Judgment MILAP CHANDRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated October 30, 1982, by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus: On September 30, 1977, Durga Narain (P. W. 9) submitted report (Ex. P. 4) in the Police Station, Gangrar (Chittorgarh) stating that a dead body in a decomposed condition was lying near the well of village Tersta. Proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were commenced. During these proceedings, it was found that the dead body was of Mst. Rami, wife of the accused and that she was a victim of murder. Thereupon, F. I. R. (Ex. P. 28) was recorded registering the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and usual investigation was commenced. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Goverdhan Lal (P. W. 10 ). He prepared the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 8) and opined that the cause of death was injuries to vital organs and the big vessels. On opening the house of the deceased, blood was found on the walls, cot and on a rope. The accused appellant was not available and was said to be absconding. The prosecution case, further, was that the accused had illicit relations with his brothers wife which was resented to by the deceased. On account of this, quarrels used to take place between them. This according to the prosecution, was the motive for committing the murder of Mst. Rami. At first a challan under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed. The accused Girdhari Lal was arrested on February 21, 1981. He gave information (Ex. P. 11) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereof certain ornaments, said to be belonging to the deceased Mst. Rami, were recovered After completing the investigation, a supplementary challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. ( 3 ) THE accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Rami, were recovered After completing the investigation, a supplementary challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. ( 3 ) THE accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also produced and proved 34 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused admitted that Mst. Rami was his wife. He denied having committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. He stated that he had gone out of his village in connection with his service. He produced no evidence in his defence. After trial the Sessions Judge, by the judgment under appeal, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the circumstances proved against the accused make out a case that it was he who committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. Aggrieved by this the accused has preferred the present appeal in this court. ( 4 ) THE accused was unrepresented and, therefore, Shri Suresh Kumbhat, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curaie, to argue the appeal on behalf of the accused. We have heard the Amicus Curaie and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned Amicus Curaie has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused and the deceased had slept in their house in the night of occurrence or that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. There is also no evidence that the accused had left his house after locking it from outside. The prosecution has, also failed to prove that Mst. Rami was wearing at the time of murder or immediately before it, the ornaments, Article 1 to 5, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. He has also contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused had absconded Even otherwise, submits learned Amicus Curaie, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Rami. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. He has submitted that blood was found on the walls, cot and the rope in the house of the accused He has further argued that the fact that the accused did not take care of his wife for a period of about 31/2 years was itself indicative of the fact that he himself had committed her murder. The Public Prosecutor has further contended that the ornaments, recovered at the instance of the accused, belonged to the deceased Mst. Rami and it lead to connect the accused with her murder. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has enumerated the various circumstances in para No 29 of his judgment which, according to him, prove that the accused-appellant committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. It runs as under: 29. Uprokt vivechal se yah spast ho jata hai ki Abhiyukt ke virudh nimn paristhitiya sandeh se pare sidh ho gai hai-- Ramo Abhiyukt ke sath uski patni bankar rahti thi, ghatana kee rat to Mu. Ramo Abhiyukt ka sath soee thi. Abhiyukt Hiramlal ka pas antim bar dekha gaya iske bad Abhiyukt makan band karke makan ko chodkar chala gaya aur 3-1/2 vars se adhik samay tak farar raha jiska koi spastikaran usne nai diya hai. Abhiyukt ke makan mai dival par va anya jagah khoon ke dhabbe mile va makan mai rakhi hui rassi bhi khoon se bhari hui thi jiska namoona liya aur rasaynik parichan hone par usmai manav rakt paya gaya, Abhiyukt ne Ramo ke gayab hone ka jhoota spastikaran diya tatha Mu. Ramo ke javar abhiyukt ke kabje va uski nithsdehi se baramad huya. es prakar uprokt sari paristhitiya ek asi shrankhala ka nirman karti hai jisase abhiyukt ke virudh koi dos sandeh se pare pramadit ho jati hai aur ien paristhitiyo se jo avdharana nikalati hai vah abhiyukt ko nirdoshita ke pratikool va dosh sidh karane ke liya paryapt hai. ( 7 ) THE first and foremost circumstance against the accused, relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, was that the accused and the deceased had slept together in the night of occurrence. We enquired to the learned Public Prosecutor to point out any evidence to show that they were together on the night of the occurrence. ( 7 ) THE first and foremost circumstance against the accused, relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, was that the accused and the deceased had slept together in the night of occurrence. We enquired to the learned Public Prosecutor to point out any evidence to show that they were together on the night of the occurrence. The learned Public Prosecutor was unable to find any evidence to establish this fact. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused and the deceased slept together in their house on the night of occurrence or that she was last seen in the company of the accused before her murder. The Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the statement of Nama (P. W. 3), wherein he had stated that the accused was seen by him in his house on Chaturdashit, and, as the murder took place near about Bhado Budi Poomima (27-9-1977), it must be held proved that the accused was there in the house on the date of occurrence and it was he who was last seen in the company of the deceased while she was alive. There is no substance in this contention. Nana (P. W. 3) has, in terms, admitted in his cross-examination that he last saw the accused in his house on TAsoj Budi Chaturdashi i. e. 15 days after Bhadwa Sudi Poomima. Thus, the evidence of this witness does not establish the fact that the accused was in his house on the night of occurrence. Even otherwise the evidence of this witness is quite shaky and does not inspire confidence. No other evidence was pointed out to establish this circumstance. ( 8 ) AS to the circumstance of locking the house the learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any evidence on record to show that it was the accused who had locked his house and left it thereafter. ( 9 ) NO evidence was led to prove this fact and it is difficult to hold that it was the accused who had locked the house which later on was opened by the police. ( 10 ) AS regards the circumstance relating to the absconding of the accused it may be pointed out that non-bailable warrant (Ex. P. 13) was issued against him by the Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera on December 1, 1977. ( 10 ) AS regards the circumstance relating to the absconding of the accused it may be pointed out that non-bailable warrant (Ex. P. 13) was issued against him by the Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera on December 1, 1977. It was returned un-executed with the report that he was not found in his village. Bhadullah Khan (P. W. 18) has deposed that he was deputed to execute this warrant and he has made his report on its back. He admits in his cross-examination that he made inquiries about the accused from the villagers and relations of the accused but the witness has neither mentioned their names nor obtained signatures or thumb impressions on its back. He has not said that he made repeated efforts to execute the warrant. From this evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was absconding. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the accused remained absconding it cannot be said on the basis of this circumstance alone that he was the murderer of his wife Rami. In the absence of any other incriminating evidence, the circumstance of the accused absconding alone cannot be made the basis for conviction even though the accused gives no account or gives a false account of his whereabouts. There may be many reasons for his being not able to explain his absence. ( 11 ) THE next circumstance used against the accused is that blood was found on the walls of the house and also on the cot and the rope lying inside it. When the presence of the accused in the house is not established and it is not known when he left the house, the circumstance does not connect him with the crime. ( 12 ) LASTLY, it was alleged that ornaments, article 1 to 5, which have been recovered from the possession and at the instance of the accused belonged to the deceased. Here, again, the learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any material on record to show that the deceased Mst. Rami was wearing these ornaments at the time when she was killed. The ornaments are not stained with blood. Their possession with the accused cannot be d considered unusual. He being the husband of the deceased, could have come in possession of these ornaments much prior to the incident. Rami was wearing these ornaments at the time when she was killed. The ornaments are not stained with blood. Their possession with the accused cannot be d considered unusual. He being the husband of the deceased, could have come in possession of these ornaments much prior to the incident. ( 13 ) AS regards the statement of Rama, P. W. 16 that he had gone to the house of the accused and the accused had told him that Mst. Rami had gone to her maternal grand fathers house and when he went there he did not find her there also According to this witness it was on the day of Poomima. We have gone through his statement. He does not appear to be trustworthy. We are not impressed by his evidence. We do not feel safe to act upon his evidence. ( 14 ) IN view of the circumstances discussed above we find it difficult to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder. The prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, the various circumstances relied upon by learned Sessions Judge have not been proved by evidence on record and in any case they are insufficient to complete a chain to exclude the hypothesis that the accused may have been not guilty of the crime alleged. The prosecution evidence falls short of proof and the accused cannot be convicted on the present material for committing the murder of his own wife. ( 15 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, dated 30-10-82, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused acquitted.