JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgement dated 29th September 1976, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1976, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under sections 302 and 201, IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively. In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. 2. The prosecution case in brief against the accused-appellant is that Smt. Sulochana, wife of Satya Narain, the elder son of Geeg Raj, the appellant, had developed some love affairs with one Gangadhar. PW.1. It is alleged that there were exchange of love letters between them. It is further alleged that this fact came to the knowledge of Geegraj father-in-law of deceased Sulochana. It is alleged that Geegraj was annoyed with the love affairs of Sulochana and wanted to do away with the life of his daughter-in-law. The prosecution case further goes that on 7th February 1976, when he was alone in the house in the early hours of the day he murdered Sulochana in one of the room of the house where the deceased and the appellant were living. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the dead body of Sulochana was cremated with the help of his brother Loona Ram, his nephew Banwari and two of his kinsmen viz. Budha and Ballu Ram and others. After the cremation the accused-appellant left his house putting a lock therefor and absconded. The brother of the deceased, however, on the information gathered that one of the khatis of Ramgarh had murdered his own son's wife, apprehened with this information and he felt some suspicion and foul play. He therefore, came to Ramgarh and he found the house of the appellant locked. He also gathered some information, and thereafter, went to police Station, Ramgarh and lodged First Information Report Ex P.B. The SHO, on received the report on 11th February 1976 registered a case under section 302 read with s. 201, IPC and started investigation. The SHO, on reaching the house of accused Geegraj, in the presence of the motbirs, Dhani Ram and Asgar Ali, found the door of the house locked, which was unlocked with the assistance of one Abdul Hamid. The SHO, on reaching the house of accused Geegraj, in the presence of the motbirs, Dhani Ram and Asgar Ali, found the door of the house locked, which was unlocked with the assistance of one Abdul Hamid. The house was searched and at one place some pieces of red glass bangles were recovered. The pieces of bangles were sealed on the spot. The search memo is Ex. P.4. As some of the portion of the house was not searched, search was again made in the presence of Purshottam, Pushkar Dutt and Jugal Kishore. Search of the house was made and site plan was prepared, which is Ex. P.9. In one of the rooms, shown as room No. I, at places A and C in Ex. P. 9, blood stains were found on the floor as well as on the walls. Portion of the floor and of the walls which was found blood stained as scratched and the blood stained earth and plaster were sealed and preserved vide memo Ex. P. 15. Blood stains were also found at place 'D' which were also scratched and were preserved. From room No. 9 some pieces of clothes stained with blood were also taken into possession and sealed on the spot. The narration of which is given in Ex. P. 15. 4. Accused Geegraj was arrested on 16th February 1976, On 21st Feb. 1976 accused-appellant gave information about a weapon of offence i. e. iron rod Articles 2, which was recovered at the instance of the accused from his house at Ramgarh. Recover memo is Ex. P. 19 and the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the accused is recorded in memo Ex. P.18. The prosecution also relies on telegram, which is Ex. p. 16 and which was recovered on 12th February 1976 vide memo Ex. P.17. This telegram is alleged to have been given by Geegraj, accused, informing his son Mahesh Kumar at Bombay that his mother was serious and he should come immediately. Narmada is the wife of accused Geegraj. She also said to have passed to the police some incriminating piece of evidence during the course of investigation, which are the pieces of torn love letters, Article-I. The police also had taken in possession small pieces of clothes used for the purpose of rubbing stained floor, Bunch of hair and some ornaments belonging to Mst. She also said to have passed to the police some incriminating piece of evidence during the course of investigation, which are the pieces of torn love letters, Article-I. The police also had taken in possession small pieces of clothes used for the purpose of rubbing stained floor, Bunch of hair and some ornaments belonging to Mst. Sulochana were also taken into possession by the police vide memos Ex. P. 20 to Ex. P 24. These articles were also sealed on the spot. The police arrested Geegraj, Lonna Ram Bhanwari Ram, Bulla Ram and Budh Ram. Challan was filed against all these accused. Accused, Loona Ram, Bulla Ram, Budh Ram and Bhanwari Ram were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Learned Sessions Judge based the conviction of the accused-appellant relying on the following incriminating circumstances: (i) That the accused had a motive. (ii) accused appellant was present in the house on 7th February 1976, the day of the occurrence. (iii) existence of human blood on the walls and floors of the house. (iv) The accused absconded soon after the death of the deceased Sulochana. (v) recovery of iron rods at the instance of the accused which was found to be stained with human blood. 5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 19th witnesses. In defence, the accused appellant has examined DW.I, Durga Datt and DW 1, Norang Lal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence which is not sufficient to sustain the charge for convicting the accused under section 302 read with section 201, IPC. He further submitted that the motive is not proved. Recovery of the rod is also not free from doubt and the blood found on the iron rod and the portion taken out from the land may be that of human blood but it cannot be attributed to the blood of the deceased. He submits the same argument for the hair which were recovered along-with the earth and said to have been positive for human blood. As regards the conduct of the accused-appellant is concerned, for his absconding, learned counsel submits that he went to see his wife Narwa. 7. He submits the same argument for the hair which were recovered along-with the earth and said to have been positive for human blood. As regards the conduct of the accused-appellant is concerned, for his absconding, learned counsel submits that he went to see his wife Narwa. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case where on the basis of the circumstantial evidence the case is amply proved beyond any doubt against the accused-appellant. There is complete chain of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. 8. We have given anxious consideration to the respective submissions made, by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor. We are or the opinion that the circumstantial evidence produced in this case is sufficient to bring home the charge to the accused. The accused was living in the same house where the deceased was living. On the fateful night the accused was with the deceased. The accused, who is father-in-law of the deceased gives no information either to the son, i.e. the husband of the deceased or to the relations of his daughter-in-law. Instead, he gives a telegram, Ex. P. 16, about the illness of his wife on 8th February, 1976. There is further circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of iron rod stained with blood. Blood stains were found on the walls and on the floor in one of the room, where the deceased and the appellant were living. If we examine, if there was any motive for committing the murder which is the case of the prosecution to prove this, the prosecution has examined PW. I, Gangadhar has been declared hostile, but from his statement it may be inferred that he had written some love letters to Sulochana, deceased. In the cross-examination he has denied to have written such letters. There is the testimony of PW.8, Jugal Kishore, who is brother of deceased Sulochana. He is the same person who lodged the First Information Report. He has deposed that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of his sister were not happy with his sister. They were not allowing his sister to remain with his brother-in-law happily. PW 8, Jugal Kishore, has not been cross-examined on this point. He is the same person who lodged the First Information Report. He has deposed that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of his sister were not happy with his sister. They were not allowing his sister to remain with his brother-in-law happily. PW 8, Jugal Kishore, has not been cross-examined on this point. Thus, from the prosecution evidence it is proved that the relations were strained and, even if the testimony of PW.1 is not believed as he was declared hostile, but his statement stands corroborated by the testimony of PW 8, Jugal Kishore, that the relations between the father-in-law, accused and the deceased were not happy and, were in fact strained. Thus, the prosecution has proved that there was some motive to give away with Smt. Sulochana. From the appreciation of evidence on record it is also established that on 7th February 1976 with the deceased, the accused. appellant could be the only person in the house and both were living together in the same house. The wife of the accused was not there in the house and the husband of the deceased, Satya Narain was away. The accused-appellant has not cone up with the case nor he was elsewhere on that night. There is further evidence on record that in the morning he went to the villagers to inform about the death of the deceased. This ,also proves that he was in the same house and was with the deceased. The prosecution has further clearly established that after cremating the dead body accused left Ramgarh without waiting for his sons to come and without giving any information to the relations of the deceased daughter-in-law. This conduct of the accused speaks of volumes of evidence against him which has not been convincingly explained by him in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC 9. There is further evidence about the recovery of iron rod at the instance of the accused stained with human blood and as per the report of the Serologist, the blood found is that of human. The iron-- rod was recovered at the instance and on the information given by the accused. It is recorded by Heera Lal, PW 19, which is reduced in writing in Ex. P 19. The said iron rod was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. The iron-- rod was recovered at the instance and on the information given by the accused. It is recorded by Heera Lal, PW 19, which is reduced in writing in Ex. P 19. The said iron rod was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P 19, which is proved by PW 17, Pushkar Datt and PW 19, Heera Lal, This iron rod is stained with human blood. This was sent for examination to the Chemical Examiner by SHO through Shri Yasin Khan, PW 12. Both the witnesses have stated that the packet remained sealed throughout. A perusal of Ex. P 33 would reveal that the scrappings taken from iron rod were stained with human blood. There is further evidence that sample of scrappings were taken from the plaster of lime Ex. P 32 also reveals that 7 articles in sealed packet were sent for examination which contained pieces of plaster of lime and in one of the packets marked 'G' bunch of hair were there. The Chemical Examiner as per his report Ex. P 33 found sample taken from the piece of plaster and scrappings from the pieces of lime stained with human blood. These articles were seized vide memo Ex. P. 15, which has been proved by PW 15, Dr. Dharam Chand, PW 18, Heera Lal and PW 4, Jugal Kishore. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure memo Ex. P 15 should not be considered as prior to the seizure memo on 11th February 1976. Search of the house was made as per the search memo Ex. P 15 vide which some piece of bangle glass were only recovered. This contention does not appear to be correct as at that time the search of only one of the rooms was made. A bare look at Ex. P 15 would reveal that the seizure was made after breaking open the lock of that room. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct. There is further evidence regarding the conduct of the accused which may be divided into following terms : (i) Telegram given by the accused fro m Ramgarh to his so at Bombay on 8-2-76, stating that the mother of the som was serious and the son was required to come immediately. This telegram reached Bombay on 19-2-1976. There is further evidence regarding the conduct of the accused which may be divided into following terms : (i) Telegram given by the accused fro m Ramgarh to his so at Bombay on 8-2-76, stating that the mother of the som was serious and the son was required to come immediately. This telegram reached Bombay on 19-2-1976. There is nothing on record to show that the husband of the decease who was at Bombay was informed about that death of the deceased. (ii) Cremation was done on 7-2-1976 but the parents of the deceased were not informed when they were only at a distance of about 25 K.M. from Ramgarh and even they were not informed subsequently. (iii) PW 8, Jugal Kishore, the brother of deceased come to Ramgarh after hearing the news. Thereafter, on reaching Ramgarh he lodged the First Information Report. On 11th February 1976 accused has not found there. (iv) The accused left Ramgarh immediately after cremation of deceased and locked the house. This conduct of the accused also goes against him. As per the statement of PW 8, Jugal Kishore, it is the custom in their community that if any body dies the house is required to remain opened for a period of 12 days so that the relations may come for condolence. 10. Thus, there is evidence against the accused relating to the motive, living in the same house on the fateful night, recovery of the iron rod which was found stained with human blood at the instance of the accused and the blood stained lime plaster from the wall of the house where the dead body was found. Telegram, Ex. P 16, and conduct of the accused together with above referred circumstances go to show that the circumstances are speaking and unfolding the true story. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the evidence bearing on the circumstances mentioned above and relied upon by the learned trial court, which are congently and firmly establish having a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the brutal crime was committed by the accused alone and none else. The circumstances are incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and are entirely incompatible with his innocence. 12. The circumstances are incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and are entirely incompatible with his innocence. 12. For the reasons, aforesaid, we are satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in holding the accused guilty of murdering his daughter-in-law when she was alone in the house in the night. 13. We, therefore, accordingly reject the appeal of the appellant. Maintain the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, as mentioned above. It was submitted by the public prosecution that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was suspended by this Court during the pendency of appeal. The accused is, therefore, directed to surrender immediately before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar is directed to issue non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused.Appeal rejected. *******