they have not reported the matter to the police but their testimony corroborate the fact that immediately after the incident, they reached the spot and saw that the house of the appellant was burning and found the deceased in a burning condition. It is also established that in the intervening night of 25.03.2013, appellant and deceased had quarreled and immediately after the incident, appellant had absconded from the place of incident. From the spot, kerosene oil and other burnt articles have been seized which have been sent to FSL but no FSL report has been brought on record. In the house, both the appellant and deceased were living together as husband and wife, which is duly proved by PW-11 Ravi Shrivas & PW-12 Bhimsen Yadav and corroborated by PW-3 Ramavtar Suryavanshi, who is the landlord of the house, to the effect that the appellant and deceased were staying together as husband and wife. Therefore, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is squarely attracted and the appellant was required to explain in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how his wife was found in his house in injured / burning condition, which he has completely failed to explain. Apart from that, motive of the offence has also been established as the appellant had already left his first wife namely Manju Rai and on that count, the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased. Furthermore, on the date of incident, deceased suffered burn injuries as the appellant locked the room from outside which has been seized vide Ex.P-5 and key of the room was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide
