stained clothes were recovered
  as stated by PW-4 and that the theory of running away of the
  deceased from the matrimonial home was never pleaded
  before the Courts below. Learned counsel also contended that
  at no point of time the appellant disputed the identity of the body
C of the deceased in the course of trial. It was, therefore,
  contended that if the deceased had run away from the
  matrimonial home, it was for the appellant to explain the said
  situation in a satisfactory manner which the appellant failed to
  do. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned
D judgment does not call for interference.
          8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well
    as the respondent and having perused the judgment impugned
    in this appeal and all other material papers placed before us,
    we are also convinced that there is no merit in this appeal. The
E   chain of circumstances noted by the Court below and approved
    by the High Court were that the deceased was last seen on
    06.12.2001 at 8 a.m. along with the appellant and his brother,
    that even according to the appellant he was going to Gorai
    Creek for a stroll with his first wife, namely, the deceased Sita
F   Devi, that when on the evening of the same day, the accused
    alone returned leaving behind the deceased and their clothes
    were found to be blood stained they were questioned as to the
    whereabouts of the deceased to which the appellant stated that
    she ran away from the home. The knife used was stated to
G   have been recovered through the 1.0. PW-2, the landlady in her
    evidence stated that she used to hear the frequent fights of the
    appellant with the deceased Sita Devi, that when the appellant
    was making preparations to leave the village on 08.12.2001,
    on suspicion the information was sent to the police and, at the
H   instance of the appellant, the body of the deceased was
       ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF         307
    MAHARASHTRA (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
    recovered in a decomposed state from the Creek. PW-5 the          A
    doctor who did the post mortem on 09.12.2001 at about 5.30
    p.m. noted the following injuries:-

             "Extemal Injuries:
              Swelling and bloating of trunk eyes.                    B

              Eyes absent due to PM animal bites. Soft portions
        of face like lips, ear. nose, cheek portions eaten by
        animals.

              Tongue inside mouth. There is a mouth gag of blouse     C
        portion inside mouth inserted from left of mouth (comer).

              Column 16-position of limbs

              Lower extremities straight                              D
        Left forehead from elbow joint present and preserved but
        remaining portion up to shoulder joint muscular part eaten
        by animals.
              Right humeros without muscles was present/lower         E
        forehead absent missing.

J            A- Except cervical verterbra all neck soft tissues and
        organs missing.
               B- Sternum alongwith ribs upto costo chondrar F
        junction missing.
             - from U3 of oesohaus present.
               1) 3 cm x 0.5 cm incised would cut mark seen over G
       · C4/5 verterbra body obliquely placed inflittration staining
         s.een at the marginer.
             2) 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm IW of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over middle
        phalex of left thumb over palmer surface.
                                                                      H
    308       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 12 S.C.R..

                                                                      .,
A         Internal injuries:

          1) Brain

          Membrance loose, matter softened due to advanced
          decomposition. Liquefying stag.
B
          Thorax walls, ribs, cartilages absent as 17,13 order ribs
          loosed out and displaced.

          Pleura, Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi missing due to ~nimal
          bites.
c
          Abdomen-stomach and its contents

          U3 onwards preserved alongwith stomach
          The following items were kept back for C.A. and blood
D
          grouping:

                1. Stomach and intestine

                2. Liver/Spleen/Kideny for C.A.
E
              3. Hairs, two teeth alongwith roots and lower end of
          hammerous bones for blood grouping.

                4. skull preserved for superimposition technique."

F      9. According to PW-5, the death of the deceased was due
  to the cut injury in her throat and neck and the other injuries
  which were found to be fatal. He also opined that such injuries
  could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like the one
  marked in the case. The suggestion that the injuries could have
G been caused if the person had fallen on a blunt surface was
  'denied'. The clothes seized from the appellant were found to
  contain human blood.
        10. The circumstances narrated above clearly establish the
  guilt of the appellant in the killing of the deceased who was his
H first wife and he had a clear motive to eliminate her since there
        ARVINDKUMARANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF          309
     MAHARASHTRA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     were constant fights between the deceased on the one side A
     and the appellant and his second wife on the other which he
     could not tolerate.

          11. As in the case. on hand conviction imposed on the
     appellantJs only based on circumstantial evidence, we feel that     B
     the various decisions of this Court laying down the principles
     of appreciating the circumstantial evidence while imposing the
     sentence can be highlighted. The earliest case on this subject
     was reported as Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State
     of Madhya Pradesh -AIR 1952 SC 343. In para 10, the position
                                                                         c
     has been succinctly stated as under:
         "10. JOO( JOO( JOO( JOO(

           It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is
          of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which       D
          the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
          instance be fully established, aild all the facts so
          established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
          of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
          be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should         E
          be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
          proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
          chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
.I
          reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
          innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
                                                                         F
         that within all human probability the act must have been
          done by the accused. In spite of the forceful arguments
         addressed to us by the learned Advocate-General on
         behalf of the State we have not been able to discover any
         such evidence either intrinsic within Ex.P-3A or outside and
         we are constrained to observe that the Courts below have        G
         just fallen into the error against which warning was uttered
         by Baron Alderson in the above mentioned case."

          The decision in Hanumant Govind (supra) was followed
     in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court reported as        H
    310      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 12 S.C.R.

A Govinda Reddy Krishna & Another v. State of Mysore - AIR
  1960 SC 29. The said position was subsequently reiterated in
  the decision reported as Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi
  Administration - 1974 (3) SCC 668. In para 10 of the decision
  in Naseem Ahmed (supra), the legal position has been stated
B as under:

          "10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is
          therefore necessary to find whether the circumstances on
          which prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole
          inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which
c         he is charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have
          to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent
          evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent
          with the innocence of the accused. For determining whether
          the circumstances established on the evidence raise but
D         one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused,
           regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances.
           Individual circumstances considered in isolation and
          divorced from the context of the over all picture t~merging
          from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their
E          conjoint effect may by themselves appear innoc1Jous. It is
           only when the various circumstances are C<Jnsidered
           conjointly that it becomes possible to under,stand and
           appreciate their true effect. If a person is seen running
           away on the heels bf a murder, the explanation that: he was
F          fleeing in panic is apparently not irrational. Blood stains
           on the clothes can be attributed plausibly to a bleeding
           nose. Even the possession of a weapon like a kriife can
           be explained by citing a variety of acceptable a~1swers.
           But such circumstances cannot be considered in water-
G          tight compartments. If a person is found running away from
           the scene of murder with blood-stained clothes and a knife
           in his hand, itwould in a proper context, be consiste.nt with
           the rule of circumstantial evidence to hold that he had
           committed the murder."
H
   ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF         311
MAHARASHTRA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

     In the decision reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.        A
State of Maharashtra -1984 (4) SCC 116, this Court has laid
down the cardinal principles regarding appreciation of
circumstantial evidence and held that whenever the case is
based on circumstantial evidence, the following features are
required to be complied with which has been set out by this         B
Court in para 153 at page 185 which reads as under:

           "153. A close analysis of this decision would show
    that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
    against an accused can be said to be fully established:
                                                                    c
           (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
    guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

    It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
    circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may           o
    be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
    distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
    should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji
    Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the
    following observations were made [SCC para 19, p.807:           E
    sec (Crl.) p. 1047].
          Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
    must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
    convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and
    'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure       F
    conclusions.

    (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          G
    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         H
    312       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 12 S.C.R.


          the one to be proved, and

          (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
B
          done by the accused."

         The above principles have been followed and reiterated
    in the recent decision of this Court reported as Mustkeem @
    Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan -2011 (11) SCC 724.
c
         In the decision reported in Rukia Begum & Ors. v. State
    of Kamataka -2011 (4) SCC 779, this Court again restated the
    principles as under:

                "17. In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial
0         evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation
          of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
          Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt
          of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence. No
          hard-and-fast rule can be laid to say that particular
E         circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It is
          basically a question of appreciation of evidence which
          exercise is to be done in the facts and circumstances of
          each case.

F                 18. Here in the present case the motive, the
          recoveries and abscondence of these appellants
          immediately after the occurrence point out towards their
          guilt. In our opinion, the trial Court as also the High Court
          on the basis of the circumstantial evidence rightly came
G         to the conclusion that the prosecvtion has been able to
          prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these
          appellants are concerned."
      12. When we apply the above principles to the case on
  hand, the circumstances stated by the trial Court and
H concretized by the High Court, namely, were that the deceased
      ARVINDKUMAR ANUPALAL PODDAR v. STATE OF         313
 fv1AHARASHTRA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.)

 and the accused were last seen together on 06.12.2001 as per A
 the version of PWs 1 and 6, the body of the deceased was
  recovered at the instance of the appellant as stated by PW-7,
 the recovery of knife by the 1.0. from the place of occurrence,
 the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused
 as stated by PWs 1 and 2, the theory of the deceased having B
 run away from the matrimonial home not properly explained by
 the appellant apart from the fact that no steps ~ere taken by
 him to trace his wife, the weapon used, namely, the knife
 containing blood stains, that the nature of injuries found on the
 body of the deceased, that as per the version of PW-5, the post C
 mortem doctor, the death was homicidal and that the injuries
 could have been caused with the weapon marked in the case
 , that the appellant wanted to flee from the town itself and that
 the clothes seized from the appellant were found containing
 human blood.
                                                                   D
      13. When the above .circumstances relied upon by the
 Courts below for convicting the appellant are examined, we find
that the principles laid down by this Court in the above referred
to decisions are fully satisfied. The circumstances narrated
 above ,as held by the Courts below were all established without E
any doubt and are conclusive in nature. They were not
explainable with any other possibilities. The circumstances are
consistent which leads to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the
appellant alone and none else and the said circumstances
exclude every other hypothesis and show that in all F
probabilities, the killing of the deceased could have been done
only by the appellant. The motive along with the chain of
circumstances stood proved against the appellant only go to
show that the appellant alone was responsible for the killing of
the deceased. The appellant has miserably failed to show any G
missing link in the chain of circumstances demonstrated by the
prosecution for the offence alleged against him.

     14. We are in full agreement with the above conclusions
of the High Court and we find no good grounds to interfere with
the same. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the            H
                                         '
    314     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 12 S.C.R.


A respondent the appellant did not dispute the identity of the body
  at any point of time, that he did not state any thing in the course
  of 313 questioning about the running away of his wife and that
  there was no missing link in the chain of circumstances
  demonstrated before the Courts below. If according to the
B appellant the deceased ran away from the matrimonial home
  he should have established the said fact to the satisfaction of
  the Court as it was within his special knowledge. In this context
  it will be worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of this Court
  reported as Prithipa/ Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab - 2012
C (1) SCC 10. In para 53, it has been held that a fact which is
  especially in the knowledge of any person then the burden of
  proving that fact is upon him and that it is impossible for the
  prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the
  knowledge of the accused.

D       15. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find
    any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is
    dismissed.

    R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.