Short Note : The appellant has been convicted by the Additional Session Judge, Barwani, for an offence under section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant has preferred this appeal through Jail against his conviction and sentence. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that he committed the murder of his wife Kekdi in his house in the night intervening 30th and 31st August 1975. According to the prosecution, deceased Kekdi was a women of ill repute and was indulging in the sale of illicit liquor. It is alleged that on 30th August 1975 the appellant had brought deceased Kekdi to his house dragging from Jai-Stambh, Barwani, and had threatened her that he would suitably deal with her at the house. The further allegation is that the appellant had beat her at the house during the night and he absconded after killing her. Held : The conviction of the appellant rests mainly on two circumstances firstly on the ground that it was the appellant who was last with the deceased at his house. This is further sought to be supported by the evidence that the appellant had brought the deceased dragging from Jai Stambh. Barwani, to the house and had uttered the words that he would see to her at the house. The other circumstance relied upon was that the appellant had absconded. 3. The evidence to show that the appellant was last with the deceased at his house is that of P.W.1 Suresh and P.W.2 Raghuram. The learned Additional Session Judge seems to have read their evidence to mean that they had seen the appellant with the deceased at his house on that night. A perusal of the evidence, however, clearly negatives this position. P.W.1 Suresh has stated that at about 7/8 P.M. noise of a man and a woman was coming from the house of the appellant. At one stage in his evidence, he suggested that they were quarrelling, but he simultaneously further stated that some jokes were going on in between them. PW2 Raghuram does not even support that position. What he has stated is that the relations in between the appellant and his wife were cordial and they had not been quarrelling with each other. He denied to have heard that night any noise of some quarral or jokes from the house of the appellant. PW2 Raghuram does not even support that position. What he has stated is that the relations in between the appellant and his wife were cordial and they had not been quarrelling with each other. He denied to have heard that night any noise of some quarral or jokes from the house of the appellant. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court. Thus, we are left only with the evidence of P.W.1 Suresh. There is nothing in his evidence to make out that the appellant was last with the deceased at his house. Even accepting that the appellant had brought the deceased to the house dragging in the evening, it cannot be conclusively inferred that the appellant continued to stay in the house till the late hours of the night when the murder is alleged to have been committed. That being so, this circumstance fails and is hereby rejected. 4. The only circumstance that now remains is that of absconsion of the appellant. This evidence, even if accepted, is wholly inconclusive and insufficient to hold the appellant guilty of murder of Kekdi. Thus, in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed.