their presence at the time of occurrence of the incident; and consequently the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be faulted. 24. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, [2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156, this Court has pointed out that there are two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the appellant would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited shifting of the onus of proof. If he remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their