JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Parbati Majhiani and has been sentenced thereunder to R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the Appellant?s wife Parbati on 23.4.1967 had gone to sell Kendu fruits at Bahalda hat along with p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5. While returning from the said hat they all halted at village Assna to see a Chhau dance in that village. While witnessing the Chhau dance it rained, and so they all came to the house of p.w. 18 and slept there in the night. The Appellant with p.w. 7 had also come to witness the dance in village Asana, as it rained, p.w. 7 went to Bada Sahi and stayed somewhere there during that night. The Appellant went to the house of Parao Majhi, p.w. 18, where his wife was sleeping, and by calling her out asked her to give him some money. As she refused to give him any money the Appellant became annoyed with her and dragged her away from that place, and both of them came away from the house of p.w. 18. P.ws. 1, 3 and 5 came back home next morning, and p.w. 3 went to the house of the mother of the deceased Parbati, and returned the basket belonging to the deceased to her mother, informing her that both Parbati and her husband, Kandra, came away from the house of p.w. 18 at village Asana on the previous night. p.w. 3 was informed by Parbati?s mother that Parbati and her husband had not returned to the house till then. P.W. 12, the Grama Rakhi of Chahala pada and Pithakutuni, informed p.w. 11, the A.S.I. of Police at 11 P.M. in the night of 24.4.1967 at village Asana that he found the dead body of a girl laying under a bush inside the jungle close to the foot path leading to village Asana. On getting the said information p.w. 11 went to the spot and saw the dead body. P.ws. 2, 6 and some other villagers of Chapal identified that dead body to be that of Parbati Majhiani, the wife of the Appellant p.w. 11 sent the written report, Ext. 3, to the Officer-in-charge, Bahalda P.S. at 12 o' clock the same night. On getting the said information p.w. 11 went to the spot and saw the dead body. P.ws. 2, 6 and some other villagers of Chapal identified that dead body to be that of Parbati Majhiani, the wife of the Appellant p.w. 11 sent the written report, Ext. 3, to the Officer-in-charge, Bahalda P.S. at 12 o' clock the same night. Thereafter police proceeded with the investigation of the matter. Constables were deputed to search for the accused in Talsara and Asana, but he could not be found anywhere in those villages. After some days, on getting information from the accused?s father Kanhu Majhi (p.w.16) that the accused was staying in the house of one Laxman Majhi (p.w. 14) in village Tuduka under Potka Police Station in Singhbhumi District in Bihar, the constables proceeded to that village, found the accused in tat village, and brought him to Bahalda Police Station at 6 P.M. on 18.5.1967. On 19-5-1967 p.w. 19 examined the accused and the constables and arrested the accused and seized the wearing apparels from his person under the seizure list, Ext. 10. After completion of the investigation and the commitment proceeding the accused stood his trial in he Court below for a charge u/s 302, Indian Penal Code of which he stands convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He denied his complicity in the said crime and stated that he heard from his father at Talsara that some body killed his wife Parbati. 4. p.w. 8, the then Medical Officer at Rairangpur Hospital, held the post-mortem examination on 26-4-1967 and found the following external injuries on the dead body of Parbati: (1) A lacerated ound 2" ? 1?" skin deep on the forehead. (2) A lacerated wound 3" ? 2" behind the right ear. (3) An abrasion 3" ? 2" on the right cheek. (4) An abrasion 4" ? 4" on the right side of the chest. On dissecting injury No. 1, p.w. 8 found that The frontal bone was fractured and the meninges of the brain beneath were torn, and the brain was covered with a clot of blood. Against ?injury No. 2 the right temporal bone was found fractured and the parietal temporal joint of the right side was dislocated. On dissecting injury No. 1, p.w. 8 found that The frontal bone was fractured and the meninges of the brain beneath were torn, and the brain was covered with a clot of blood. Against ?injury No. 2 the right temporal bone was found fractured and the parietal temporal joint of the right side was dislocated. The meninges, of the brain underneath this Injury were, also, torn and the,brain was covered with a clot of blood. Against injury No. 4, the 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th right ribs were found broken to pieces. The pluera was found torn and the right plural cavity was full of blood. Against injury No. 3, the auxilla was found broken. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by thrusts against a rough and heavy substance and/or by a stone like M.O.I. p.w. 8 opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries on the "skull and the brain, and that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were individually sufficient to cause death which might have taken place immediately after receiving the said injuries. On the above evidence of p.w. 8 and the post mortem report, Ext. I, there is absolutely no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 5. There is no eye witness to the Actual killing of the deceased, and the case against the Appellant rests only on circumstantial evidence. The Court below has held the Appellant guilty of the offence of murder on the following items of circumstantial evidence: (1) Accused Kandra Majhi came to witness the Jatra at Asana in the company of p.w. 7 in the evening of 23.4-1967 and was present at the dance till it rained. (2) Accused Kandra Majhi and his wife Parbati Majhiani came together from Parao?s house in the midnight of 23-4-1967. She was last seen alive in the company of her husband during that night. (3) The accused who was staying in the house of his father-in-law as Gharjamai did not return to his father-in-law?s place and he was arrested from village Tudukam in Bihar State from the house of Lakhan Majhi where he was staying, on 18-5-1967. She was last seen alive in the company of her husband during that night. (3) The accused who was staying in the house of his father-in-law as Gharjamai did not return to his father-in-law?s place and he was arrested from village Tudukam in Bihar State from the house of Lakhan Majhi where he was staying, on 18-5-1967. (4) The accused does not offer any explanation whatsoever as to how his wife Parbati Majhiani met her death though both of them left Parao?s house in the night of 23-4-1967 and he took his wife saying that they would go back home. (5) Accused Kandra Majhi has definitely taken a false plea that he heard about his wife?s death at his father?s place in Talsara whereas his father (p.w.16) has flatly denied that his son had gone to his place in summer last year. (6) Accused Kandra Lived in ?village Tudukam in the house of Lakhan Majhi p.w. 14 under a pseudo name Suna Majhi from where he was arrested on18-5-1967. (7) The dead body of Parbati Majhiani was discovered near Kumbhirmundi-Asana road at a distance of about 500 feet from the place where Jatra was being performed. (8) Discovery of the blood stains on the Lungi and Genji of the accused which were seized from his person by the I.O. on 19-5-1967 under the seizure list (Ext 10). It is well settled that where there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to examine carefully if each of the circumstances from which adverse inference against the accused is sought to be drawn is fully established and whether the proved circumstances are such as to establish with reasonable certainty the case against the Appellant. Those circumstances must not only be compatible with his guilt but they should also be incompatible with his innocence. In order to hold an accused guilty merely on circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused see Prakash Mahadeo Godse v. State of Manarashtra 1969 (3) S.C.R. 741, Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 S.C. 801, and Hanumant v. State of M.P. 1952 S.C.R. 1091. Therefore, the above mentioned items of circumstantial evidence on which the Appellant has been convicted have to be examined and tested in the above perspective. 6. P.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 consistently depose to the fact that the deceased Parbati Majhiani, the wife of the accused, witnessed the Jatra at Village Asana in the company of the above mentioned witnesses in the evening of 23-4-1967, and as it rained heavily that night they stayed in that village in the house of Parao Majhi p.w. 18. p.w. 18 corroborates the evidence of p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 to the effect that the deceased slept with the above mentioned witnesses in his house on that night. P.ws. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 18 also testify in a convening and consistent manner that the accused came to p.w. 18?s house in the night and woke up Parbati, called her outside the house and demanded money from her. As ?she refused to part with any money, the accused dragged her and took her away with him from that place stating that they would go back home. Their evidence to the above effect does not suffer from any discrepancy on material particulars, and the same has not been successfully assailed in any manner. ?The trustworthiness of these witnesses and the intrinsic merit of their testimony have not been challenged in cross-examination in any manner. P. ws. 4 and 5 have not at all been cross-examined. p.w. 7 also corroborates The above witnesses to The effect that The accused bad gone to village Asana on that night. Thus both the item No. 1 and 2 mentioned above are? established beyond reasonable? doubt on The evidence of The witnesses mentioned above. 7. There is no evidence on record on which The Court below based its finding that the accused was staying in The house of his father-in-law as Gharjamai. None of The prosecution witnesses of The locality deposed to that effect. But p.w. 16, the father of the accused deposed to the fact that his son, the accused, had married the daughter of Ghasia Majhi of village Chapal, and was tending cattle of the brother of Ghasia Majhi in that village. He states that the accused and his wife stayed at his (p.w.16) place only for two weeks. But p.w. 16, the father of the accused deposed to the fact that his son, the accused, had married the daughter of Ghasia Majhi of village Chapal, and was tending cattle of the brother of Ghasia Majhi in that village. He states that the accused and his wife stayed at his (p.w.16) place only for two weeks. From the above it becomes evident that the accused was not staying with his father in village Talsara. From the general trend of the evidence of p.w. 2, the unmarried sister of the deceased, and that of p.ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5, who 8011 belong to village Chapal, it is gathered that Parbati was staying in village Chapal in her father?s house. p.w. 7, a man of village Chapal, states that on that night be went with the accused to village Asana to see Chhau dance. All The above indicate that the accused was also staying with his wife in village Chapal. p.w. 3 one of the female witnesses who had been to Bahalda Hat along with the deceased and witnessed Chhau dance in village Asana and thereafter slept with the deceased in the house of p.w. 18, stated that on the next day, on returning back to her village, she went to the house of Parbati?s mother to return Parbati?s basket which she had left in the house of p.w. 1, and then she informed Parbati?s mother that both Parbti and the accused came away from the house of p.w. 18 in village Asana on the previous night. Parbati?s mother then informed her (p.w.3) that Parbati and her husband did not come back home till then. Parbati?s mother of course has not been examined in this case, and so what p.w. 3 beard from Parbati?s mother is not admissible in evidence. On p.w. 3?s evidence this much is established that next day morning she did not see Parbati and her husband in the house of Parbati?s mother in village Chapal. We get it from p.w. 9, the constable who went out searching for the accused, that he (the accused) was not found anywhere in the near about villages, and on 18-5-1967 he was arrested in village Tudukam in Singhbhumi District in Bihar from the house of p.w. 14. We get it from p.w. 9, the constable who went out searching for the accused, that he (the accused) was not found anywhere in the near about villages, and on 18-5-1967 he was arrested in village Tudukam in Singhbhumi District in Bihar from the house of p.w. 14. p.w. 14 stated that in the previous summer the accused lived in his house for two weeks and gave out ?his name as Sona Majhi. 8. The Appellant has no explanation to offer as to how his wife Parbati met her death though on the evidence of p.ws. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 18 it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant in the night of 23-4-1967 dragged away Parbati from the house of p.w. 18 by saying that she would go back home with him. p.w. 3, who was with Parbati in the house of p.w. 18 in the night of 23-4-1967, brought back Parbati?s basket and gave it to her mother and informed her that both the accused and Parbati came away from village Asana in the previous night. None of these witnesses saw Parbati at any time after she left the house of p.w. 18 in the company of her husband, the accused. The dead body of Parbati Majiani was discovered next night by the Bide of Kumbhirmundi-Asana road which fact is testified to by p.ws. 11 and 12. The evidence of these witnesses to the above effect has not been assailed. p.w. 12, the Gram Rakhi, who at first discovered the dead body under a creeper at some distance from the foot-path in the of evening of 24-4- 1967, has not at all been cross-examined, and accordingly his evidence to that effect stands unassailed. p.w. 2, the younger sister of deceased Parbati Majhiani and p.w. 6 identified the said dead body to be that of Parbati. The intrinsic merit of their evidence has not at all been challenged in any winner. From the evidence of p.ws. 2, 6, 11 and 12 it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the dead body of Parbati was discovered from underneath a creeper inside the jungle close to the foot-path leading to village Asana on 24-4-1967, i.e. the night (following the night when the accused dragged away the deceased from the house of p.w. 8. 2, 6, 11 and 12 it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the dead body of Parbati was discovered from underneath a creeper inside the jungle close to the foot-path leading to village Asana on 24-4-1967, i.e. the night (following the night when the accused dragged away the deceased from the house of p.w. 8. The accused in his Section 342 statement expressed his inability to explain as to how the dead body of his wife was found at that plan in the jungle. The failure of the accused to offer any explanation whatsoever, as to how his wife died and her dead body was found inside the jungle in the following evening, is a incriminating circumstance creating grave suspicion against the accused. Thus item Nos. 4 and 7, based on the evidence discussed above, are established beyond reasonable doubt, and these proved facts are strong incriminating circumstances which seriously militate against The accused?s innocence. 9. Apart from the failure of the accused to offer any explanation as to how his wife was found dead on the very next night after she left the house of p.w. 18 in the company of the accused, he has also taken the false plea that he heard about his wife?s death in village Talsara. The accused?s father, p.w. 16, belongs to village Talsara, and he ?and his wife, p.w. 17, the mother of the accused, both state that the accused did not go to their house during the relevant time. In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure while expressing his inability to explain as to how the dead body of his wife was found in the jungle, in the same strain he stated that he learnt about the death of his wife in village Talsara. He does not state therein as to how, when and from whom at Talsara he learnt about the same. As both his father and mother denied that the accused had gone to village Talsara at the relevant time, the above mentioned statement of the accused, that he knew about his wife?s death at village Talsara, sounds improbable and is not worthy of any credit. The above mentioned false plea of the accused (the 5th item) is again an incriminating circumstance against him which goes a great way to satisfy us about the guilt of the accused. 10. The above mentioned false plea of the accused (the 5th item) is again an incriminating circumstance against him which goes a great way to satisfy us about the guilt of the accused. 10. Apart from the above, the facts constituting item No. 6, to the effect that the accused lived in village Tudukam for about two weeks in The house of Lakhan Majhi (p.w.14) after his wife?s death in the aforesaid manner and circumstances and prior to his arrest on 18-5-1967, is again another incriminating circumstance against the accused. After the accused dragged away his wife, the deceased, from the house of p.w. 18 on the night of 23-4-1967, there is nothing to show that he was found anywhere either in his father?s village at Talsara or in his father-in-law?s village at Chapal. It is established beyond doubt on the evidence of p.ws, 9, 11 and 14 that the accused had gone to village Tudukam in Patka P.S. in the District of Singhbhumi in Bihar, and was staying in the house of p.w. 14 for nearly about two weeks before his arrest on 18-5.1967. We get it from p.w. 14 that the accused at that place gave out that his name was Suna Majhi and not Kandra Majhi, which really is his name, as seen from the evidence of P.W. 16, his father. It has not been suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was also known in the name of Suna Majhi. The very fact that the accused was not found any where in his own village or in the village of his father-in-law, and was found at a far off place after about three weeks of the death of his wife, where ?he was living by adopting a false name for himself, is by itself a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused. All these circumstances And the facts that the accused dragged away his wife in the night of 23-4-1967 from the house of p.w. 18, and his wife?s dead body was found in the jungle underneath a creeper on the very next night, i.e. 24-4-1967, are very strong incriminating circumstances from which reasonable inference can verily be drawn that the accused was the author of the murder. 11. 11. The 8th and the last item mentioned above, namely the discovery of blood stains on The lungi and genji of the accused, as per Chemical Examiner?s report Ext. 12, is not an incriminating circumstance against the accused, in view of the fact that the accused was arrested on 18-5-1967, i.e. about three weeks after the discovery of his wife?s dead body on 24-4-1967. It is also Dot established as to whether the said stains were of human blood. We, therefore, discard the same from consideration. 12. The circumstances enumerated in the above mentioned items nos. 1 to 7 to the extent they are established as found above, in our opinion, concessively establish with reasonable certainty that the accused was the author of the murder. Law is well settled that the circumstances must not only be compatible with the guilt of the accused, but they should also be incompatible with his innocence. The accused?s failure to offer any explanation as to how his wife Parbati met her death after she left with the accused in the night of 23-4-1967; the discovery of her dead body in the jungle on 24-4-1967; the accused remaining away from his own village and from his father-in-law?s village very soon after the death of his wife for nearly about three weeks till he was arrested in a far off village in Bihar on 18-5-1967, and the fact that he was staying in that village by adopting another name which was not his real name, and the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused are strong incriminating circumstances which are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. On the above materials we are convinced that it was the accused and the accused alone who caused the death of the decease p.w. 8, who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Parbati found that injuries nos. 1 and 2 on her person, mentioned above, were each sufficient to immediately cause the death of the deceased. Thus the offence committed by the accused in causing The death of his wife would be culpable homicide amounting to murder, punishable u/s 02, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the conviction of the Appellant on that Court and The sentence passed thereunder are well founded. 13.On The above discussions and considerations we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Accordingly the conviction of the Appellant on that Court and The sentence passed thereunder are well founded. 13.On The above discussions and considerations we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. S.K. Ray, J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed