Short Note : 1. The prosecution case against the appellant in the trial Court was that the deceased had three wives-tile appellant, Kanibai (P. W. 2) and Sudki. By the appellant, the deceased had no issue, though he had number of issues by Kanibai (P. W. 2). Because of having no child the appellant used to decline to go to the field for assisting her husband. On this question frequent quarrels used to take place between the appellant and her husband. A few days before the present accident, there was a quarrel in which the deceased was beaten by the appellant. On the night of the incident, the deceased was sleeping with the appellant and Kanibai (P. W. 2) m one and the same room in a hut in the field. Sometime after the deceased had fallen asleep, the appellant got up, kicked the deceased in the region of his abdomen a couple of Limes and then twisted his genital organ also. Thereafter she sat upon his person, Stuffed a piece of cloth in his mouth and after ascertaining that he had died she lifted him bodily and carried him to some distance where a turban was tied around his neck and then the dead body was hanged on a branch of a tree. Held : Kanibai (P. W. 2) is one of the three wives of the deceased and admittedly the relations between the appellant and Kanibai were not cordial. 2. Even assuming that in the circumstances in which she was allegedly placed at the time of the actual incident, she was unable to raise a voice, then One could expect that after the appellant had gone out with the dead body of her husband, she would at least either raise an alarm or rush for help to some of her neighbours. She has stated that while the accused bodily lilted the deceased and took the dead body to a considerable distance, she remained a silent spectator and saw the dead body being handed on the branch of a tree On a hillock which, according to Karansingh (P. W 10), was fifty-five feet away from the place of incident. It is in her evidence (Para 3) that Ditali, her hence and Sakadi sister of the deceased were her neighbours. She could atleast rush to them and Inform as to how her husband has been subjected to such an incident. It is in her evidence (Para 3) that Ditali, her hence and Sakadi sister of the deceased were her neighbours. She could atleast rush to them and Inform as to how her husband has been subjected to such an incident. According to her, the appellant returned after about an hour and nothing was done by her till the next morning by which time the villagers knew about the dead body hanging on a branch of a tree. This conduct will show that for the whole night even after the husband was killed and the dead body was taken away, she remained silent and raised no alarm even during period the accused was away from the hut. 3. Even assuming that because of the darkness of the night she was unable to go to anyone, one would expect that in the morning she would raise an alarm and alert the villagers about the dead body hanging on the branch of a tree. 4. Evidence about previous quarrels between the accused and the deceased are of no assistance in this case. When a man has more than one wife, such quarrels is amongst illiterate people particularly Adiwasis are not uncommon, and no inference about the guilt of the accused can be drawn from such a previous petty incident. Appeal allowed.