Ajit Singh, J.

Appellant Tutukon @ Tutumoni Sarmah has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of his wife Meena Devi.

2. According to the prosecution case, appellant lived in a rented one room house along with his wife Meena and two small children namely Nila Kanta (PW 4) and Bhoirabi (PW 5). The house was situated at Ward No.5, Uday Nagar. Prakash (PW 6) was the landlord of appellant. The appellant often used to quarrel with Meena after getting drunk. And this fact was known to all living in the neighbourhood. On the night of 18.1.2009, the appellant was in the house. There he first quarreled with Meena and then hacked her to death with a bathi dao. At that time, Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi were also present in the house. Bhoirabi cried for help but in vain as the neighbours thought that it was a regular affair. Even after murdering Meena, the appellant remained inside the house. He also bolted the door and window of house from inside and confined Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi in the same room. On the following morning, neighbours of appellant could guess that something serious had happened in the house of appellant. Prakash, therefore, went there but found that the door and window of the house of appellant had been shut by him. Appellant however on the asking of Prakash told him to call the police as he had murdered his wife Meena. Prakash then went to Police Station Golaghat and lodged the ejahar (Exhibit-4). Sub Inspector Ranjit Chetia (P.W.11) immediately rushed to the place of occurrence with his team and on his call, appellant opened the door of his house. In the house Ranjit Chetia found the appellant holding a bathi dao (sharp edged weapon used for slicing vegetable) in his hand. He also found the injured dead body of Meena lying on a cot and that Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi were kept confined in the room. Ranjit Chetia seized the bathi dao vide Exhibit-P/3 and arrested the appellant.

3. Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sarmah (P.W.12) had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Meena. He found multiple sharp cut wounds on the lower part of face and front of neck. The sharp cut wounds found on front side of neck, had severed wind pipe (trachea), oesophagus and major vessels of neck. According to the post mortem examination report (Exhibit-8) prepared by Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sarmah, cause of death of Meena was due to multiple cut injuries. The doctor’s evidence leads to a definite conclusion that the death of Meena was homicidal on account of multiple cut injuries on her face and neck.

4. During the trial, the appellant simply denied the prosecution case. He also did not give any explanation regarding the cause of death of Meena. The appellant, however, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, answered to Question No.1 by admitting that he lived together in a one room house along with wife Meena and their two children.

5. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106, the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be u