ORDER : Dr A.S. Anand, J. 1. On 4-4-1986 at about 8.00 p.m. Allbert Hojisbhai, PW 13, who had gone to Nagri Eye Hospital to leave his wife saw a man moving in the compound of the hospital with a dagger in his hand. On his way back to his house, he went to Ellisbridge Police Station and informed H.C. Gulab Singh about it, who in the company of another constable left for the hospital. According to the prosecution case, Earnest Patrick Hamilton, PW 7, who was residing in the quarter adjacent to the quarter of the appellant, upon hearing a shriek went to the quarter of the appellant and on peeping through he saw Jayceeben, wife of the appellant, lying in an injured condition with the appellant present nearby with a dagger in his hand. He immediately contacted Merwin John, PW 5, and asked him to accompany him to the quarter of the appellant. Both of them went to Quarter No. 3 and found Jayceeben lying injured on the ground and the appellant present with the dagger. Merwin John, PW 5, enquired from the appellant as to what he had done and the appellant is alleged to have stated that 'what he did was proper'. In the meantime Gulab Singh, Constable, had arrived at the site. He found the appellant with a dagger in his hand in the compound of the hospital. The appellant also had some injuries on his person. The dagger was snatched from him. It was bloodstained. The appellant led Gulab Singh and his companion to his quarter, where they found Jayceeben lying dead in a pool of blood. From the personal search of the appellant, a letter Ext. P-9/B was recovered. The appellant was apprehended and it was discovered that apart from the injuries on his person, he had also consumed insecticides with a view to commit suicide after murdering his wife. He was, therefore, taken for treatment to the hospital. His injuries were treated and his stomach was washed. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide judgment dated 15-4-1987 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. His injuries were treated and his stomach was washed. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide judgment dated 15-4-1987 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He also found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo five days' simple imprisonment. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. 2. The appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence failed in the High Court except that the High Court after noticing the judgment of this Court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 : AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1844 in which it was held that Section 309 Indian Penal Code was constitutionally invalid set aside his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 3. Admittedly there is no eyewitness in the case. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The main circumstances which appear against the appellant are his presence with the dagger in his quarter near the deceased who was lying injured; the recovery of the bloodstained dagger from the appellant by Gulab Singh, Head Constable; extra-judicial confession made by the appellant; the medical evidence, the letter Ext. P-9/B and recovery of the dead body of his wife from his quarter. 4. The trial court as well as the High Court found that each one of the circumstances had been positively established by the prosecution and all the circumstances put together were consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. After examining the record we are not persuaded to take a different view either. The evidence of PW 5 and PW 7 is clear and cogent. They are the neighbours of the appellant. Both the trial court and the High Court found their testimony as reliable and in our opinion rightly so. The appellant apparently suspected the fidelity of his wife and it was for that reason that he assaulted her with the dagger causing her fatal injuries. They are the neighbours of the appellant. Both the trial court and the High Court found their testimony as reliable and in our opinion rightly so. The appellant apparently suspected the fidelity of his wife and it was for that reason that he assaulted her with the dagger causing her fatal injuries. The medical evidence which is provided by PW 2, PW 3 and PW 15 and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant go to show that the appellant has committed the crime as alleged by the prosecution. According to the medical evidence, the injuries found on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. Both the courts, therefore, rightly found that the offence committed by the appellant squarely falls under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and they rightly convicted and sentenced him for the said offence. 5. The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code in view of the judgment in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 : AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1844. That judgment no longer holds the field as it has been overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 . The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 309 Indian Penal Code by the trial court, therefore, deserves to be restored and we hereby do so. Both the sentences shall, however, run concurrently. 6. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.