(1) WE have heard the learned counsel both sides. Basant Singh, appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala under S. 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of his co-villager, Jassa Singh. The High Court dismissed Basant Singhs appeal. He has now come in appeal to this court by leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. (2) THE prosecution story was that on 22/08/1970, the appellant induced the deceased to go with him to the house ofAmar Nath (Public Witness 18) in the village of (sic)where a jagraata was being held. The appellant and the deceased were seen at the jagraata up to 3 a. m. when the gathering dispersed. The appellant then induced the deceased to go with him to the formers tube-well for spending the night there. Thereafter, the deceased disappeared. After making a futile search for the deceased, Puran Singh (Public Witness 13) brother of the deceased lodged a report at Police Station, Sadar, Kapurthala on 24/08/1970 whereupon a case under S. 364, Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant which subsequently on the recovery of the dead body of Jassa Singh, was altered into one under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, (3) THE conviction of the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The main circumstances which have been accepted, as established, by the courts below are as follows : (1) The first circumstance is three-fold: (a) At about 8 or 9 p.m. on 22/08/1970, the appellant called and took away the deceased from the latter"s house to the jagraata (a religious vigil) which was being held in the house of Pandit Amar Singh (Public Witness 8) in the village; (A) Thereafter, up to about 3 a.m,, the appellant and the deceased were seen together in the congregation at the house of Amar Nath till about 3 a.m. when it started drizzling and the gathering started dispersing;(c) At about 3 or 3.30 a.m. the appellant asked the deceased to accompany him to his tube-well for spending the night there and then both of them proceeded towards the tube-well of the appellant. Evidence in regard to (a) was given by Puran Singh (Public Witness 13) who was joint in residence with the deceased. Regard- ing fact (b), the evidence was furnished by Amar Nath (Public Witness 8) and TejaSingh(PW 12). Evidence regarding (c) was rendered by Public Witness 12. Evidence in regard to (a) was given by Puran Singh (Public Witness 13) who was joint in residence with the deceased. Regard- ing fact (b), the evidence was furnished by Amar Nath (Public Witness 8) and TejaSingh(PW 12). Evidence regarding (c) was rendered by Public Witness 12. Sadhu Singh (Public Witness 10) deposed to this fact but this evidence has not been relied upon by the High court. (2) The dead body of the deceased was fo.und buried in a pit adj acent to the tube-well of the appellant, on 25/08/1970 by Police Sub-Inspector, PW 15 in the presence of PWs, Teja Singh, Puran Singh, and one Mohan Singh. The memorandum Ex. PG was prepared in this behalf. (3) Recovery of blood-stained dagger Ex. P-4 at the instance of the appellant from the sugar-cane field where it lay buried. According to the report of the Serologist there was human blood on this dagger (Ex P-4). Labh Singh (Public Witness 6), who attested the memo Ex. PG, and the Sub-Inspector (PW 15) deposed to this fact. (4) Blood was noticed on the baan (warp and woof) of a charRai found lying in the shutterless kothe of the appellants tube-well on August 24 by Head Constable Jagdish Chander, Public Witness 14. Blood-stained earth was also seized from the round underneath that charpai. The Chemical Examiner and Serologist has reported that the baan and the earth sent to him were stained with human blood. (5) The appellant absconded after the occurrence and remained in abscondance till his arrest on 29/08/1970. When this circumstance was put to the accused during his examination under S. 313, Criminal Procedure Code, he gave a false explanation that he had gone away to his sisters village Harimpur on 20/08/1970 and returned to his village on 26/08/1970. (4) WE have examined carefully the evidence of the prosecution witnes- ses relating to the above enumerated circumstances. We are of opinion that the courts below were right in holding that the evidence of the witnesses was creditworthy and these circumstances had been fully established. We are further satisfied that these circumstances unerringly point to the conclu- sion that within all human probability, the murder of Jassa Singh was committed by the appellant and none else. We, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismiss his appeal.