A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal from jail, Laxmi Dei alias Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of her conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'i. P. C. ') and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh. According to prosecution, she killed her husband Lalindra Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by means of an axe. ( 2 ) SANS unnecessary details, prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : Accused and the deceased entered into wedlock about fifteen years prior to the date of incident and had two children. Deceased's father Parameswar Naik (P. W. 7) was residing in a separate house. Their son was about ten years of age and daughter of seven years at that time. Accused usually used to sleep with her husband with the two children. On the night of the date of occurrence i. e. 9-2-1992, informant Parameswar Naik (P. W. 7) and his wife returned from the Sundergarh weekly market and accused prepared chicken curry for them. After some time, Subas, son of accused came to the house of his grandfather and wanted to sleep with him. Thereafter, the granddaughter Jayanti also came to sleep with her grandmother (P. W. 8 ). The grandparents and the two children slept together. In the morning Parameswar requested Jayanti to go to her house to bring some paddy from her mother the accused, for preparation of fried rice, but the girl returned and told that her mother was absent from the house. They waited thinking that she might have gone to ease herself. Some time after, Subas, went to bring paddy being sent by the informant, but he returned and told P. W. 7 that his far was lying injured having sustained bleeding injuries and the accused was absent from the house. Hearing the cry for help some of villagers arrived. Previously the accused Laxmi had eloped with Santosh Raksa (P. W. 4) of their village twice. Suspecting her involvement report was lodged at the Sadar Police Station by Parameswar (P. W. 7 ). On receipt of information, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station took up investigation and the accused was apprehended at village Garjan on 20-2-1992. In the meantime, the axe which was used in commission of the offence was seized. Suspecting her involvement report was lodged at the Sadar Police Station by Parameswar (P. W. 7 ). On receipt of information, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station took up investigation and the accused was apprehended at village Garjan on 20-2-1992. In the meantime, the axe which was used in commission of the offence was seized. During trial, accused pleaded innocence. Though she admitted to be wife of deceased, she stated that she was absent from home and had gone to village Garjan prior to date of occurrence searching for a job. ( 3 ) IN order to bring home its accusations, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Though there was no eye-witness, to the occurrence, taking various circumstances into consideration, learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, found the accused guilty, and convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid. ( 4 ) MR. M. R. Mohanty 2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court should not have found the accused guilty as the circumstances did not establish accused to be author of the crime. With reference to the evidence of PWs. 7 and 8, it was urged that there was no material to show that the accused and the deceased were in the house together in the night of occurrence, and the mere fact that she was not found in the house cannot be a factor to pin guilt on her. It is pleaded that the chain of circumstances, does not lead to the conclusion of her guilt. Mr. S. C. Satpathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) WHEN case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it has to establish that there is no missing link in chain of circumstances, which is complete and unerringly point at theaccused, to be the author of the crime. In a case depending largely on the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of legal proof. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of legal proof. The Court has a duty to be watchful to ensure that conjectures or suspicion do not creep in, to substitute legal proof. Unless the various circumstances of the chain establish clearly and completely, and there is no escape even for entertaining a reasonable doubt about innocence of the accused, conviction should not be made. The Court has a duty to be watchful to ensure that conjectures or suspicion do not creep in, to substitute legal proof. Unless the various circumstances of the chain establish clearly and completely, and there is no escape even for entertaining a reasonable doubt about innocence of the accused, conviction should not be made. It has to be borne in mind that in a case where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance, be fully established to be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. They should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. Mahajan J. (as the Hon'ble Judge was then) in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 : (1953 Cri LJ 129) in this regard quoted a passge containing the warning administered by Baron Alderson to the Jury in Reg. v. Hodge (1838) 2 Lew 227, which was as under :"the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts, of one connected while (whole) and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matter, to over-reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. "the passage was referred to in Shankarlal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 : (1981 Cri LJ 325) and Jaharlal v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1388 : 1991 Cri LJ 1809. ( 6 ) CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the deceased; (iii) the circumstances taken, cumulatively should form a chain so complete that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Unlike direct evidence, the indirect light circumstances may throw, may vary from suspicion to certitude and care may be taken to avoid subjective pitfalls of exeggerating a conjecture into a conviction. ( 7 ) FEW circumstances, which have definite bearing on the question of culpability of the accused need to be taken note of. Usually, as stated by P. Ws. 7 and 8, accused deceased and the children used to sleep in deceased's, house. From the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 8 it transpires that on the night of occurrence, the accused sent the two children to sleep with their grandparents. Next day morning, the accused was found absent from the house and the deceased was found with bleeding injuries leading to his death. The absence of the accused from the house for a considerable length of time till her apprehension after about ten days without any explanation is certainly a relevant factor. Additionally, it is to be noted that when the accused was apprehended, certain articles were seized Vide seizure list (Ext. 5) which has been accepted to be those of the deceased. Under somewhat similar circumstances, the Apex Court upset judgment of acquittal passed by Karnataka High Court and directed conviction. Apex Court took note of the fact that absconding of the accused till his arrest was surely a link to establish that the accused had alone committed the offence of murder. (See State of Karnataka v. Lakshmanaiah), AIR 1993 SC 100 : 1992 Cri LJ 3997. ( 8 ) THE inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established the complete chain of circumstances to warrant conclusion of guilt of the accused. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ( 9 ) S. C. DATTA, J. , I agree. Appeal dismissed. .