JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern Criminal Reference No. 12 of 1970. ( 2. ) THE accused-appellant Ramu alias Ramhit has been convicted by the sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Suman alias Sumitra by striking her with an axe at about 5 00 a. m. on the 17th June, 1970 at village Khama-Padwa, police station Harda and sentenced to death. He has, therefore, come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Sessions Judge, hoshangabad has also referred this case to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him. ( 3. ) THE prosecution case is that the accused who is son of one Tarya was living with Tarya, Taryas wife Chandu and his own wife Sumitra in a portion of a house at village Khama-Padwa. In the other portion of the same house, the two brothers of Tarya resided. On the 16th of June. 1970 Tarya had gone to Lilahidya, a village nearby. Consequently on the night of the incident only three persons were in the house namely the accused Ramu, his deceased wife sumitra and Tarvas wife Chandu, who was both blind and deaf In the early hours of the morning of the 1 7th June, 1970 some noise was coming from the house of the accused. Jageshwar P. W. 2), who lived in another portion of the same house, went to the spot to find out as to what the matter was, and found that the wife of the accused was lying on her cot with axe injuries on her person. She was already dead. The accused was standing there and trying to run away. He then shouted that Ramu was running away. Later with the help of Kachrva and Mangilal he tied the accused with a rope and chain and reported the matter to Ranchod Kotwar (P. W. 1 ). The first information report (Ex P-1) was lodged by Ranchod Kotwar (P. W. 1) at police station Harda, the same day at about 10:33 a m. In this report he stated that the accused Ramu has killed his wife with an axe at about 5. 00 or 6 00 a. m. in the morning During the investigation the dead body of Mst. 00 or 6 00 a. m. in the morning During the investigation the dead body of Mst. Sumitra was sent for post mortem examination which was performed by Dr. M. P. Tiwari (P. W. 8 ). He found six incised wounds on her person. All the wounds were ante mortem. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs. ( 4. ) THE axe which was lying in the house and the shirt of the accused which he was wearing on his person, were seized (Art. A. 1 and A. 2 ). On an examination by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist it was found that they were both stained with human blood (Ex. P-20 and Ex. P. 21 ). ( 5. ) ON being prosecuted the accused-appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. He had further suggested that some thief or dacoit had killed his wife with an axe and then run away from the back door. He, however, examined no witness in his defence. ( 6. ) IN this appeal it is not disputed that Mst. Sumitra has died. It is also not disputed that she has died of homicidal violence. No doubt, this fact cannot be disputed in view of the post-mortem report and the evidence of dr. Tiwari (P. W. 8) which unmistakably shows that the death was due to injuries on vital organs of the deceased caused with an axe, which injuries could not have been self-inflicted. It may here be stated that it has also not been urged that the injuries on the person of the deceased were self-inflicted. The only question, therefore, that remains for consideration is whether the complicity of the accused-appellant in the murder of the deceased was conclusively established. ( 7. ) THERE are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The conviction is based on circumstantial evidence alone. The circumstances which we have found well established and from which, in our opinion, the inference of the guilt of the accused arises, are as follows : (1) That the accused was alone in the house with his deceased wife on the night of the incident. The conviction is based on circumstantial evidence alone. The circumstances which we have found well established and from which, in our opinion, the inference of the guilt of the accused arises, are as follows : (1) That the accused was alone in the house with his deceased wife on the night of the incident. This fact is established from the evidence of tarya (P. W. 7), the father of the accused, who used to live in a part of the house belonging to him and his two brothers at village Khama-Padwa along with his wife, the accused and the wife of the accused, and who had gone out to some other village on 16-6-1970 for borrowing some money. (2) That on the morning of the 17th June, 1970, when Jageshwar (P. W. 2) ran to the house of the accused hearing some commotion, he found the accused standing at the door of the house with the deceased lying on her cot injured with an axe. This witness further stated in his cross-examination that after seeing Ramu he had shouted which unmistakably suggests that the accused Ramu was trying to run away from the spot. Consequently this witness with the help of some others tied the accused with a rope. It is significant that there is no evidence that the accused had protested against his being tied. On the other hand he accepts the fact that he had been tied by Jageshwar with a rope. There is also the evidence of Ranchod (P. W. 5) that on the morning of the incident, hearing some commotion and also hearing the cries of Jageshwar (P. W. 2) he had come out of his house and seen the accused standing at the door of the house. He saw the accused being tied by Jageshwar (P. W. 2) and others. Ranchod (P. W. 5) is the person who had made the first information report in which he had stated that the accused was responsible for the murder of his wife, (3) There is the evidence of Rameshwar (P. W. 3) and Kishore Singh (P. W. 4) that when they had interrogated the accused as to what he had done he had replied. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to cast a doubt on their testimony. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to cast a doubt on their testimony. The aforesaid evidence, therefore, established that the accused had impliedly confessed to the commission of the crime to them a little after the incident. Rameshwar (P. W. 3), is the son of the Patel and is an independent witness who cannot be said to be inimical to the accused. Similarly Kishoresingh (P. W. 4) is the neighbour of the accused who had no reason to unnecessarily implicate the accused Ramu. (4) The shirt seized from the possession of the accused vide Ex. P-8 was found to be stained with human blood for which the accused had not all accounted. According to Ex. P-8 the shirt was stained with blood at about eight places and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner the length of the largest stain on the shirt was five centimeters. The axe lying near the spot of the incident had also been seized. It was also found to be stained with human blood. The injuries could have been caused by that axe. It is unfortunate that the investigating officer did not care to investigate and ascertain the ownership of the axe. This circumstance, therefore, does not become of such crucial importance as it would have become if ownership of the axe would have been established but even so it is a circumstance which can be taken into consideration in assessing the guilt of the accused. ( 8. ) IN our opinion, all the aforesaid circumstances are fully established and when they are taken along with the fact that the deceased had died of homicidal violence, the inference is irresistible that it was the accused and the accused alone who was responsible for committing the murder of the deceased. The circumstances, in our opinion, are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but are wholly incompatible with his innocence. ( 9. ) IT was strenuously contended that the evidence does disclose that the back door of the house was open and that consequently the assailant of the deceased might have escaped from that door. In our opinion this suggestion has no merit. The conduct of the accused amply shows that it was he and none else who was responsible for the murder of the deceased. In our opinion this suggestion has no merit. The conduct of the accused amply shows that it was he and none else who was responsible for the murder of the deceased. If somebody from outside had come to murder the deceased by causing to her as many as six incised wounds with an axe, the accused who was sleeping with his wife could not have failed to notice the assailant. He would have even offered resistance to him and his behaviour would not have been what we find from the evidence what it was. ( 10. ) WE, therefore, confirm the conviction of the accused-appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As for the sentence we find from the evidence of Jageshwar (P. W. 2) that the accused and the deceased were living happily together and that Jageshwar had not seen them quarrelling. Similarly the father of the accused Tarya (P. W. 7) had stated that there was no quarrel between the accused and the deceased and that their relations were cordial. Consequently their might have happened something on the night of the incident which made the accused to so loose his temper as to commit the murder of the deceased. What that cause was or what that incident was, we shall never know because the wife is dead and the accused-appellant has chosen not to disclose it. But even so we are of opinion that this is not a case in which sentence of death is called for. In our opinion the sentence of imprisonment for life would amply meet the ends of justice. ( 11. ) WE, therefore, alter the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life. The appeal is allowed to this extent. The reference is rejected. Conviction maintained ; sentence modified.