JUDGMENT S.M. Daud, J. - This appeal from jail takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for his allegedly committing an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Complainant P.W. 1 Durga is a brothel-keeper at Shukrawar and Budhwar Peth, Pune and was carrying on her business with the aid of girls named Begum, two Madhavis, Sundra and Chandra. These girls were living in the premises and each had a small cubicle or room to herself. Sundra and P.W. 4 Madhavi were in love with the appellant and P.W. 6 Jagdish respectively. The appellant and Jugdish were almost daily visitors to their mistresses. Appellant resented the profession which Sundra was following and had spoken to her on several occasions so as to persuade Sundra to give up the said profession. Appellant was a native of Village Rallatgaon in Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad and had come to Pune to eke a precarious living. He was working as a hotel hand and was certainly not earning so much as to sent up home with Sundra and live with the girl a decent life. It was this disability of the appellant which forced her to continue to be in the infamous trade that she was carrying on. On 10.9.1989, appellant and Sundra had gone out. At about 5.00 p.m. the two of them returned, People who saw them returning included Durga, Madhavi and Asha. The two went into the cubicle of Sundra, the door of which was chained from inside. After some time Sundra came out and joined the other inmates of the brothel in the evening meal. The meal over. Sundra went back to her cubicle where appellant was stationed. Some time, thereafter, Sundra came out with injuries on her person which injuries were bleeding profusely. She was followed by the appellant who had a dagger-like weapon in his hand. The wounded Sundra fell to the ground and the appellant fled. The frightened brothel-keeper and Jagdish removed Sundra to the hospital. This was done by Jagdish who brought Sundra to the Sassoon Hospital. Dr. Ughale received the patient who was described as an unknown female by Jagdish. Jagdish also gave out that the female had been assaulted by some unknown to him. Very soon, Sundra passed away. Durga contacted the Shukrawar Police Outpost and lodged her report which is at Ext. 13. Dr. Ughale received the patient who was described as an unknown female by Jagdish. Jagdish also gave out that the female had been assaulted by some unknown to him. Very soon, Sundra passed away. Durga contacted the Shukrawar Police Outpost and lodged her report which is at Ext. 13. Treating Ext. 13 as an F.I.R. the Assistant Commissioner of Police P.W. 10 Tarwade began an investigation. In the course of this investigation, Tarwade drew up the inquest Panchanama which is at Ext. 15 and recorded the statements of various persons. The appellant had disappeared and word was sent to the Paithan Police to be on the look out for him as it was very likely that he would take refuge at his native place. The Paithall Police made an entry in the station diary of the message received by them and P.S.I. Ghule found the appellant in his own house at Village Rahatogaon, Taluka Paithan. Appellant was arrested on 12.9.1989 under Ext. 33. In due course, he was despatched to the Farazkhana Police Station at Pune within whose limits the crime had been committed. On 16.9.1989, the appellant gave out that he had concealed a knife at a certain place and that he would produce the same. His statement was recorded at Ext. 17 and the Knife attached under Ext. 18. The knife was found to be stained with blood on the blade and handle by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. The blood was human but the grouping thereof was inconclusive. The C.E.S report to that effect is at Ext. 40. In the meantime, Sundra's corpse had been subjected to a post-mortem examination by Dr. Bade and his notes arc at Ext. 29. The investigation completed, a charge-sheet was up against the appellant. 3. After the usual committal, the appellant found himself before an Additional Sessions Judge, Pune charged with the commission of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty-his defence being that he had been falsely implicated. 4. To substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant the prosecution examined Dorga, Madhavi, Asha Jagdish, Panch Chandrakant, Dr. Ughale, P.S.I. Ghule, A.C.P. Tarwade and certain others; Their testimony carried conviction with the learned Additional Sessions Judge who finding appellant guilty under section 302 sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 5. Exception is taken to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. Mr. Ughale, P.S.I. Ghule, A.C.P. Tarwade and certain others; Their testimony carried conviction with the learned Additional Sessions Judge who finding appellant guilty under section 302 sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 5. Exception is taken to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. Mr. Ansari appointed to prosecute the appeal on behalf of the appellant submits that there was no eyewitness to the crime, that the evidence of Dorga, Madhavi and Asha did not point to the culpability of the appellant and that the best proof of the innocence of the appellant was the response of Jagdish when he first brought the wounded Sundra to the Sassoon Hospital. At the time of occurrence he was in the brother of Durga and had gone to sleep in the cubicle allotted to his mistress Madhavi. What woke him up from sleep was the screaming of the prostitutes in the brothel. The sight which met his eyes as soon as he came out was that of a wounded Sundra lying in front of the first room. She was unconscious and blood was flowing freely from on injury on her chest. At that time, Begum, two Madhavis and Durga were present. When Jagdish went to the window he was a boy in flight. Sundra was lifted by him and placed in a rickshaw and then taken to the Sassoon Hospital. In cross-examination, Jagdish admits that he had not told the police of his having peered out of the window and seen a boy in flight. He had further not stated that his mistress and her colleagues screams had brought him out of the room in which he was sleeping. He did not mention in the police statement the presence of Durga. The appellant was a person who was known to Jagdish from before. From the testimony of Dr. Ughale there can be no manner of doubt that Jagdish disclaimed knowledge of the victim as also her assailant in fact, that seems to have be the course adopted by Jagdish even when the inquest memo at Ex 15 was drawn up. Jagdish may or may not have seen the appellant in flight. What however is clear is that he was the person who had removed the injured Sundra to the Sassoon Hospital. Sundra had an injury which spoke of some crime having been committed on her person. Jagdish may or may not have seen the appellant in flight. What however is clear is that he was the person who had removed the injured Sundra to the Sassoon Hospital. Sundra had an injury which spoke of some crime having been committed on her person. Jagdish appears to have disclaimed acquaintance with Sundra for reasons which have not been brought out in his evidence. But these can be easily gathered from the very first sentence in Jagdish's deposition. At the time of the occurrence he was working in a sweet-meat shop at Laxmi Road, Pune which shop was doing business in the name and style of Raju Papadwala. As a person with a steady job Jagdish did not want to become too involved with the crime as knowledge that he was frequenting a house of ill-fame and consorting with ladies of ill-repute, may have jeopardised his employment. Nothing much turns upon Jagdish's-attempts to disclaim acquaintance with Sundra. What can be inferred from Jagdish's testimony is, that the assailant was seen by him and that the said assailant was not the appellant. All that Jagdish says about the boy in flight seen by him from a window on an upper floor, was, that he was wearing certain clothes and shoes. He does not say that the person in flight was certainly not the appellant. In any case, the ambiguous stand taken by Jagdish cannot lead to the discrediting of Durga, Madhavi and Asha. Durga is the brother keeper. She had no objection to the visits of the appellant to Sundra. She says that Sundra's calling out to her brought her out of her room. She saw the appellant in flight after pushing away Sundra. Sundra had a bleeding injury on her chest and was in no position to speak. Jagdish took the wounded Sundra to the Sassoon Hospital. After this Durga herself went to the Police Outpost where she gave the report at Ex 13. The recitals appearing in Ex 13 conform to the version given out by Durga. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it is highly improbable that the appellant court be seen by Durga who admittedly came out of her room on hearing the cries of Sundra. We see nothing unbelievable of Durga being in a position to see the appellant. The recitals appearing in Ex 13 conform to the version given out by Durga. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it is highly improbable that the appellant court be seen by Durga who admittedly came out of her room on hearing the cries of Sundra. We see nothing unbelievable of Durga being in a position to see the appellant. After all, the first in point of-time event was the running out of Sundra from the cubicle with her calling out to Durga repeatedly. Sundra must have been in an extreme pain having regard to the injury inflicted on her person. Anyone hearing a scream of that nature would-rush out from wherever he or she was and not more than seconds would pass between the hearing of screams and rushing out from a room. In cross-examination some minor discrepancies have been brought out from Durga, but these, are of no consequence. The versions given by P.Ws. 4 and Madhavi and Asha are on the same line viz. that Sundra's screams brought them out, that they saw appellant coming out from behind Sundra and running away and lastly that Sundra had a bleeding injury on her chest and that she had fallen down. The second circumstance which incriminates the appellant is that he had a motive to kill the girl. Appellant wanted Sundra to give up her profession and Sundra could not do so because of being compelled to follow some occupation which would keep her alive. Prostitution is what she knew. Appellant was not in a position to maintain her. At the same time he was in love with Sundra and the frustration at not being able to impose his views upon his mistress, appears to have led him to kill her. Durga, Madhavi and Asha all speak of the tussle between appellant and Sundra on this subject. The third circumstance against the appellant is his disappearance from Pune after the evening of 10.9.1989. The homing instinct which is common to all living creatures led the appellant to his ancestral home in Rahatgaon and therefore naturally he was arrested from that place on 12.9.1989. No explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why he suddenly left Pune on the evening of 10.9.1989. The last circumstance which clinches the case against the appellant is the recovery of Article No. 9 on information furnished by the appellant. No explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why he suddenly left Pune on the evening of 10.9.1989. The last circumstance which clinches the case against the appellant is the recovery of Article No. 9 on information furnished by the appellant. The information has been reduced to writing and it is, at Ex 17. That information led the Investigation Officer to the place where the knife was concealed and the recovery of the said knife under Ex 18. P.W. 3 Chandrakant has established the correctness of the recitals appearing in the two documents. Dr. Bade says that injury No. 2, i.e. the chest would on Sundra's person to which the internal damage corresponds, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has denied the suggestion that the said injury could be self inflicted. He has also given good reasons for denying the suggestion that Article 9 could not have been used for the infliction of the fatal wound on the person of Sundra. The article was shown to him for the first time in Court and not prior thereto. As said earlier, thought the grouping of the blood on Article 9 could not be done, both it handle and blade had traces of human blood thereon. The sequence of events which we get is as under: At about 5.00 p.m. appellant came to the brothel with Sundra, After the meal, Sundra and appellant were closeted in the girl's cubicle, Very soon Sundra screamed in pain and came out with a bleeding injury followed by appellant behind her. Sundra fell to the ground, but appellant went running out of brothel. From that time onwards, appellant made himself scarce and was arrested two days later at Rahatgaon. No explanation is given for, the sudden leaving of Pune by the appellant. At his instance, Article No. 9 which could have caused the fatal injury found on the person of Sundra was recovered. The weapon had been secreted at an out of the way place. The weapon had human blood. Appellant had a move to kill Sundra. The pant and shift attached from his person had blood stains and the group of this blood was the same as that to which the deceased belonged. All these circumstances make out a cast-iron case against the appellant. The weapon had human blood. Appellant had a move to kill Sundra. The pant and shift attached from his person had blood stains and the group of this blood was the same as that to which the deceased belonged. All these circumstances make out a cast-iron case against the appellant. The conviction and sentence impugned in appeal are hereby affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.