The main legal point established is that in cases where the prosecution proves the homicidal nature of death, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to provide a plausible explanation for the death, and failure to do so can lead to a finding of guilt.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT before us is the husband of the deceased Leelabai. They were married on 31. 5. 2002. She was found dead at her matrimonial home on 3. 4. 2003.

( 2 ) ON a post-mortem examination having been conducted, PW-9 Dr. Ravindra the medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalna found the following ante-mortem injuries on her person:

"1) Constusion over R High laternally upper part reddish chest 3 cm x 2 cm. 2) Bluish discloturant present over R leg beten knife 2 cm x 2 cm 3) Bluish discoloration present over R leg near ankle joint 2 cm x 2 cm. 4) Bruise over neck below L mandible 1 inch x 1. 5 cm each noxis present beneath. 5) Bruise over neck ant below above injury 2 cm x 1 cm Eccbymosis present. 6) Bruise over neck and above thyroid cartilage 1. 5 cm x 1 cm Ecchymonies seen. 7) Bruise over neck ant below R to above injury 2 cm x 1 cm Eccly main slan. 8) Bruise over neck and below above ignore and R. sidc 1 stab x 1 cm Echaminc ccc. . . "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to PW. 9- doctor Ravindra, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was due to asphyxia (throttling ).

( 4 ) APPELLANT before us as also his parents were prosecuted for commission of an offence of murder of Leelabai. The prosecution case proceeded on the basis that after the marriage; the appellant and his parents have all along been demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the deceased and was also being subjected to harassment and ill treatment.

( 5 ) FIRST Information Report was lodged by PW. 1- Sheshrao, father of the deceased. In order to prove the charge of harassment, apart from the father of the deceased, P. W. 2-Satyanarayan and P. W. 5- Raghunath were examined. Relying on or/on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held the appellant as also accused. Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, on an appeal preferred by the accused herein, the appellant alone was found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302,i. P. C. and the accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 were acquitted.

( 7 ) THE High Court found that an attempt was made by the accused to keep the commission of the offence concealed for a long time. We may not go into that aspect of the matter as the principal contention raised before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant centres round the nature of ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel pointed out that although a large number of injuries were noticed by P. W. 9-Dr. Ravindra, no fracture having been seen, the cause of death could not have been stated to be asphyxia (throttling ). The said witness, however, referred to the injuries suffered by the deceased and stated that the injuries on the neck may be possible in case of throttling. He, however, accepted that he might have failed to notice all the injuries.

( 9 ) THE High Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment. It noticed that absence of some injuries by the said P. W. 9-Dr. Ravindra, may not be sufficient to hold the appellant not guilty of commission of the said offence.

( 10 ) IT has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is, also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar and Anr. [2007 (1) Scale 19], this Court held:

"22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions judge as also by the High Court categorically go to show that at the time when the occu