JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This is prisoner's appeal against his conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. Prosecution case was that the accused married the deceased Lede Majhiani for the second time after the death of his first wife. He has some children through his first wife. As the deceased was harassing the children in various ways the accused got annoyed and killed her on the night of 30-4-1976 while she was sleeping in the house. Next morning the accused approached the Gramarakhi of the village and made a confession that he had killed the deceased. The Gramarakhi went to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries on her person, He called the villagers and the accused confessed before them that he had killed the deceased by a Valla since she was harassing the children of his first wife. He also showed the Valla with which he had committed the murder. The Gramarakhi left the Valla in charge of P.W. 6 Dukhu Majhi and then went to Ghatgaon Police Station with the accused and lodged information on the basis of which F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was drawn up. The accused was taken to custody and his wearing napkin and Dhoti (M.Os. III and IV) were seized as they contained stains of blood. In due course charge sheet was submitted against the accused. 3. Plea of the accused was a total denial of the occurrence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, held the accused guilty and inflicted the sentence as indicated above. It is urged in this appeal that the evidence on the record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction. 5. That the death of the deceased was homicidal admits of no doubt. The doctor (P.W. 1) performed post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 4 5 1976 and found five incised wounds on different parts of the body. In his opinion, the incised wound measuring 4' x 1" x 2' situated on the left side of the neck 4' below the left mastoid process proved fatal, and death was caused due to shock and haemorhage resulting from this injury. He also opined that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. In his opinion, the incised wound measuring 4' x 1" x 2' situated on the left side of the neck 4' below the left mastoid process proved fatal, and death was caused due to shock and haemorhage resulting from this injury. He also opined that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. There is no direct evidence of any eye-witness about the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. 7. It is well settled that in order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence the Court must be certain that the circumstantial evidence is of such a character as in consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If, however, the circumstantial evidence-admits of any other rational explanation, in such an event an element of doubt, would creep in and the accused must necessarily have the bend it or doubt. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain no link or which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused an exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 8. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused had a motive or the murder as the deceased was ill-treating her step children. P.W. 8 is the daughter or the accused through his first wife. She is aged a bout 16 years. She stated that after the death of her mother the deceased was harassing her and her brother and sister in several ways. She also stated that her brother was assaulted by the deceased in the evening proceeding the occurrence and the matter was reported to the accused. On his return to house. She was cross examined at length and stood unshaken. From her evidence it appears that the accused wished to do away with the life of the deceased who was ill treating his children. 9. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the occurrence took place in the dwelling house of the accused at the dead hour of the night when both the accused and the deceased were sleeping in the ream after bolting the door from inside and in the next morning the accused was found absent from his house. 9. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the occurrence took place in the dwelling house of the accused at the dead hour of the night when both the accused and the deceased were sleeping in the ream after bolting the door from inside and in the next morning the accused was found absent from his house. P.W. 8 has testified that the accused and his children including herself slept at one place and the deceased slept at another place, but within the same room after bolting the door from inside. Next morning she found that the deceased was lying dead and the accused was absent from home. During his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused admitted that he and his children slept at one place and the deceased slept at another place but within the same room after closing the door. He also admitted that he left his house in the next morning but stated that when he woke up he found the deceased lying dead. As the offence was committed in a dwelling house at the dead hour of the night, it is impossible for anyone to expect any outsider to be present on the scene of occurrence. The accused has not offered any explanation as to how his wife sustained the injuries on her person which resulted in her death. His plea that when he woke up he found the deceased lying dead in the house is not believable. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 who is the Gramarakhi of the village that the accused went to him in the morning following the occurrence and confessed before him that he had killed the deceased on the previous night. It is beyond the pale of controversy that confession made before the Gramarakhi is inadmissible in evidence. But the fact remains that the accused was the first person to give information about the occurrence to the Gramarakhi and he also produced the Valla (M.O. I) before the Gramarakhi when he visited the spot. His wearing napkin and dhoti (M.Os. III and IV) were seized by the police at the time of his arrest as they were stained with blood. On chemical examination and serological test M.Os. III and IV were found to contain human n blood. His wearing napkin and dhoti (M.Os. III and IV) were seized by the police at the time of his arrest as they were stained with blood. On chemical examination and serological test M.Os. III and IV were found to contain human n blood. The accused has not offered an explanation as to how his wearing cloth were stained with human blood. In our opinion, the above facts are sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances to show the guilt of accused without t any reasonable doubt. 10. The result is that the appeal is dismissed, the conviction and sentence being upheld. J.K. Mohanty, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed