The inmate of a house must provide a satisfactory explanation when a death occurs within, as failing to do so can imply complicity in homicide.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sarguja, in Sessions Trial No. 265/2009 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000, plus default stipulation.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 7.4.2009 at about 3 pm the accused / appellant caused number of injuries to his wife Sukhmanti Bai with the help of a stick and piece of stone and then brought her home in injured condition where she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the intervening night of 7.4.2009 and 8.4.2009. Further case of the prosecution is that Naihar Sai (PW - 2) had, for the whole night, guarded the body of the deceased in her house where the accused / appellant was also present. At the instance of Parashuram (PW - 3) - an eyewitness to the incident, merg intimation Ex. P - 5 and FIR Ex. P - 4 were registered against the accused / appellant for the offence under S.302 IPC. Inquest was conducted on 9.4.2009 vide Ex. P - 10 and thereafter dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. R.S. Singh (PW - 1) vide report Ex. P - 1. The doctor conducting the postmortem examination noticed as many as ten injuries on the body of the deceased and opined the cause of death as coma due to head injury and the death was homicidal in nature. After investigation, challan was filed under S.302 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.

3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused / appellant in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused / appellant under S.313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned above.

5. Counsel for the accused / appellant submits that all the eyewitnesses to the incident namely Naihar Sai (PW - 2), Parashuram (PW - 3) and Rambai (PW - 4) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He submits that even the seizure of stone and club made under Ex. P - 11 and P - 12 respectively does not support the case of the prosecution as the FSL report is negative. According to the counsel for the accused / appellant, the deceased died in her house on account of the injury sustained by her as a result of fall on a piece of stone while returning with the accused / appellant in a drunken state and the appellant is not the assailant.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the injuries might have been received by the deceased outside but as the death has taken place inside the house and no reasonable explanation has been offered by the accused / appellant regarding the same, his conviction under S.302 IPC is fully justified. Likewise, he submits that as the dead body was found inside the house of the appellant, non - supportive conduct of the eyewitnesses to the incident hardly makes any difference to the case of the prosecution. During argument, he referred to the statement of the doctor conducting postmortem examination wherein it is categorically stated that as many as 10 injuries were noticed by him on the body of the deceased and the death was homicidal in nature. State counsel goes on to argue that the stand of the accused / appellant that the incident took place while he and the deceased were returning in a drunken state becomes falsified because the doctor co