also denied the receipt of hand loan from the appellant. Section 103 of the Evidence Act, mandates that burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe its existence. As such, burden was on the appellant to tender evidence for the purpose of proving the alleged financial transaction. Apart from making a bald statement in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no efforts have been made by the appellant to either examine the friend of PW2 as a witness or tender any documentary evidence to prove the so called financial transaction. Hence, the plea of the appellant regarding alleged financial transaction with PW2 is not established. 16. The evidence of PW3/Sangita Dashrath Kamble/Mother-in-law of the deceased would also strengthen the case of the prosecution. The testimony of PW3 is to the effect that appellant had visited her house on the date of incident around 7:00 AM to 7:30 AM and informed her that his mother was ill and she intended to see Pramila and as such he intended to take her with him. On being informed by PW3 that Pramila was 9 months pregnant and she needs to be taken to hospital at 11AM, appellant had assured to bring back Pramila at about 10AM. She has deposed that when Pramila did not return at 10:00 AM, she had asked her son Deepak to call his mother-in-law (PW-1) and on enquiry PW1 had questioned them as to why they had sent Pramila with her husband i.e. appellant. She is said to 14