JUDGMENT Jamdar, J. - The accused-appellant Vasant Hari Mane is sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur, for committing murder of his mistress Anandibai, wife of Ramchandra Nangre and to suffer R. I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months for destroying the evidence of the said crime. 2. Anandibai, who was a resident of village Kodoli was married to Ramchandra Nangre, a resident of Devwadi. But she left her husband soon after her marriage and returned to Kodoli to her father Ganu Had Patil. She developed intimacy with the accused. They resided together as husband and wife: 1 here was nothing secret about this relationship and even the relatives of Anandibai reconciled themselves to this affair. The accused is a married man having five children, who along with their mother reside in the ancestral house .of the accused at Kodoli. 3. Anandibai was last seen in the village on Friday, the 22nd July 1983. According to the prosecution, during the night between 22nd and 23rd July 1983, the accused cut Anandibai's throat by means of a sharp cutting instrument and severed the head. He carried the dead body and the head in a gunny bag to the brook-let, which flows north-south by western side of the village Kodoli and meets river Warana, and threw this bundle in the said booklet at about mid-night between 22nd and 23rd July 1983. The accused, however, continued to reside in the same house tin Anandibai's sister's son Pandurang Patil of Peth arrived at Kodoli and met him at the said house on Thursday, the 28th July 1983. On that day the accused gave the key of the house to Pandurang and went away telling him hat he would go to Kolhapur and 1chulkaranji to trace Anandibai. He returned to the house on Friday and told Pandurang that he could not trace Anandibai. It. however, appears that on the same day Anandibai's headless body? was found lying on the bank of the brooklet in the grass lands of Baban Bapu Ladgaonkar. On coming to know about it Anandibai's " nephew (brother's son) Rangrao Maruti Patil (P.W. 2) went to the brooklet and saw the dead body. It. however, appears that on the same day Anandibai's headless body? was found lying on the bank of the brooklet in the grass lands of Baban Bapu Ladgaonkar. On coming to know about it Anandibai's " nephew (brother's son) Rangrao Maruti Patil (P.W. 2) went to the brooklet and saw the dead body. No identified the dead body as that of his paternal aunt Anandibai and went to Kodoli Police Station and lodged the first information report, Ex. 16, expressing his suspicion tbat the accused killed his aunt and threw the dead body in the brooklet for destroying the evidence. As stated by Rangrao Patil (P.W. 2) this information was recorded at about 5-30 p.m. on that i.e. Friday, the 29th July 1983. Before that at about 1-30 p.m. the accused himself went to Kodoli police station and lodged the missing report, Ex. 53. An entry was duly made on the basis of the missing report in the missing register maintained by the police station by police Havildar Vasant Bandu Bhosale (P.W. 17) who was incharge of the police station at the material time. 4. The offence was registered of the basis of the first information report, Ex. 16, and the accused was arrested in connection with Anandibai's murder at about 5-00 p.m. on 30-7-1983 after P.S.I. Deepak Ghatge (P.W. 20) took over the investigation- Thereafter, P.S.1. Ghatge visited Anandibai's house and inspected it in the presence of panchas and the accused. On minute inspection of the interior of the house, the police officer and the panchas found blood sprayed on a plank of the eastern door (Art. No. 1), on another plank kept on two pegs in a wall (Art. No 6) and two calendar (Art Nos. 4 and 5) and on some parts of the second beam from north on the eastern side fixed at a height of 71/2 feet from the floor. Some blood stains were found on the between two pillars and also on the tip of a bamboo stick on the left. 4 and 5) and on some parts of the second beam from north on the eastern side fixed at a height of 71/2 feet from the floor. Some blood stains were found on the between two pillars and also on the tip of a bamboo stick on the left. Six small and big pieces cut from the lower part of the beam (Art. 7), piece of blood stained bamboo (Art. 8), scraping of the blood stained portion of the wall (Art. No. 2), blood stained gunny cloth (Art. No. 9) found on the left, some earth mixed with blood scraped from some portions of the floor which appeared to be recently plastered with cow-dung (Art. 10), along with Art. Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and some other articles, including brass pot (Art. 15) bearing the name of the accused, one Khate book in the name of the accused (Art. 16) and two note books bearing the name of the accused (Art. 17) were attached under panchnama, Ex. 4. 5. Anandibai's house was inspected by the police officer after the accused offered to show that place made a statement to that effect and took the police officer and panchas to the said place. Memorandum of the statement of the accused to that effect was taken on record at Ex. 41 as if Anandibai's house was discovered on the basis of the information given by the appellant-accused. This part of the evidence was clearly, inadmissible because there was no question of discovery of Anandibai's house. The learned trial Judge has, however, shown blissful ignorance of the scope of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He bas also forgotten to exclude, by bracketing,' inadmissible recitals in various memorandums and panchnamas and exhibited those documents completely. This unfortunately is not the only instance of inadmissible evidence being allowed to be led. There are instances in which hear' say evidence is allowed to be led and also misuse of statements recorded by the police under section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. We however, do not propose to enumerate all those instances, but ignore that evidence. 6. After inspection of Anandibai's house was over, the appellant accused made a statement incorporated in the memorandum, Ex. 43, and took P.S.I. Ghatge and panch as to the shop of one Krishnath, who produced the shirt, Art. 8, at the instance of the accused. We however, do not propose to enumerate all those instances, but ignore that evidence. 6. After inspection of Anandibai's house was over, the appellant accused made a statement incorporated in the memorandum, Ex. 43, and took P.S.I. Ghatge and panch as to the shop of one Krishnath, who produced the shirt, Art. 8, at the instance of the accused. The shirt was attached under panchnama, Ex. 44, which is proved by panch witness Bajrang Nana Salunke (P.W. 15). 7. Thereafter, the accused made another statement, which is incorporated in the memorandum, Ex. 45, and led the police officer and the panchas to his house. There at the instance of the accused his wife brought one steel box kept in a trunk in the kitchen room. This box was found to contain golden chain, Art. 19, golden tik, Art. 20 and mangalsutra, Art. 21. Accused's wife also produced, as directed by the accused, the bandi, Art. 28, and the under pant, Art. 29. All these articles were attached under- panchnama, Ex. 46 which is proved by the same panch witness Bajrang Salunke. The gunny bag, Art. 23, in which Anandibai's dead body was found kept, the green colour blouse, Art. 24, which the deceased was wearing, bangles and. broken pieces of bangles, Art. 25 and twine string (sutali), Art. 26, which was used for tying the gunny bag, were produced in the police station after post mortem was over by police constable Rajaram Sawant (P.W. 18) who was assigned the duty to guard the dead body. 8. Thereafter on 5th August 1983, the accused made the statement, incorporated in the Memorandum, Ex. 38, in the presence of P.S.I. Ghatge and panchas, thee led them to the back side of Anandibai's house and produced the' scythe, Art. 27, which was kept concealed in a heap of fodder in the open back yard of Anandibai's house. The scythe/ sickle was attached under panchnama, Ex. 39, which was proved by panch witness Mirsaheb Gulab Mujawar (P.W. 14). 9. Article Nos. 1 to II, 14, 23, 26, 24, 18, 28, 29 and 27 (numbered as Ex. Nos. 1 to 19 in the report of the chemical analyser) were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser by P.S.I. Ghatge along with his letter of which Ex. 61 is a copy. The report of the chemical analyser, which is at Ex. 62, shows that Art. Nos. Nos. 1 to 19 in the report of the chemical analyser) were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser by P.S.I. Ghatge along with his letter of which Ex. 61 is a copy. The report of the chemical analyser, which is at Ex. 62, shows that Art. Nos. 2, 4, 5,7,9, 23,26,24,18,28 and 29 were stained with human blood and the blood found on Art. Nos. 7, 23, 24, 18, 28 and 29 was of 0 group. Incidentally, it may be mentioned at this stage that the group of accused's blood is also. 10. The postmortem examination of the dead body, which was found to be in a decomposed state, was performed by Dr. Kulkarni (P.W. 13) on 30 6-1983 at the spot where the body was found. He found the following external injuries: "Incised wound over neck 15” x 6.” x bone deep, 5th surical vertibra cutting. Complete cutting of neck and cut across the upper part of the body of 5th surical vertibra. Clean cut edges obliquely transverse. Age within 10 days caused by sharp cutting weapon. Ante-mortem injury. Lacerated wound over left thigh region medio laterally extending upto knee joint 14.4' x 7' x bone deep irregular edges muscle eaten by magots and water animals. Lacerated wound, over left foot 5.6- x 3-x bone deep irregular edges, fingers of foot absent. Lacerated wound over left calf muscle region 3.6' x 3' x bone deep, irregular edges, muscle eaten by magots and water animals. Incised wound over left shoulder joint region' particularly' over bead of the left humerus 1.3- x 4' x i' x bone cut clean cut edges oblique horizontally, age within ten days caused by the sharp cutting weapon, anti-mortem palm, palm eaten. Lacerated wound on right 3- x 21"x bone deep fingers of absent. Irregular edges muscles by magots and water animals. Lacerated wound on left palm, 3- x 21' x bone deep fingers of palm absent, irregular edges; muscles eaten by magots und water animals age within ten days, caused by hard and blunt object. Lacerated wound over circular on right mammary region b' x 4' x muscle deep, irregular edges, eaten by magots and water animals, age within ten days, caused by hard and blunt object. Lacerated wound over circular on right mammary region b' x 4' x muscle deep, irregular edges, eaten by magots and water animals, age within ten days, caused by hard and blunt object. Lacerated wound over lower one third region of right tibia and fibula 2' x 2- x bone deep fracture of lower one third region of right tibia and fibula, fractured irregular edges, are within ten days, caused by hard and blunt object. Fracture anti-mortem." According to him' all the lacerated wounds were post mortem. As the body was decomposed, he did not examine the internal injuries. He gave cause of death as shock and haemorrhage due to cutting of spinal cord, blood vessels trachea, laryux and due to incised wound on the neck. He, however, could not given the exact time of death. 11. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the come and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to one Ananda Shankar Jadhav (P.W. 11) on 23-7-1983. The learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution established several incriminating circumstances against the accused by cogent and acceptable evidence. He also relied upon the extra-judicial confession. He however, held that the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the crime. 12. Before we consider the question whether the circumstantial evidence satisfies the rigorous test which requires exclusion of every alternative hypothesis as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarlal Dixit v. The State of Maharashtra1, we would like to deal with the contention which is forcefully urged by Shri Bhonsale the learned Counsel for the accused about the identification of the dead body. It was urged that it is not conclusively established that the headless dead body was that of deceased Anandibai. The dead body was identified as that of Anandibai by her brother's son Rang Rao Patil, her sister Sonabai Patil (P.W. 7) and Chandulal Nadaf tailor and bangle dealer of Kodoli (P.W. 10). 13. Rangrao, actually saw the dead body before he lodged the F.I.R., Et. 16. Sonabai Patil and Chandulal identified the dead body as that of the deceased on the basis of the photographs Exs. 1 to 5. Rangrao no doubt identified the green blouse (Art. 24) and bangles (Art. 25) as belonging to his paternal aunt Anandibai. 13. Rangrao, actually saw the dead body before he lodged the F.I.R., Et. 16. Sonabai Patil and Chandulal identified the dead body as that of the deceased on the basis of the photographs Exs. 1 to 5. Rangrao no doubt identified the green blouse (Art. 24) and bangles (Art. 25) as belonging to his paternal aunt Anandibai. He also identified the dead body as that of Anandibai on the basis of tattoo marks on both the fore-arms of the deceased. It is, however, not connect to say that Rangrao identified the dead body as that of Anandibai only on the basis of the blouse and the bangles and the tattoo marks. He bas categorically stated in his examination in-chief that he identified the dead body as that of Anandibai and then went to Kodoli Police Station to lodge the complaint. It is true that as can be seen from the first information report which is recorded in vermicular, he told the' police that he identified the dead body on the basis of the blouse, bangles and tattoo marks. But be was not confronted with1his statement during his cross-examination. He was only asked whether he had stated in the first information report that there were tattoo marks of half moon design on Anandibai's fore-arms. Rangrao also denied the suggestion that the dead body was not in 8, position to be identified. It was also not brought on record during the cross-examination of the doctor who carried not the postmortem examination that because of decomposition it was not possible to identify the dead body. Moreover. Rangrao's conduct in going to the police station immediately after seeing the dead body and lodging the complaint in respect of Anandibai's death, itself shows that he was certain about the identify of the dead body. There was no earthly reason for Rangrao to identify some other dead body as that of Anandibai and to lodge a complaint charging the accused for committing Anandibai's murder. Nothing' is brought in his cross-examination to show that he was interested in some how implicating the accused in crime of such a magnitude. 14. Sonabai Patil and Chandulal Nadaf admittedly identified the dead body on the basis of the blouse, bangles and tattoo marks. Chandulal claims that Anandibai was his regular customer and that she had a liking for green bangles. 14. Sonabai Patil and Chandulal Nadaf admittedly identified the dead body on the basis of the blouse, bangles and tattoo marks. Chandulal claims that Anandibai was his regular customer and that she had a liking for green bangles. He also spoke about the size of the bangles which Anandibai used to wear and claims to have seen the tattoo marks on her fore-arms while putting bangles around her arms. He also claims that Anandibai used to get her clothes stitched from him and there were special stitch marks on the blouse, Art. 23, on the basis of which it was possible for him to identify the blouse. He, however, categorically admitted that it was not possible to say whether a particular blouse belonged to a particular lady. He also did not remember what kind of tattoo 'marks Anandibai was having on her fore arms. Hence even though Chandulal might have stitched Anandibai's clothes and was the shop-keeper from whom Anandibai purchased bangles, it is difficult to accept is claim that on the basis of the bangles and the blouse and the tattoo marks, which were generally there on the hands of most of his customers, he could identify the headless body seep in the photographs as that of Anandibai. 15. Sonabai Patil's evidence, however stands on a different footing, she being Anandibai's sister and residing in the same village. She also denied the suggestion that she was unable to identify the dead body on seeing the photographs. It is true that she admitted in her cross-examination that many village women have tattoo marks on their' hands, but she was not asked that the tattoo marks found on the dead body are common tattoo marks which women from villages generally have on their hands. It is not brought on record that the tattoo marks found on the dead body were common marks and that most of the women have such tattoo marks on their hands. Hence because many women from the villages have tattoo marks on their hands, it cannot be said that Anaodibai's near relations could not have identified her dead body on the basis of the tattoo marks on her fore-arms. It will be seen from the inquest panch name, Ex. 9 that the tattoo marks on left hand and right band of the dead body were of different design. It will be seen from the inquest panch name, Ex. 9 that the tattoo marks on left hand and right band of the dead body were of different design. The design of tattoo mark on her left hand was of basil leaf, (Tulsi) while on the right hand the tattoo mark was of half moon shaped flowery design. Sonabai's claim there Core, that she identified the dead body as that of her sister also deserves to be accepted along with that of Rangrao. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the identity of the deceased was duly established and the dead body which was found lying on the bank of the brooklet was that of deceased Anandibai. 16. The learned trial Judge has held that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive for the crime. According to him, the motive alleged by the prosecution was that the deceased had sold some she-buffalos and consequently the income from the milk business had gone down and on this count there used to be quarrels between Anandibai and accused since 2/3 years before Anandibai's death. Rangrao has stated this fact in his first information report as also in his examination-in-chief and according to him, this was the reason why the accused killed his aunt. In his cross-examination, however. Ral1grao has, expressed his ignorance about the financial dealings of Anandibai and the accused and has admitted' that the accused was treating Anandibai well. He also admitted that the accused was spending for, medical treatment of, Anandibai and he was providing on house hold articles and other necessities Anandibai. Sonabai Rokade (P.W. 1) who resided in the same one in which Anandibai resided, has also admitted in her cross-examination that the accused was spending for household and medical expenses of Anandibai. According to Sonabai Rokade, accused had also renovated Anandibai's house which was in dilapidated condition. The learned Judge, therefore was right in coming to the conclusion that it was not established that because Anandibai sold her she-buffaloes, there used to be quarrels between Anandibai and the accused and that that was the motive for the accused to commit the crime in question. It, however, appears to us that in this case the prosecution has not specifically alleged any particular motive for the crime in question. Rangrao generally spoke about Anandibai's relations with the accused in the recent past,. It, however, appears to us that in this case the prosecution has not specifically alleged any particular motive for the crime in question. Rangrao generally spoke about Anandibai's relations with the accused in the recent past,. It cannot, therefore, be said that this is a case in which prosecution alleged a specific motive and failed to prove it. 17. This brings us to the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to Ananda Jadhav (P.W. 11) on 23-7-1983. Both Ananda-and the accused were employees of the same Co-operative Society viz. Sarvodaya Society Kodoli. According to Ananda on 23-7-1983 the accused had attended his duty, but he was in a perturbed mood and when questioned about this state of his mind, the accused told him that Anandibai had demanded ornaments and money from him and hence there ensued a quarrel between him and Anandibai and that in that heat he assaulted her. The learned, trial Judge has accepted this evidence, but in our view, wrongly. No doubt Ananda and -accused are employees of the same Society and they used to work in the same room of their office. But it is difficult to accept. Ananda's claim that he was having cordial relations with the accused. On the contrary their relations could not have, been even normal, much less cordial. Ananda bas admitted in his cross-examination that the accused who worked as an auditor bad made a report to the Secretary of the Society that many bills pertaining to Ananda's department were illegal. He also omitted to state before the police the most important part of his evidence at the trial. He did not state before the police that the accused was found in a perturbed mood and that the accused told him that he assaulted deceased Anandi Lal the, learned trial Judge has not properly recorded this admission about the omission. It is recorded in such a fashion as to give an impression that even though the witness did not say that the accused told him that he had assaulted Anandibai in such terms, be had stated so in different terms. The Marathi version, which is correctly recorded and which has to be accepted as authentic, clearly shows that this witness did not state before the police that the accused had told him that he assaulted deceased. Anandibai. The Marathi version, which is correctly recorded and which has to be accepted as authentic, clearly shows that this witness did not state before the police that the accused had told him that he assaulted deceased. Anandibai. We referred to the original police statement of this witness for this limited purpose and found that what was recorded in vernacular was correct. It is thus clear that this witness has tried to make deliberate improvements at the trial on very vital points. He has also admitted that even after be heard the rumour about the disappearance of Anandibai he did not disclose to anybody else about his talk with the accused. In our opinion, therefore, it would be very unsafe to rely on the testimony of this witness and the learned trial Judge was wrong in doing so. 18. The circumstantial evidence, on which the conviction is based, consists of the following: (i) The accused and the deceased were residing in the same house and were seen together in Anandibai’s house during the night between 22nd and 23rd July 1983, on which the deceased was done to death; (ii) Inspite of the house being cleaned and the floor plastered with cow-dung stains of blood of a group, which was the group of the deceased, were found at various places in the one room house of the deceased. This leads to irresistable inference that the deceased was assaulted in that house; (iii) Blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found on the clothes attached from the possession, of the accused; (iv) Conduct of the accused on the night in question was highly suspicious; (v) The ornaments, Article Nos. 19 to 21, which Anandibai always wore were recovered from the house of the accused; (vi) And that the accused gave false missing report to the police and gave false information about Anandibai's disappearance to those who inquired about her. 19. That Anandibai was very much alive on 22nd July 1983 is not disputed. She was seen in the village at about 2-00 or 3-00 p.m. on 22.7.1983. She was not seen thereafter. Nobody has deposed that Anandibai was seen in the village thereafter. In the missing report, Ex. 53, the accused stated that Anandibai left at 6-30 a.m. on Saturday 23-7'1983. She was seen in the village at about 2-00 or 3-00 p.m. on 22.7.1983. She was not seen thereafter. Nobody has deposed that Anandibai was seen in the village thereafter. In the missing report, Ex. 53, the accused stated that Anandibai left at 6-30 a.m. on Saturday 23-7'1983. He also spoke about a petty quarrel between him self and the deceased that took place before Anandibai allegedly left the house. According to h1m, in spite of his insistence that she should be present for his daughter's marriage, Anandibai left the house when he had gone to answer a call of nature. This is what the accused stated in his missing report: "Wife Anandibai on 23rd July 1983 was saying that I should get an ornament weighing tola for her in the marriage of my daughter Sharda. I told her that there will be marriage expenses and that should not be put to more expenses now. I further told her that I would do the needful after' marriage. Thereafter she was insisting for the same. She told me that she would not wait for the marriage and further told me not to distribute the' marriage invitation cards amongst her relations and persons from her Bhavki. She told me that she would not wait for the marriage and that she would go to Pandharpur for seeing God and demanded money from me. . Hence in order to please her, after calculating the marriage expenses, I gave her Rs. 200/- for the said purpose. Then' on Saturday at 6-30 a.m. I told my wife Anandi to cancel the programme and to keep the money with her. I further told her that after adding some money to it, some ornament will be purchased. After telling her this I went to answer the call of nature. When I returned from answering the call of nature. I found that Anandibai was not in the house. These Categorical assertions made by the accused in the missing report, given before the dead body will found leave absolutely no scope for the argument that Anandibai might have left the village at about 2-00 or 3-00 p.m. on 22nd July 1983 and that she must not have been present in the house during the night between 22nd and 23rd -July 1983. These assertions also go to establish that the accused was also present in the house during the night. These assertions also go to establish that the accused was also present in the house during the night. There was, however, nothing unusual about his presumed in the house during the night in question, because there is enough evidence on record to show that the accused and Anandibai were residing together in Anandibai's house while accused's wife and children were residing separately in accused's ancestral house. A presumption that the accused must have been present in Anandibai's house on the night in question can, therefore, be drawn justifiably. The accused has also categorically stated in the missing report that he used to stay with Anandibai while his 'wife and children used to stay in his ancestral house and that some times he used to visit his wife and children. 20. Anandibai's nephew (sister's son) Pandurang Patil (P.W. 5) has also stated in his evidence that on Thursday, the 2Sth July 1983, when he went to Anandibai's house, the accused was present there and that while leaving the house for visiting Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji the accused gave him the keys of the house. This position is not only not disputed, but is sought to be confirmed in the cross-examination. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistable that the accused used to reside with the deceased in her house and they were together in that house during the night in question. 21. The prosecution has also examined one Dattatraya Ganpati Kamble, (P.W. 81 who claims that he saw the accused entering the house of the deceased at about 8-30 or 9-00 p.m. on the day of Pola festival. The pola festival of 1983 fell on 22nd July 1983. Dattatraya Kamble has his own power-looms. These power looms are installed in the house which is situated exactly opposite the house in which the accused and Anandibai were' residing and across a seven feet wide lane. Dattatraya Kamble stated in his evidence that he used to visit his power looms at 8-30 or 9-to p.m. daily and he did so on the Pola day also. According to him, after he took a round of the factory and competed the supervision, he came near the threshold of the house in which the power looms were installed and at that time saw the accused entering Anandibai's house. According to him, after he took a round of the factory and competed the supervision, he came near the threshold of the house in which the power looms were installed and at that time saw the accused entering Anandibai's house. He also stated that the accused was residing with the deceased in that house as her husband and that only those two were residing there. 22. It was suggested to Dattatraya Kamble that on the day in question the accused was busy with preparations for the marriage ceremony of his daughter and hence the accused did not go to Anandibai's house on that night the witness rejected this suggestion. The fact that Dattatraya's power looms are installed in the house, which is situate exactly opposite the house of Anandibai, is not disputed. What is disputed is his claim that he had gone to his factory at about 8-30 or 9-00 p.m. on Pola day as was his practice. His evidence is sought to be discredited on" the ground that he did not state before the police that he used to visit his factory daily. On the basis of this omission, Shri Bhonsale, the learned counsel for the accused, tried to contend that this witness has made e deliberate improvement in his evidence in order to show that his presence in his factory at the particular hour was quite natural. We are an able to accept this submission because the omission is not in the nature of a contradiction. A man having his factory, which from the facts brought on record in the cross-examination, is working in two shifts, is expected to visit his factory and hence it was not expected of him to state before the police that be daily went to his factory and that is why he had gone to his factory on that day also. Moreover, the details about the working of the factory, which are brought on record during his cross-examination, make his visit to the factory at the material time absolutely natural and plausible. His factory works in two shifts. The first shift was from 8-00 a.m. to 8-00 p.m., while the second shift started at about 8.00 p.m. Dattatraya also stated that during the day time his servant Maruti Mankar worked the power looms and that during the night shift his sister's son Prakash Maruti used to work the power looms. His factory works in two shifts. The first shift was from 8-00 a.m. to 8-00 p.m., while the second shift started at about 8.00 p.m. Dattatraya also stated that during the day time his servant Maruti Mankar worked the power looms and that during the night shift his sister's son Prakash Maruti used to work the power looms. He also stated that when posted at night shift, Prakash used to go to the factory at about 8-00 p.m. True it is that Dattatraya admitted that he was not helping hi, servant at the night shift and that he did 80 only at the day shift. That does not, how ever, mean that it was not necessary for him to visit the factory during the night shift. It was not unnatural. On the contrary, it was quite natural for him to visit his factory every day at about the time the second shift started in order to ensure that the shift got going smoothly. 23. Some argument was sought' to be based on the fact that the house in which the power looms were situated has two doors, one facing north and the other facing the east. It was sought to be urged that it was not necessary for Dattatraya to go to the eastern door. There is no substance in this contention because there is nothing on record to show that only the nor them door was kept open and the eastern door was al ways closed. The evidence of Dattatraya Kamble, therefore, deserves to be accepted and does go to substantiate the conclusion to which we have arrived that the accused was present in Anandibai's house during the night in question. 24. The next question that arises for consideration is the place where the deceased was assaulted. According to prosecution, Anandibai was done to death in her house. As mentioned above, the house was inspected by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panchas and the accused on 30tb July 1983, nearly a week after Anandibai was allegedly done to death. As mentioned above, till Thursday, the 28th July 1983, the keys were in possession of the accused. Pandurang Patil has also stated that when he went to Anandibai's house on 28th morning, the accused was present there and was reading a Holy book. As mentioned above, till Thursday, the 28th July 1983, the keys were in possession of the accused. Pandurang Patil has also stated that when he went to Anandibai's house on 28th morning, the accused was present there and was reading a Holy book. The accused, therefore, was in exclusive possession of Anandibai's house from the fateful night till the morning of next Thursday. It is on this background that we have to consider the significance of the incriminating articles found in Anandibai's house when panchnama, Ex. 42, was drawn on 30th July 1983. 25. The evidence of panch witness Bajrang Salunke about the situation prevailing in the house and about the articles attached under the panchnama, Ex. 42, remained completely unchallenged. Bajrang has stated in general terms about the situation prevailing in the house and the blood stained articles which were seized under the panchnama. He also asserted that the contain of the panchnama, Ex. 42, are correct. Panchnama, Ex. 42, gives graphic description of what the panchas saw after minute observation. We would like to quote some recitals in the panchnama, which show that in spite of the best efforts to remove all the signs of violent assault, blood stains were seen at several places. The relevant recitals are as follows: "On seeing the said place it is seen that there are blood stains of blackish and reddish colour at places on the inner side of the plank of the (astern door on the area of 11/2 x 2". There seems to be a recently given cow dung wash to the area of 21/2 feet in height from the r on the wall of pillar upto the southern side pillar. On minute observation It is seen that there are reddish and blackish colour bloodstains in area 31/2 feed between the two pillars at places after the blood is sprinkled..." "...In the said wan there are two pegs. On there appeared one plank of small wood and on the said plank there are tin boxes for household purposes. On the lower side at the said plank there appear blood stains of blackish and reddish colour. The part of that p1ank which is having blood stains is cut with the help of saw and the said cut parts are attached. There appeal blood stains on the 2nd beam from north on its eastern side. There appear blood stains at places. The part of that p1ank which is having blood stains is cut with the help of saw and the said cut parts are attached. There appeal blood stains on the 2nd beam from north on its eastern side. There appear blood stains at places. The said beam is at the height of 7T feet from the ground. Some part; of the wood of the said beam on which there are blood stains are cut and they are attached. There appear blood stains on the tips of bamboo of the loft. The tip of the bamboo stick of the loft on which there appear blood stains are attached... ...On seeing the scene of offence on the floor, there are layers. The earth from that place is scratched with the help of scythe and the same is attached. Ana the earth from the near about is collected for sample. 5th December 1984 26. As mentioned above, Art. Nos. I to 17 were attached under panchnama, Ex. 42 and that out of those articles, Art. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 were found to be stained with human blood. Art. No 2 is a piece of a plank of the eastern door. Art. Nos. 4 and 5 are calendars which, as mentioned in the panchnama, were hanging on the wall. Art. No.7 consisted of six small and big pieces of timber from the lower part of the beam which was fixed at a height of from the ground and Art. 9 is the gunny bag which was recovered from the loft of the house. 27. We inspected the calendars, Art. Nos. 4 and 5 Several cuttings of those articles were taken by the chemical analyser for examination. From those cut marks on the calendars, it is clear that blood must have been sprayed on the said calendars. The fact that there were blood stains on six parts of the beam, is a strong indication that blood must have sprouted up to that height. As mentioned above, human blood was found on some part of the wall on the eastern door and on a plank placed on two pegs fixed in the wall. This indicates that blood must have gushed out of the body as a result of a forceful blow cutting so the vital artery. 28. As mentioned above, human blood was found on some part of the wall on the eastern door and on a plank placed on two pegs fixed in the wall. This indicates that blood must have gushed out of the body as a result of a forceful blow cutting so the vital artery. 28. True it is that the blood found on the beam was of 0 group, which was the group of blood of the deceased and the accused. The group of the blood detected on Art. Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9 could not be determined by the chemical analyser in view of inconclusive result. But finding of the human blood on these parts in the room is itself a significant circumstance. It is difficult to accept the submission that those stains of blood might be old stains of blood fallen in ordinary circumstances. From the spots at which the blood stains were found, it is clear that the blood must have gushed out of some injury and sprayed over various parts of the room. The blood stains found on the beam, which was fixed at a height of 71' from the ground, negatives the possibility sought to be canvassed. This circumstance also negatives the argument that the blood found in the room could be that of the accused himself. It is true that the blood of the accused is also of O group, but it is inconceivable that the beam fixed at a height of 71' would be stained with his blood. Finding of blood on the beam is an unusual circumstance in the absence of any explanation offered by the accused as to how his blood could reach that spot, the hypothesis of the blood being of the accused cannot reasonably arise. There is also not4ing on record to show that the accused had sustained any injury. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Anandibai sustained bleeding injuries in her own house, where none else, except Anandibai herself and the accused were present. 29. Shri Bhonsale tried to urge that finding of blood stains does net necessarily lead to a conclusion that the violence was done to the deceased at the place where the blood stains were found. 29. Shri Bhonsale tried to urge that finding of blood stains does net necessarily lead to a conclusion that the violence was done to the deceased at the place where the blood stains were found. In support of this proposition, he sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shital Singh and of the v. The Stale of Bihar2. Apart from the fact that their Lordships did not lay down any dicta that finding of blood stains at a particular place can never lead to an inference that the assault was committed at that place, the finding about the place of offence in that case was arrived at under circumstances different from those present in the present case. In the case before their Lordships blood stains were found near a well and also in the dalan in which the appellant accused resided. According to the prosecution, the appellant committed the assault near the well and there after the deceased was dragged to the dalan. The case of the. defence was that the assault 'took place in the dalan and no injuries were inflicted near the well. In view of these rival contentions and especially in view of the fact that blood stains were found at both these places, that their Lordships observed that finding of blood stains in the verandha of the dalan did not indicate that the fight took place there Ratio of that decision therefore, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. We have already referred to the fact that at the time of panchnama of the scene of offence, the house was found to have been cleaned and the floor freshly' plastered with cow dung. It is also in evidence that' the used was haying the key of the house till Thursday, the 28th July 1983. The, blood stains found at the time of the panchnama were found inspite of the fact that the house was cleaned and the floor was plastered with cow dung. An argument was sought to be based on the fact that Pandurang resided in the house on Thursday and continued to have key of the house thereafter but he never found anything suspicious. It is pertinent to note that the blood stains were noticed after minute examination of the house. An argument was sought to be based on the fact that Pandurang resided in the house on Thursday and continued to have key of the house thereafter but he never found anything suspicious. It is pertinent to note that the blood stains were noticed after minute examination of the house. Pandurang, who casually stayed in the house was not expected to notice the blood stains on the beam, the calendars and at other odd spots. Moreover. the evidence of the panch witness and the Police Officer on this point. as corroborated by the recitals in the panchnama, Ex. 42, was not seriously challenged in, their cross-examination. 31. The next circumstance is finding of blood of 0 group on the clothes, Art. Nos. 18, 28, and 29 (En. 16, 17 and 18 in the C.A. report, Ex. 62). Clothes Art. Nos. 28 and 29 were produced before PSI Ghatge and panchas by the wife of the accused at his 'instance from their house on 30th July 1983. These articles were attached along with ornaments, Art. Nos. 19 to 21 under panchnama. Ex. 46, which is proved by panch witness Bajrang Salunke (P.W. 15). The ornaments were found in a steel box which accused's wife produced at his instance from a trunk kept in the kitchen room of their house. Bajrang has stated in his evidence that ten minutes after they returned to the police station after mating panchnama of the scene of offence, the accused expulsed his desire that he would produce ornaments which he had concealed and after the memorandum of this statement was drawn up, the accused led the panchas and the police officer to his house then called his wife and told her to bring the box of ornaments. Accordingly, accused's wife brought a box which contained golden string, tik and Mangalsutra (Art. Nos. 19 to 21). Bajrang goes on to say that thereafter the accused instructed his wife to bring bandi and under pant and accordingly, his wife produced the bandi Art. 28'and the under pant, Art. 29. Bajrang's evidence is corroborated by PSI Ghatge and the recitals in the panchnama, exhibit 46. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. Bajrang goes on to say that thereafter the accused instructed his wife to bring bandi and under pant and accordingly, his wife produced the bandi Art. 28'and the under pant, Art. 29. Bajrang's evidence is corroborated by PSI Ghatge and the recitals in the panchnama, exhibit 46. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. He has denied the suggestions that the ornaments were taken out from the person of accused's daughter Shard a and that the ornaments were called at the police, station from the house of 'the accused, and were attached there. 32. The shirt, Art. 18, was recovered from Krishnath Sakharam Parit (P.W. 9) at the instance of the accused. According to prosecution, the shirt was seized on 30th July 1983 and was attached under panchnama, Ex. 44. It is also prosecution case that the accused made the statement incorporated in the memorandum, Ex. 43 and thereafter led PSI Ghatge and the panchas to the house of Krishnath Parit. Both, the memorandum, Ex. 43 and the panch nama. Ex. 44, are dated 30-7-1983. Krishnath, however, has admitted in his cross-examination that neither he had gone to police nor had the police come to him prior to July 31 1983. Rightly, it is urged by Shri Bhonsale that the alleged discovery of the shirt, Art. 18, at the instance of the accused was stage managed and the evidence of panch witness Bajrang to that extent is false. This, however, does not improve the position in favour of the accused in any manner because Krishnath's substantive evidence that' the shirt, Art. 18, was given to him by the accused for ironing; that there were stains on it that the accused bad come to his shop along with police to demand his shirt and that he had handed over this shirt to the accused in the presence of the police remained unaffected in his cross-examination. On the contrary, it was brought on record during his cross-examination that the accused was his usual customer and used to give his clothes for ironing. On the contrary, it was brought on record during his cross-examination that the accused was his usual customer and used to give his clothes for ironing. It is true that he did not put any marks on the clothes which were given for ironing nor did he issue any receipt in respect of clothes given for ironing, but that does not mean that he was not in a position to identify the shirt given to him for ironing by his regular customer. Krishnath has specifically stated that the shirt was given to him by the accused on 25th July 1983. Hence even though the evidence about the alleged discovery cannot be accepted, it is duly established that the shirt, Art. 18, belonged to the accused. 33. As mentioned above clothes, Art. Nos. 18, 25 and 29 were stained with the blood of O group. It was sought to be urged that this circumstance is not conclusive and cannot be attached any significance because bona of the accused is also of O group. It was contended that it is possible that the blood on his clothes may be his own. The accused, however, has not offered any explanation about the blood found on his clothes. As a matter of fact he has disowned the clothes and styled the evidence about the recovery of those clothes as false. As mentioned above there is nothing on record to show that the accused had sustained any injury. In view of this, the circumstance that the clothes of the accused were found to be stained with the blood of same group as that of the deceased though not a clinching one, has its own significance and does further the prosecution case to some extent in the absence of any injury on the person of the accused and in the absence of any explanation offered' by the accused about the blood. As a matter of fact, he has disowned the clothes. There is, however some evidence to show that on the night in question the accused was wearing a bandi and an under pant. We will come to that evidence when we discuss the evidence about the conduct of the accused on the night in question. 34. Two witnesses spoke about the activities of the accused during the night in question. They are Sarjerao Sakharam Patil (P.W. 3) and Namdeo Dnyanu Dhole (P.W. 4). We will come to that evidence when we discuss the evidence about the conduct of the accused on the night in question. 34. Two witnesses spoke about the activities of the accused during the night in question. They are Sarjerao Sakharam Patil (P.W. 3) and Namdeo Dnyanu Dhole (P.W. 4). According to Sarjerao, at about mid-night on the day of Pola festival he had gone to the gram pal1chayat latrine for answering a nature's call and while returning, he saw a person carrying a bundle on his back. He claims that he asked that person as to who he was and then latter replied that he was Mane he further enquired as to what was he carrying and the fellow who gave his name as Mane replied that he was carrying a dead calf of a she buffalo. He did not specify in "his examination-in-chief who was that Mane whom he saw. This lacuna in his evidence was filled in his cross-examination which leaves no doubt that Sarjerao claimed to have seen the accused carrying a bundle on his back. Sarjerao's evidence was attacked on the following grounds: (i) that he was not expected to take the road', which he claims to have taken for going to the gram panchayat latrine; (ii) that he was not expected to use gram panchayat latrine for answering call of nature at the dead of night; (iii) That it was not possible for him to see the accused from the spot from where he claims to have seen the accused; (iv) that the witness was unable to state as to what the accused was wearing and the weight of the contents of the gunny bag which the accused was carrying and; (v) he ommitted to state before the police that the accused told him that he was carrying dead calf of she buffalo. 35. As regards the first ground, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the defence that this witness resided in the back side portion of the house and that the distance of the latrine from the back side of the house was only 60' while the distance from front side was 120'. 35. As regards the first ground, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the defence that this witness resided in the back side portion of the house and that the distance of the latrine from the back side of the house was only 60' while the distance from front side was 120'. The witness has also admitted that there is open space on the road ill between Sonabai's house and the latrine that this open space is full of rubbish and pieces of glass and that nobody dares cross that portion at night on account of that rubbish. This witness has also admitted that there is open space on the eastern side of his house and that some portion on the bask side, where the cattle shed is situated, is, also vacant. He further admitted that there is open space on the northern side or the house. But, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the conduct of this witness in going to the latrine of the gram panchayat for answering nature's call instead of doing so in the open space adjoining 'his house. If he would have followed that course that also would not have been- unnatural or unusual. There, is however, some substance in the contention that this witness could not have taken the road which passes by the side of Anandibai's house because by that' road the way to the latrine goes through the open space full of rubbish which even on his own admission nobody dares cross during the night time. As rightly pointed out, Sarjerao was unable to give description of the clothes which the accused was wearing. He could not even say whether the house of Anandibai was open or whether the power looms of Shri Kamble were working. He had also not stated before the police that the accused had told him that he was carrying dead calf of the she-buffalo. The evidence of' this witness, therefore, does not inspire confidence even though it cannot be said that he is a got up witness. The only thing that can be said is that it would not safe to place reliance on this witness. 36. The evidence of Namdeo Dhole, however, is absolutely natural and he has stood the test of cross-examination. The evidence of' this witness, therefore, does not inspire confidence even though it cannot be said that he is a got up witness. The only thing that can be said is that it would not safe to place reliance on this witness. 36. The evidence of Namdeo Dhole, however, is absolutely natural and he has stood the test of cross-examination. Namdeo stated in his evidence that his house is near the brooklet and that there is tube light near the brooklet. According to him, on the Pola day be got up at about 12-00 mid-night to ease himself and also to supply fodder to the cattle. He went on to say that while he was easing himself in front of his house, he saw the accused carrying some bundle on his head. He also stated that he asked the accused about the bundle where upon the latter told him that he was going to dispose of placenta of a dead calf. From the details brought out in his cross-examination, it appears that while Namdeo was easing himself a plank of the door of his house was kept open and light was coming out from that open space. He has also stated in his cross-examination that if a person came near the house of Jagdale, it was possible to see that person from his house. He also stated that when he got up for easing, the tube light was on. According to him he saw the accused at the corner of the house of Jagdale and came face to (ace with him after he got up and started proceeding towards his house. He denied the suggestion that he used to stay in his lands permanently. Namdeo has also described the clothes which the accused was wearing and also spoke about the size of the bundle. According to him the accused was wearing bandi and under pant and that the bundle which the accused was carrying was about-50 to 60 kg. There was also nothing unusual in the accused claiming to carry placenta to the brooklet and hence there was no reason for Namdeo to be suspicious about the conduct of the accused. Namdeo has specifically stated that there was practice to store placenta in a bucket and then throw it in water and only in case there is no flowing water near about that the placenta is burrier in the ground. Namdeo has specifically stated that there was practice to store placenta in a bucket and then throw it in water and only in case there is no flowing water near about that the placenta is burrier in the ground. The English rendering of his deposition which gave a contrary impression is not correct. The only unusual part of the conduct of the accused was that he went to a spot away from his house which is also near the brooklet. Namdeo, however did not ask the accused as to why he chose a distant place to dispose of the placenta. But simply because of this omission on the part of this witness, his evidence which is cogent, cannot be discarded No contradiction 'or omission is brought on record during 'his cross-examination and, his entire evidence appears absolutely natural. As mentioned above, the details brought out in his cross-examination make his evidence more acceptab1e. The learned trial Judge, therefore, was perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of Namdeo and on this basis holding that the accused was seen carrying gunny bag on his head at about mid-night on Pola day and was proceeding towards brooklet on the bank of which the head less body was ultimately found. 37. We have already held that the ornaments, Art. Nos. 19 to 21 were recovered from the house of the accused. As mentioned above, these articles were attached under panchnama, Ex. 46, along with clothes Articles 28 and 29. The accused did not specifically claim those ornaments. According to him, the ornaments were recovered from the persons of his daughter. This suggestion was rejected by panch witness Bajrang and also by. P.S.I. Ghatge. 38. Rangrao Patil, who was mentioned above, is son of Anandibai's brother and who filed the first information report, identified the ornaments, Art. Nos. 19 to 21 as being the ornaments which his aunt was using. He also stated that be was in a position to identify the ornaments because Anandibai was using them on her person daily and that be bad seen those ornaments on her person. This part of Rangrao's evidence remained completely unchallenged. The whole endeavour in the cross-examination was to show that the financial position of Anandibai's father was not good and hence be could not have given any ornaments to his daughter. This part of Rangrao's evidence remained completely unchallenged. The whole endeavour in the cross-examination was to show that the financial position of Anandibai's father was not good and hence be could not have given any ornaments to his daughter. But, Rangrao did not say in his evidence that those ornaments were given to Anandibai by her father. The only thing he stated was that Anandibai always used to wear those ornaments and he had seen those ornaments on her person. Apart from the fact that Rangrao was closely related to Anandibai they were residing in the same village Rangrao, thereof must have bad several occasion to see Anandibai wearing those ornaments. 39. Shri Bhonsale tried to urge that the relations of Anandibai and her relatives were striated in view of her illicit re1ations with the accused and hence Rangrao must not be on visiting terms with' Anandibai. This submission is sought to be based on what Pandurang Patil admitted in 'his cross-examination. He stated that he felt that relations between Anandibai and accused were stigma on their family and that Rangrao and his mother were not going to the house of Anandibai because she was having illicit relations with the accused. It is, however, pertinent to note that no such suggestion was made to Rangrao in his cross-examination. His claim that they used to visit Anandibai' occasionally was not challenged at all. Not only that, but nothing is elicited in his cross-examination which can lead one to infer that his relations with Anandibai were strained. The only thing that was suggested to him was that be bad personal grudge against the accused on account of his illicit relations with Anandibai. But he emphathetically denied this suggestion. Moreover, he bas specifically asserted in his cross-examination that the accused was having illicit relations with Anandibai for last 20 years and that he and his family members bad no grudge. He also stated that the accused was treating Anandibai quite Pandurang, though a close relation, is not a rest at Kodoli and would not be competent to say whether Rangrao used to visit Anandibai's house or not there is, therefore, no substance in the contention that Rangrao's relations with Anandibai were strained and hence be would not have had any occasion to meet her and see the ornaments worn by her. 40. The accused has also mentioned in the missing report, Ex. 40. The accused has also mentioned in the missing report, Ex. 53, that Anandibai was wearing a golden string and one gold dorle and that she bad left the house with those ornaments on her person. The accused bas also not claimed those ornaments as belonging to him. As mentioned above the only suggestion made to the panch witness, who attested the panchnama was that the ornaments were seized from the person of accused's daughter. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the ornaments, Art. Nos. 19 to 21 were on the person of the deceased Anandibai and that those ornaments were recovered from the possession of the accused after the crime. As rightly urged by Smt. Ranjana Desai, this is a very clinching circumstance and goes a long way in establishing the gui1t of the accused. 41. This brings us to the missing report, Ex. 53, which as mentioned above, was lodged by the accused on 29-7-1983 at 1-30 p.m. the day on which the dead body was found lying on the bank of the brooklet. We have already held above that the accused and deceased Anandibai were residing in the same house that they were together in the said house during the night between 22rd and 23rd July 1983; that Anandibai was done to death during that night and in the same house; that the clothes of the accused were found to be stained with blood of the same group as that of the deceased viz. O; that the conduct of the accused on the night in question was, highly suspicious and that the ornaments which were on the person of the deceased were recovered from the house of the accused after the crime. It is on this background that the missing report is to be considered, 42. We have already referred to the recitals in the missing report about the accused staying with Anandibai in the latter's house and we have also quoted what the accused stated in the report about the circumstances in which Anandibai left the house. According to him when he found that Anandibai was not in the house, he thought that she might have gone to answer all of nature or some where outside and when she did not return for a long time he looked for her clothes and found that her sari and suit-case were missing. According to him when he found that Anandibai was not in the house, he thought that she might have gone to answer all of nature or some where outside and when she did not return for a long time he looked for her clothes and found that her sari and suit-case were missing. He claimed that he immediately went to the S.T. stand and made inquiries but the bus had already left and hence he could not know whether Anandibai had gone by that bus or not. He also stated that Anandibai left the house with ornaments and claims that he himself and his children made inquiries about her, but she was not traced with her or his relatives. He further stated that no quarrel had taken place between him and Anandibai between Anandibai and his wife and children during last 25 years till that Saturday and hence he thought that she might have gone to same place. He also asserted that he had no suspicion about her. From the circumstances discussed above, this report was obviously false to accused's knowledge. Anandibai was done to death in the very house in which she was present alongwith the accused during the night in question. The missing, report was, therefore, an attempt on his part to mislead the investigating machinery and was also an attempt to create evidence about his innocence. 43. Not only the missing report was false, but as mentioned above, the report was given nearly eight days after Anandibai disappeared from the village. We do not think that it was just coincidence that the report came to be given on the Same day on which the dead body was found lying on the, bank' of the, brooklet. Of course there of no defence evidence to' show that the people in the village had seen the dead body and that the accused, had come to know about it before he actually lodged the missing report. The fact remains that the report was submitted or given on the same day on which the dead body was found. It is significant to note in this context that Pandurang came to know about the dead body from some one else at about 2-30 p.m. and the missing report was given at 1-30 p.m. 44. The fact remains that the report was submitted or given on the same day on which the dead body was found. It is significant to note in this context that Pandurang came to know about the dead body from some one else at about 2-30 p.m. and the missing report was given at 1-30 p.m. 44. There is also evidence to show that the accused told the persons who made inquiries about Anandibai that the lady had gone to Pandharpur. Shripati Krishna Lokare (P.W. 6), residing in Rokade lane and close to the house of Anandibai stated that at about 8-00 or 9-00 a.m. on Saturday he asked the accused as to where Anandibai had gone? and that the accused had told him that she had gone to Pandharpur early in the morning and carried an amount of Rs. 200/- with her. Admittedly, Shripati did not go to the house of Anandibai to make the inquiry. According to him he asked the accused about it when the latter was going to fetch water. Apart from the fact that there was no reason for Shripati Lokare to make such an inquiry, which presupposes that Shripati was knowing that Anandibai was not in, the house, he did not state before the police, that he had made such an inquiry with the accused. As rightly urged by Shri Bhonsale, Shripati's evidence does not deserve any credence and on the basis of this evidence it cannot be held that the accused was telling people that Anandibai had gone to Pandharpur. 45. But then there is evidence of Pandorang Patil. Pandurang Patil, who is a resident, of Peth, claims to have gone to Kodoli on 27-7-1983. As expected the vent to the house of his maternal uncle Rangrao and also to the house of Anandibai. According to him he met the accused in Anandibai's house. We would like to quote what he stated about his activities at Kodoli and that of the accused: "On 27th July 1983 1 bad come to Kodoli in search of service. I stayed with my maternal uncle Rangrao Patil know the accused. On that day at about, 7.00 p.m. accused met me. I asked the accused as to where Anandibai had, gone. She was my mother's sister. He replied that she had gone to Pandharpur. On that day I took halt in the house of my maternal uncle. I stayed with my maternal uncle Rangrao Patil know the accused. On that day at about, 7.00 p.m. accused met me. I asked the accused as to where Anandibai had, gone. She was my mother's sister. He replied that she had gone to Pandharpur. On that day I took halt in the house of my maternal uncle. On the next day morning I had gone to the house of Anandibai. The accused was reading the holy book (Pothi). I had not seen the household articles in the house. I asked the accused as to why Anandibai had not returned even though many persons bad returned from Pandharpur. I also asked him about the household articles. He told me that she had taken all the household articles for the marriage of her daughter. He bad also told me that she wag not likely to return and convey this message to my family members at Peth. I advised the accused to consult an astrologer. Accused replied that according to astrologer some thing would be heard within four days. Then I asked the accused to see her at the place where she used to go. So accordingly the accused visited Kolhapur and Ichalkaraoji to trace out the whereabouts of Anandibai. On Friday accused returned from Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji and came in the house of Anandibai. He was telling me that he could not find out Anandibai. I also advised the accused to give Wardi to the police station about the missing of Anandibai. He told me that he would see." Pandurang's evidence that he met accused in Anandibai's house on Thursday, the 28th July 1983, and that while leaving the house for going to Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji the accused gave him the keys of the house, was not challenged. On the contrary, it was brought, out in his cross-examination that the key of Anandibai's house remained with him thereafter. The only omissions that are brought on record are about his query as to why Anandibai did not return when many other persons who had gone to Pandharpur had returned and that the accused told him that according to astrologer he would come to know about Anandibai within four days. Pandurang had also omitted to state before the police that the accused had told him to inform his mother and family members that Anandibai was not likely to return. Pandurang had also omitted to state before the police that the accused had told him to inform his mother and family members that Anandibai was not likely to return. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that Pandurang met the accused and accused told him in unequivocal terms that Anandibai had gone to Pandharpur. 46. Pandurang's evidence also shows that when he visited Anandibai's house, the house, hold articles were missing. Naturally, therefore, he asked the accused about those articles. The reply given by the accused is significant. This reply is not correctly recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rendering it in English. What he recorded conveys exactly the opposite meaning. As per the vernacular version what Pandurang stated was that the accused told him that lie had taken the household articles to his house for his daughter's marriage. Tile statement, therefore, quoted above that the accused told Pandurang that Anandibai had taken away the house hold articles for the marriage of her daughter is clearly wrong. It is an admitted position that Anandibai left her husband immediately after her marriage and that she was residing with the accused as his mistress and that they had no children. Hence not only the accused gave false explanation about Anandibai's absence but also disposed of her household articles. 47. 'It can also be seen from Pandurang's evidence that the accused did not make any serious efforts to trace Anandibai. After cleaning the house and plastering the floor with cow dung he disposed of the household articles find continued to stay in the house without taking any steps to trace Anandibai. It was sought to be urged on the basis of Pandurang's evidence quoted above, that the accused had gone to Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji in search of Anandibai on Thursday, the 28th July 1983. Admittedly Pandurang did not accompany the accused to Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji and, therefore, what Pandurang stated, was obviously on the basis of what accused must have told him. But the accused himself has categorically denied having gone to Kolhapur and Ichalkaranji for tracing Anandibai. This assertion of the accused though made in his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code goes to establish that not only he did not make efforts to trace Anandibai, but falsely stated to pandering that he had done so. The subsequent conduct of the accused, therefore, was also glaringly inconsistent with his innocence. This assertion of the accused though made in his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code goes to establish that not only he did not make efforts to trace Anandibai, but falsely stated to pandering that he had done so. The subsequent conduct of the accused, therefore, was also glaringly inconsistent with his innocence. The cumulative effect of the circumstances which are established by cogent evidence completely negative the possibility of any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. We, therefore, confirm the order of conviction passed against the accused for committing murder of Anandibai and destroying the evidence of the crime in order to save himself from the legal punishment. 48. This bring us to the vexed question about the punishment. It is in evidence that the accused treated Anandibai as his wife, looked after her well and their relations were cordial. It is not known what prompted the accused to commit Anandibai's murder. It is also not known as to in what manner Anandibai was done to death. It is true that Anandibai's head was found to be severed and that the head was not found, but it cannot said definitely that the head was severed in the process of committing the murder. It is possible that after killing the lady "in some other fashion, he might have severed the head in "order to destroy the evidence of the offence by rendering identification of the dead body difficult is the absence of the head. There is also nothing else on record to show that the accused does not deserve td live. It cannot, therefore, be said that this is a rarest of rare cases in which the accused must be hanged. In our opinion, therefore, there is no justification for inflicting the extreme penalty of death on the accused. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER The order of conviction passed against he accused for offences under Sections 302 and 291 I.P.C. is maintained. The sentence inflicted on the accused is modified. The sentence of death quashed and instead accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. The sentence for the offence, under section 201 Indian Penal Code is maintained. Sentence modified 1. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 765. 2. A.I.R.1971 S.C.1309.