JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 250/- as fine. 2. The prosecution case is that on April 24, 1988 at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, the accused-appellant himself lodged an oral report with the Police Station, Abu Road that his wife-Papi who occasionally used to be possessed by a spirit had died during the night while being possessed, of the spirit. On investigation, the accused-appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Obviously, there is no eye witness of the incident. The circumstances which have been proved against the appellant are that the appellant was the only person with the deceased in the night during which she died and that the appellant did not have cordial relations with his deceased wife. 4. The prosecution has examined PW 1 Bhika, father of the deceased, PW 8 Vagtu, mother of the deceased, PW 8 Doula, uncle of the deceased, PW 3 Balia, brother of the deceased, PW 4 Panna and PW 5 Dharma to prove the strained relations between the appellant and his deceased wife. The prosecution has also relied on document Ex.P 1 which was a document executed by PW 4 Panna, PW 5 Dharma, PW 6 Huli and PW 7 Chuna, vouchsafing good behaviour on the part of the appellant with his wife, the deceased. PW 1 Bhika, PW 3 Balia and PW 8 Vagtu have supported the prosecution whereas PW 4 Panna, PW 5 Dharma, PW 6 Huli and PW 7 Chuna were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. However, all of them have admitted affixing thumb impressions on Ex.P 1. On the over all testimony of these witnesses, it is clear that the relations of the appellant with his wife were not cordial and the appellants wife was sent by her parents to live with the appellant only on assurance of good conduct given by his relations. 5. So far as the question of the appellant being the only and the last person who was with the deceased in the night during which she had died, the prosecution has examined PW 9 Jathi and PW 10 Bhagwana. 5. So far as the question of the appellant being the only and the last person who was with the deceased in the night during which she had died, the prosecution has examined PW 9 Jathi and PW 10 Bhagwana. PW 9 Jethi has not supported the prosecution in toto but even then she has stated that in the night during which the incident took place appellant and the deceased were sleeping in their house. PW 10 Bhagwana was also declared hostile but he had also not supported the appellant on the point that the appellant was away from the house on that day. He has only stated that he did not know when the appellant and his wife, the deceased returned home that day. In his Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant had stated that when his wife died, he was not at home but had gone to Ambaji to work as a labourer and returned in the morning when he saw people collected at his place and then he knew that his wife had died, on which he reported the matter to the Police. 6. PW 9 Jethi and PW 10 Bhagwana were not cross-examined at all on behalf of the appellant. They were not given the suggestion that the appellant was away to Ambaji during the night when the incident took place. PW 9 Jethi has categorically stated in her statement that the appellant and his wife were sleeping in the fateful night in their house. 7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant and his wife the deceased, were sleeping together in their house oil the fateful night. 8. The medical evidence in the case conclusively proves that the deceased had died because of asphyxia resulting from strangulating. The post-mortem report (Ex.P. 11) states that she had a bruise mark reaching to the & posterior part of the neck. In the face of this report it appears that the accused had abandoned the theory of possession by spirit and set up an alibi. 9. The post-mortem report (Ex.P. 11) states that she had a bruise mark reaching to the & posterior part of the neck. In the face of this report it appears that the accused had abandoned the theory of possession by spirit and set up an alibi. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1995 (1) WLN 356) Jamni (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan (1995 (1) RCD 325 , Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) , Ramchandra and another v. State of Rajasthan (RCC Nov. 1989, 519) , Dhanpat v. Uda Ram and Devi Lal v. The State of Rajasthan (1976 RCC 362) , Abdulguni v. State of Karnataka (1995(4) Crimes, 406) and Archi Nawal Kishore Kujur v. State of Bihar (1995(4) Crimes, 855) . 10. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1982 SC 1217 ) . 11. Out of the above cases, only the two Supreme Court cases viz. Sharad Birdhichand Sardas case ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) and Prabhakar Jasappa Kangunis case ( AIR 1982 SC 1217 ) deserve to be discussed. The other cases are clearly distinguishable on facts. 12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sardas case, the following conditions were set out for the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence to be fully established: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. 2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, at that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and 5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 13. In Prabhakar jasappa Kangunis case, he was prosecuted for murder of his wife. He was addicted of heavy drinking. 13. In Prabhakar jasappa Kangunis case, he was prosecuted for murder of his wife. He was addicted of heavy drinking. Relations between Husband and Wife were not happy. On the date of occurrence, the wife attempted to commit suicide by taking poison but did not die because of timely medical aid. She was found to be all right up to 9.45 a.m. and an hour before her death. At the time of death no one other than her husband was in the house. The post-mortem examination report revealed that the death was because of asphyxia as a result of throttling. The medical opinion was found to be entirely trustworthy and the death was not found to be due to poisoning. 14. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that in all human probability, it was the accused-husband and none else, who had murdered his wife by strangulating her to death. 15. Examining the case in hand in the light of the aforesaid case law, we find that Prabhakar Jasappa Kangunis case is applicable on all fours to the case in hand. Here the appellant has been proved to be the only person who was with the deceased during the night. His subsequent conduct of reporting the matter to the Police giving various reasons for the death of his wife and subsequently taking a false plea of alibi would also go against him. The circumstances proved against the appellant are that his relations with his wife were not cordial, that he was the last person who was with the deceased before her death, that the medical evidence was clearly of strangulation, that he lodged a first information report suppressing the material facts and taking false plea of being away to Ambaji when it has been proved that he was with his wife during the fateful night. All these circumstances clearly indicate that it was the appellant alone who in all human probability had done away with his wife. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. *******