Principles summarised relating to effect of failure of accused to throw any light upon facts proved to be within special knowledge of accused and circumstances when accused does owe explanation under S. 106. It was not disputed that the petitioner had taken the deceased with him on the previous day evening and thereafter he was also seen with the deceased by the witness Vijay Singh (PW-4) and the very next day early morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the field at village Chachiha. The time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the circumstance under which and when the petitioner had departed the company of the deceased was a very crucial circumstance proved against him. Having regard to the oral evidence of the witnesses, the enmity between the deceased and the petitioner had also surfaced. The corroborative evidence with regard to recovery of the weapon – axe alleged to have been used in the commission of crime from the petitioner, also substantiated the case of prosecution. In such facts and circumstances of case, upholding by High court of conviction of petitioner accused under sec 302 IPC confirmed. Para 5-12
[Ram Gopal v. State of M.P., (2023) 5 SCC 534]