Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri, in S.C. No.3 of 1979, by which the accused Avaran, charged with an offence under S.302 IPC. for the murder of his wife Mariyumma, has been acquitted. 2. Avaran, the accused had married Mariyumma, it being a love marriage according to Pw. 11 and the couple had two children, of age less than three and one. The accused had apparently prospered in his life and work. (Pw. 3 a neighbour of accused was one among the persons who used to work under him). Going by the details gatherable from the scene mahazar Ext. P11, the plan Ext. P12 and the inquest Ext. P7, he had recently moved into a spacious and storeyed building at Aravankara with modern amenities. The house with its courtyard abutted on the Valluvambram-Malappuram road. It had many rooms including an office room, kitchen and bathroom and a well. Close by was the public hydrant. On the east were the houses of Pw.3 (Pw.2 is her son residing in the same house) and Pw. 5, the distance being respectively 1 metre and 21/2 metres. On the west is the house of Pw. 1. A sports club is functioning near the house of Pw.l. 3. According to the prosecution evidence, the relationship between the spouses became strained and this resulted in the murder of Mariyumma in the midnight of 31-7-1978. The accused pretended as though his wife was missing from the house and at about 2.30 a.m. on 1-7-1978, woke up the next door neighbour Pw.3 and ascertained whether Mariyumma was there. The answer was naturally in the negative. An alarm was then raised. Pw.2 Muhammed, son of Pw.3, and Ami, another neighbour examined as Pw.4, who were awake by the time, also called out and searched for the missing Mariyumma. In the flash of light of a lorry which came by that way at that time, Mariyumma's dead body was spotted out. She was having a black blouse and a lunki at that time, smeared with mud and drenched in water. The women, pws.3, 4 and others, took the body inside the house. They felt, wrongly as it turned out, that she was still alive. The dirty clothes on her body were removed. The body was covered by a fresh cloth. She was having a black blouse and a lunki at that time, smeared with mud and drenched in water. The women, pws.3, 4 and others, took the body inside the house. They felt, wrongly as it turned out, that she was still alive. The dirty clothes on her body were removed. The body was covered by a fresh cloth. Pw.2 and accused then called the neighbour Pw. 5, Mamunni. He also went to the house of the accused. Pw. 5 informed pw. 8, Unneethri Master, a respectable man of the locality and aged 68 years, residing within 200 yards from the house of the accused. Pw. 8 directed Pw. 5 to fetch Pw. 1. Pw.1 who was sleeping in the sports club was also thus brought to the house of the accused. Pw. 8's uncle Kunhammed Haji was a rich man of the locality who could command vehicles, car and jeep. Pw. 8 made some searching questions to the accused. The answers disclosed a disturbed mind which aroused suspicion in Pw. 8 about the accused. He then gave instructions that the police and the near relatives of Mariyumma be informed. (Mariyumma had an elder sister Ayisha and a brother Alavi, Pw. 9 Mohammad being the husband of the elder sister and Pw. 11 Achutty being the wife of the brother). Pw.1 accordingly proceeded in a jeep and gave the First Information Statement, Ext. P1, before the Sub Inspector, Pw. 22 at 8 a. m. on 1-8-1978. A case was registered as Crime No. 243 of 1978 in respect of an "unnatural death". The inquest was also held by Pw. 22, the report being Ext. P7. He took into custody the ornaments (M. Os. 3 and 4) and clothes (M. Os. 5 and 6) of Mariyumma and some scrappings of blood (M. 0.7) clotted in the courtyard. The body of Mariyumma taken to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, was subjected to post-mortem examination by Pw. 16, Dr. Chandran, who issued Ext. P8 post-mortem certificate on 2-8-1978. The injuries on the dead body were noted; and the cause of death was shown as 'throttling'. The injuries so noted were: "External: 1. Curved linear abrasion (nail mark) 6 x 1 m.m. with concavity upwards and outwards on the right side of front of neck 2 c.m. away from midline and 5 c.m. above the inner end of right collar bone. 2. The injuries so noted were: "External: 1. Curved linear abrasion (nail mark) 6 x 1 m.m. with concavity upwards and outwards on the right side of front of neck 2 c.m. away from midline and 5 c.m. above the inner end of right collar bone. 2. Abrasion 6 x 4 m.m. on the right side of front of neck, 1.5 c.m. above injury No. 1. 3. Curved linear abrasion (nail mark) 12 x 1 m. m. with concavity outwards, on the left side of neck 7 c.m. away from midline and 6. c.m. below left ear lobule. 4. Abrasion 1 x 0.2 c.m. on the lower border of left side of lower jaw 4 c.m. below the angle of mouth. 5. Abrasion 15 x 1 c.m on the left side of face 4 c.m. in front of left ear. Internal: 1. Soft tissue of neck underneath external injury No.1 bruised over an area of 1,5 x 1 c.m. 2. Underneath external injury No. 3 the left steromastoid muscle showed a bruise 4 x 1.5. c.m. at the level of bifurcation of the left common carotid artery." 4. Pw. 22 then sent a report to the Magistrate, Ext. P13, in the light of the information received after the postmortem examination, pointing out that as the dead body was found near the house of the husband with injuries and as the husband and wife were not in good terms, the husband was suspected in the case. S.302 of the Indian Penal Code was inserted as relevant section relating to the crime. A search was thereafter conducted on 3-8-1978, Ext. P2 being the search list. mos.1 and 2, a blouse and lunki were recovered then. Mo. 8 cloth with bloodstains was recovered on 5-8-1978 in pursuance to the confession statement of the accused, under the mahazar Ext. P14, attested by Pws.19 and 20. Pw. 23, the Circle Inspector who took over the investigation on 8-8-1978 completed it and laid the charge on 15-12-1978. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirur, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Manjeri by his order dated 17-1-1979. 5. On the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined, 14 documents exhibited and 8 mos. produced. The defence did not examine any witness but portions of the Case Diary of Pw. 4, Pw. 5, Pw. 8, Pw. 12, Pw. 13 and Pw. 14 were marked as Exts. 5. On the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined, 14 documents exhibited and 8 mos. produced. The defence did not examine any witness but portions of the Case Diary of Pw. 4, Pw. 5, Pw. 8, Pw. 12, Pw. 13 and Pw. 14 were marked as Exts. D1, D1 (a), D1 (b) (relating to pw. 4), D2 (relating to pw. 5), D3 (relating to Pw.8), D4,(a) (relating to Pw. 12), D5 (relating to Pw.13) and D6, D6(a) to D6(c) (relating to Pw.14). Of the witnesses examined, those directly concerned with the events soon after the death of Mariyumma, are Pws.1 to 5 and 11 to 13. Pw. 3 is the neighbour of the next door house to whom the accused made the query relating to his missing wife at about mid-night. Pw. 2 is her son. Pws. 4 and 5 are other neighbours. Pw.1 is a neighbour who was summoned to the house of the accused on a direction of Pw.8, from the sports club where he was sleeping on that night. The strained relationship which constituted the motive for the murder was sought to be established from the evidence of Pws. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 11. Pw.6 is a tailor, who has to go along the road in front of the accused's house to reach his shop. He was examined to give evidence about the commotion in the house of the accused at about 10 and 10.30 p. m. on the fateful day. He, however, turned hostile. So did Pw. 7, a person engaged in climbing coconut trees. He too was examined to give evidence about the quarrel between Avaran and Mariyumma and the accused's threat that he would kill and bury Mariyumma. Pw. 9 Muhammed, is the husband of Ayisha, the elder sister of Ayisumma. Pw. 11 Achutti is the wife of Alavi, the brother of Mariyumma. Pws. 12 to 14 have been examined to prove that they, while proceeding in a lorry along the road is front of the house of the accused, happened to see at about 11.30P.M. a person coming out of the house of the accused, carrying a woman on his shoulders and proceeding to the water tap. As there was no request from the man for any help or assistance, the lorry, though it had been slowed down, did not stop and they proceeded on their way. Pw. As there was no request from the man for any help or assistance, the lorry, though it had been slowed down, did not stop and they proceeded on their way. Pw. 16 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The blouse and lunki of Mariyumma recovered under Ext. P14 from the foot of a coconut tree along with other M. Os. were sent for chemical examination by Pw. 17, Head Clerk of the court, the forwarding letter and the report being Exts. P9 and P10. Mariyumma is the cousin (uncle's daughter) of Pw. 15. According to Pw. 15, when he went to attend the funeral of Mariyumma, the accused had confessed about the 'blunder' he had committed, about the imminence of his arrest by the police and the pressing necessity of making arrangements for his bail. Pw. 18 is the attestor to the scene mahazar Ext. P11. The recovery witnesses (who turned hostile) are Pws. 19 and 20. Pw. 21 is the Village Assistant who prepared the scene mahazar. The Sub Inspector, who received the First Information Statement, registered the crime and sent the report Ext.P13 altering the section to S.302 IPC. is Pw. 22. The Circle Inspector who completed the investigation is Pw. 23. 6. The First Information Statement and the F. I. R. referred to earlier are Exts. P1 and P1 (a) and the search list in respect of the search made on 3-8-1970 is Ext. P2. As Pws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 had turned hostile, their Case Diary portions had been marked respectively as Exts. P3, P3(a) to (c), P4, P4(a) to (c), P5, P6 and P6(a). The inquest report is Ext. P7 and the post-mortem certificate already referred to earlier is Ext. P8. Ext. P9 dated 31-8-1978 is the covering letter addressed to the Medical Examiner and report is Ext. P10. The scene mahazar is Ext. P11 and the plan Ext. P12. Ext. P13 is the report by pw. 22, regarding the death of Mariyumma after the post-mortem examination. A portion of the recovery mahazar is Ext. P14. 7. In his statement under S.313 Cr. P10. The scene mahazar is Ext. P11 and the plan Ext. P12. Ext. P13 is the report by pw. 22, regarding the death of Mariyumma after the post-mortem examination. A portion of the recovery mahazar is Ext. P14. 7. In his statement under S.313 Cr. P. C. the accused maintained that he and Mariyumma were living happily, that on the fateful night, when he heard the cry of his child he called his wife but received no response, that thereupon he switched on the light only to find her missing, that carrying the crying child on his shoulders he called for Mariyumma aloud, that he enquired with Pw.2 whether his wife was there and received an answer in the negative, that a search was thereafter undertaken with the assistance of neighbours, that some time later Mariyumma's dead body was found lying on the road-side, that he felt that some lorry might have hit her, that she was taken inside the house, and that only then he learnt that she was dead; He was so stunned by the grief that he was unable to do anything soon thereafter. By next morning the police came there and arranged to send the dead body to the Medical College, Calicut. He was taken to the Manjeri Police Station in a jeep. The plea of innocence was put forward. 8. The learned Sessions Judge posed three points, whether the accused had caused the death of Mariyumma as alleged by the prosecution, whether he was guilty of an offence under S.302 IPC. and about the sentence to be passed. The learned Sessions Judge found that Mariyumma died as a result of throttling, that she died during the night on 31-7-1978 in the house in which herself and her husband were living together with their children, but, according to him, the motive alleged by the prosecution, namely a domestic quarrel between the husband and wife, had not been proved. In so doing, the learned Sessions judge adverted to the evidence of Pws. 9 and 11, who are, as stated earlier, the sister's husband and brother's wife of Mariyumma. Their evidence was not disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. In so doing, the learned Sessions judge adverted to the evidence of Pws. 9 and 11, who are, as stated earlier, the sister's husband and brother's wife of Mariyumma. Their evidence was not disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Regarding the testimony of Pw.9, it was observed: "Even going by the testimony of Pw.9, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the relationship of the accused with Mariyumma was so strained as to prompt the accused to cause her death." The evidence of Pw.11 was also not disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Summing up her evidence, he observed: "From the version of Pw.11, it is clear that though there used to be some bickerings as quarrels between the accused and Mariyumma the same was not so intense or revengeful as to induce the husband to take away the life of the wife." 9. According to the learned Sessions Judge, testimony of pw. 4 did not show that relationship between the husband and wife had become strained. On the above premise, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the conduct of the accused preceding the incident was not indicative of a guilt on his part. Of the subsequent conduct of the accused, the evidence of Pws. 3 to 5 and 8,12 to 15 was considered by the learned Sessions Judge. According to him the evidence did not establish the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the accused did not make any attempt to abscond immediately after the incident. The recovery of M.O.8 blood stained cloth used for wiping off the blood from the nostrils of the deceased had not been properly proved. The cloth on chemical examination did not disclose the presence of blood. In the above circumstances, the accused was acquitted, on the ground that there was only a strong suspicion against him. 10. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge have been assailed by the learned Public Prosecutor, as totally unreasonable and perverse. We shall consider the contentions so urged with reference to the entire evidence placed before us by the learned Public Prosecutor on the one hand and by the counsel for the defence who endeavoured to sustain the judgment under appeal. 11. We shall consider the contentions so urged with reference to the entire evidence placed before us by the learned Public Prosecutor on the one hand and by the counsel for the defence who endeavoured to sustain the judgment under appeal. 11. Before we deal with the evidence in some detail as regards the conduct of the accused preceding, and subsequent to, the event, we may advert to certain clinching circumstances which have emerged from the evidence. 12. We have already adverted to the location of the house in which the accused and the deceased together with their two tiny children were living. On the fateful night, the only adults inside the house were the accused and the deceased. There was no attack on the bouse from any external agency. The front door had not been opened admittedly. The version about the rear door having been opened, has been repudiated by the accused. The medical evidence has established that Mariyumma died due to asphyxia. The doctor, pw.16 was categoric that it was not a case of suicide thorttling. A homicidal death has thus occurred within the four walls of a house, in which besides the deceased and the accused there were only two tiny children. The medical evidence referred to above further established that such asphyxia had been caused by a human agency, the nail marks indicating the same. Inference is therefore irresistible that it was the accused, and only the accused, that was responsible for the death of Mariyumma. 13. In Pohalya v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Crl. L. J. 1310, the Supreme Court had observed: ...Ordinarily, when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of an incriminating character." The time and place the two were last found together and the total absence of any intervention from an outside agency after the two were last seen together are further circumstances which lend assurance to the inference. The circumstances are strongly similar to those in which conviction has been entered by this court and by the Supreme Court. In Crl. The circumstances are strongly similar to those in which conviction has been entered by this court and by the Supreme Court. In Crl. Appeal No. 112 of .1981, Jose v. State of Kerala, we held a father of two children guilty of murder, when the evidence established that he together with the children were the only persons inside a house on the crucial night, and when on the next morning the dead bodies of the children were found afloat in a neighbouring tank. Similarly when the only persons residing in a house in the High Ranges were a husband and a wife, and when the wife was found dead at the break of day, the husband was convicted of murder, when his alibi of having been absent on the night failed and when the evidence disclosed a struggled death and nail marks on the face of the husband, (Vide Crl. A. No. 386 of 1981, Muthu Musthafa v. State of Kerala). The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of Maharashtra, AIR. 1982 SC. 1217, was confronted with a situation where at the time of the death of the wife, the husband was the only other occupant. The husband had a plea that the wife committed suicide. That was disproved by the medical evidence. A homicidal death was found. The Supreme Court convicted the accused husband, relying on the clinching circumstances so established. This case is almost 'on all fours' (if we may employ, what according to Lord Wright is a slang phrase) with the case on hand. The learned Sessions Judge himself has observed that the accused and the deceased were the only inmates of the house and the medical evidence showed that the deceased died of throttling and that there could never be a suicidal throttling. We are clearly of the view that in the above circumstances, the learned judge, made an unreasonable and perverse conclusion in holding that the circumstances established only a suspicion. This is not in tune with the approach indicated by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, alluded to earlier. In this view, the acquittal of the accused has to be set aside. 14. The conclusion that we have reached, is fully corroborated by other evidence, which would rule out every hypothesis of innocence on the part of the accused. 15. In this view, the acquittal of the accused has to be set aside. 14. The conclusion that we have reached, is fully corroborated by other evidence, which would rule out every hypothesis of innocence on the part of the accused. 15. We shall first of all deal with the background and atmosphere in the accused's house just before Mariyumma died. pw. 4, though somewhat an elderly woman, was on friendly terms with Mariyumma. Mariyumma confided to her that the accused was contemplating a second marriage, and that she was much upset by that attitude. The resultant bitterness on the part of the accused when the wife protested against his proposal can easily be inferred. This estrangement further aggravated, when pw. 9 on behalf of the husband of the elder sister of Mariyumma, demanded money from Mariyumma. (Pw. 11 would say that it was return of the money that had been already advanced to the accused). The evidence of pw. 9 is not quite clear whether it was a return of a loan already taken or pw. 11's husband seeking financial help. Whatever that be, the evidence of pw. 9 and pw. 11 indicates that accused had bitter feelings towards Mariyumma at about that time, over that matter too. pw. 11's evidence (which has appealed to us as being natural and honest) would indicate that even three days prior to the incident Mariyumma had been to her place and had told her about the desperate and distressing situation in which Mariyumma had been placed as a result of the attitude on the part of the accused. Mariyumma told her about Avaran's words that he would kill her. pw. 11 consoled Mariyumma saying that her apprehension was unfounded. Mariyumma then expressed her feelings of distress by explaining that would have been better if she had been killed and that in that event, at least her children would be safe. The events preceding a few hours prior to her death, as disclosed by the evidence of Pw. 9 (which we are inclined to believe and act upon), also fully corroborate this continued hostile attitude of the accused towards his wife. Mariyumma prepared food to host Pw. 9 who visited her in the house at 7 P. M. on that day. (The visit of Pw. 9 is corroborated by Pw. 4 also). Pw. 9 desired the company of the accused also, while taking meals. Mariyumma prepared food to host Pw. 9 who visited her in the house at 7 P. M. on that day. (The visit of Pw. 9 is corroborated by Pw. 4 also). Pw. 9 desired the company of the accused also, while taking meals. The accused then said that he had not been taking food from the house for some time past. He refused to have food along with Pw. 9. It was about 9.30 P. M. when Pw. 9 left the house. 16. Counsel for the accused submitted that under personal law governing the accused, it was open to the accused to contract another marriage with impunity and without seeking the consent of Mariyumma. Her resentment to the second marriage could not therefore constitute a sufficiently strong motive to do away with the first wife. He also submitted that occasional quarrels are not unknown to ordinary married life and that such quarrels hardly account for a death of either spouse. We cannot accept these submissions. It is one thing to say the personal law permits a person to have a second wife, or for that matter, even more than two. It is yet another thing to ignore the resentment a young wife will have (Mariyumma was hardly 24 at the time of her death) particularly having regard to the fact that marriage was, what is termed by pw. 11 as a'love marriage'. The extent of bitterness between the two is revealed, from his refusal to eat at home. When the accused openly asserts that he will do away with his wife, and in such a manner that Mariyumma sensed a real danger in that threat (otherwise ordinarily no wife situate in her social and religious background would openly complain of such threat to her sister-in-law), the situation is not one of a light or silly quarrel between the spouses. The circumstance is such a grave one as to be taken note of, and could be properly reckoned, as throwing light on the conduct and on the motive for the act committed a few hours later. 17. The conduct of the accused after mid-night also clearly confirms his guilt. He enquired with Pw. 2 whether Mariyumma was there. According to Pw. 4 it was the accused who spotted out the dead body first. Pw.3 does not say that it was she who first found out the dead body of Mariyumma. 17. The conduct of the accused after mid-night also clearly confirms his guilt. He enquired with Pw. 2 whether Mariyumma was there. According to Pw. 4 it was the accused who spotted out the dead body first. Pw.3 does not say that it was she who first found out the dead body of Mariyumma. Even in the 313 statement the accused has not stated that it was Pw.3 who first saw the dead body. If the accused could easily spot out the dead body in the flash of the light of a lorry which came that way, that may itself reveal a suspicious circumstance. 18. Even if it was Pw.3 who found the dead body first, his subsequent conduct was not a normal one. When the dead body was spotted out, the accused had no difficulty in believing or making others believe that the death might have happened due to a hit by a lorry. The evidence discloses that he did not make any endeavour whatever to find out as to how the body of his wife happened to lie on the road margin, and whether she had any serious injuries on her body. The further conduct only strengthens the inference relating to the guilt of the accused. The accused, according to Pw. 5, trotted out a story that Mariyumma had been hit by a lorry. This is obviously a false story, in the light of the medical evidence relating to the cause of her death. Pw. 5, who was approached by Pw. 2 and the accused on that night, has given evidence that in answer to his query, he was told by the accused that Mariyumma was hit by a lorry. This version of Pw. 5 relating to the conduct is fully corroborated by the evidence of Pw. 8. Pw. 8 is a respectable man of the locality. That he was approached in a grave situation for guidance by persons like Pw. 5 and Pw. 2 itself indicates his respectability and popularity in the area. No motive has been suggested by the accused against pw. 8. Pw. 8 has stated that Pw. 5 woke him up on the night when the incident took place, and told him that the wife of the accused was dead having been run over by a lorry. Pw. 8 then put a natural question as to what happened to the lorry. 8. Pw. 8 has stated that Pw. 5 woke him up on the night when the incident took place, and told him that the wife of the accused was dead having been run over by a lorry. Pw. 8 then put a natural question as to what happened to the lorry. It was the accused who then volunteered the answer. And the accused's answer was that the lorry could not be got at. The accused further said that there were no injuries on the body of Mariyumma. It was at that point of time that Pw. 8 felt it necessary to visit the house of the accused. When he beared the house of the accused, the accused told him that the deceased did not have the normal dress on her body. Pw. 8 then directed Pw. 3 to examine the body. The examination revealed the injuries around the neck and the information was duly conveyed by Pw. 3 to Pw. 8. Pw. 8 felt suspicious and he asked the accused to relate the correct facts to him. The explanation given by the accused was the same story about the child crying, his calling the wife, and the wife being missing at that time. In that version given to pw. 8, he revealed a story of the door on the rear side having been found open. (This is not the version as given in the 313 statement). Pw. 8 felt suspicious about the accused and repeated his questions. In particular, Pw. 8 pointed out that by opening the door on the rear side, nobody could go to the road front. The accused then pleaded his inability to offer any comments. The above conduct of the accused, including his attempt to give currency to a false theory that Mariyumma died as a result of the hit by a lorry, and his perplexed and worried demeanour as noticed by Pw.8, are further positive factors consistent only with the guilty mind of the accused. 19. The accused did not take any steps on his own to make arrangements to inform the police or the near relatives of Mariyumma. The accused did not even think of informing his own brother-in-law about his matter, though he was staying very near. It was upto Pw. 8 to give instructions to fetch Pw. 19. The accused did not take any steps on his own to make arrangements to inform the police or the near relatives of Mariyumma. The accused did not even think of informing his own brother-in-law about his matter, though he was staying very near. It was upto Pw. 8 to give instructions to fetch Pw. 1, and later to arrange the First Information statement to be given to the police through Pw 1, and for intimating the near relatives of Mariyumma Such a conduct on the part of a husband as so abnormal, bag to be consistent only with a criminal mind. 20. A further link in the establishment of the offence as against the accused, is the recovery of the blood stained clothes under Ext. P14 mahazar. The cloth had been buried at the foot of a coconut tree. It was taken out by him on 5-8-1978. No doubt, pws.19 and 20, attestors to the recovery mahazar, turned hostile. Even so, the evidence of pw. 19 would indicate that he had witnessed the accused proceeding to the foot of the coconut tree, sitting there, digging up at the place, and lifting the clothes as stated in the mahazar. He admits that he had signed the mahazar as a witness. He had clarified that at the time when the accused was proceeding to the coconut tree, the accused had nothing in his hand; he had nothing in bis hand even when he sat down. pw. 19 stated that it was a dirty cloth that was taken out by the accused from that place. pw. 22, Sub Inspector, has given evidence relating to the recovery. We are of the view that the recovery of M. 0.8 is duly proved, despite the fact that pw. 19 turned out to be a reluctant witness. A criticism was made by defence counsel, that the recovery of the blood stained clothes is not of any particular significance as the chemical analysis did not establish the existence of blood on the cloth. It must however, be remembered that the cloth was recovered nearly 5 days after the incident. The season (July-August) is a rainy one with copious rains. There is evidence in the case that even on the night when the incident took place, it was raining. It must however, be remembered that the cloth was recovered nearly 5 days after the incident. The season (July-August) is a rainy one with copious rains. There is evidence in the case that even on the night when the incident took place, it was raining. The absence of blood stain on the chemical analysis, therefore does not detract from the fact that a blood stained cloth had been recovered at the instance of the accused from the spot pointed out by him. This too certainly connects the accused with the crime and rules out any possibility of another person being the perpetrator of the heinous act. 21. Though the Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of pws.12 to 14, the persons in the lorry who proceeded that way in the night of 31st July, 1978, with a view to establish that the accused was seen by them carrying a woman on his shoulders, we do not intend to act upon the evidence of these witnesses, having regard to the inconsistencies in their testimony. In agreement with the learned Sessions Judge, we feel that it is not safe to rely on their evidence. Even in the absence of the evidence in relation to that circumstance, there is abundance of materials and the evidence in the case, which would conclusively establish the guilt of the accused. 22. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the accused was present in the house even after the death of Mariyumma and had participated in the funeral of Mariyumma. According to the learned Sessions Judge, that conduct was consistent with the innocence of the accused. We are unable to agree with this observation. pw. 22 has given evidence that the accused was absconding and that he was arrested only on 5-8-1978. No circumstance has been brought out to discredit the testimony of pw. 22 on this point. In answer to the question put by counsel for the accused, pw. 22 stated that the arrest of the accused on the 5th of August 1978 had been intimated to the superior officers and that the arrest card had been sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. He also maintained that the counterfoil of the arrest card had been kept in the Manjeri Police Station. 22 stated that the arrest of the accused on the 5th of August 1978 had been intimated to the superior officers and that the arrest card had been sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. He also maintained that the counterfoil of the arrest card had been kept in the Manjeri Police Station. The presence of the accused at the time when the Police arrived on the scene on 1-8-1978, has to be considered in the light of the fact that at that time the results of the post-mortem examination had not been known. It was only when the post-mortem examination was completed on 2-8-1978, that a clear clue to the death of Mariyumma was available. The absconding of the accused from that point of time, is, therefore, yet another circumstance consistent with his guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. 23. Pw.15 a cousin of Mariyumma has given evidence that the accused had confessed to him of having committed a 'blunder', about his arrest being imminent, and a pressing necessity to make arrangements for releasing him on bail. It is unnecessary to rely on this testimony to reach a conclusion against the accused, in view of the evidence and materials already referred to earlier. 24. We are therefore clearly of the view that the circumstances relating to the death of Mariyumma, viewed along with the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused prior to and subsequent to the death of Mariyumma, and the background and atmosphere which prevailed in his house at about the time of her death, all prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the murder of his wife as alleged by the prosecution. The contrary view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is unreasonable and perverse. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, and convict the accused for the offence of murder of his wife under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The bail bond of the accused is cancelled and the accused shall be taken into custody.