The admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confessions, and the legal burden on the accused to provide an explanation for a crime committed inside a house, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

V.M. Deshpande, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 11th of March, 2013, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2012, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under -

Chambharu Mohan Raut (PW 1) is the father of deceased Maheshwari. Her marriage was solemnized with the appellant in the month of May, 2011. Chambharu lodged his oral report (Exh.9) on 10th of June, 1992 with the Police Station Duggipar of district Gondia. The said report was disclosing a commission of a cognisable offence, hence a Crime was registered vide Crime No.57 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

3. In the report it is stated by the first informant that after marriage deceased Maheshwari started residing with the appellant. They used to reside at Saoner and the appellant was working with a Contractor for Centering work. In 2012, at the time of 'Rangapanchami', deceased and the appellant came to the first informant's house. That time, it was disclosed by the deceased to him as well her mother that the appellant is having illicit relations with somebody and on that count he is maltreating her. On 6th of June, 2012, there was obsequies in the house of the appellant and therefore, the first informant went to Palasgaon, the ancestral village of the appellant. That time, the first informant noticed that the deceased was under tension. After attending the obsequies the first informant proceeded towards his village. On 10th of June, 2012, he received an information on his mobile phone about the death of his daughter. Therefore, immediately he along with his relatives went to Palasgaon. On reaching Palasgaon he noticed certain marks around the neck of his daughter and therefore he made enquiry with the appellant. That time, the appellant confessed that since the deceased Maheshwari was taking suspicion, therefore, he has strangulated her by nylon rope.

4. The investigation of Crime No.57 of 2012 was entrusted to PSI Umrao Landge (PW 10). He visited the spot of the incident i.e. the house of the appellant. A panchanama (Exh.19) of the house was drawn. He also conducted inquest over the dead body vide inquest Panchanama (Exh.26). He then forwarded the dead body to Primary Health Center at Saundad for Postmortem. He also caused arrest of the appellant. During the police custody remand the appellant agreed to show the rope which he had concealed. The said memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded by the Investigating Officer in presence of panchas. The admissible portion of the said statement is at Exh.27. The nylon rope was seized from the house of the appellant which was kept behind the Cooler. The seizure panchamama of the same is at Exh.28. The Muddemal articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions as offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The case was registered as Session Trial No.76 of 2012 after its committal. The learned Sessions Judge, Gondia framed Charge against the appellant. The appellant denied the Charge and claimed for his trial. The prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses to prove the Charge. After a full fledged trial, the learned Judge of the Court below found that the appellant was guilty and therefore, convicted him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. When this appeal was called for hearing, none appeared for the appellant. In view of the following observations of their Lordships of the Apex Court in the c