JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried for murder of his wife under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of the charge. Prosecution case mainly rests upon evidence regarding accused and deceased having been last seen together, recovery of bindi and safety pin at the instance of accused from near the scene of offence, recovery of two magazines "DAFA 302" from the house of the accused which contains stories of murders of beloveds and the abscondance of the accused after the commission of crime. 2. The trial Judge accepted last-seen evidence and also took into consideration the evidence relating to recovery of bindi which, according to the Chemical Analyst, was similar to the pack of bindis recovered from the house of accused out of which one bindi was missing, recovery of the said magazines, the fact that accused did not lodge any missing report and absconded after the commission of crime. The appellant was, therefore, found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs. 300/-, in default S.I. for six months. This conviction is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has urged before us that except for the circumstances relating to last seen together, no other circumstance has been proved and that on the sole evidence relating to last seen together, the appellant cannot be held guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on three judgments of the Apex Court in (Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh)1, 1979 Cri.L.J. 1217; (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kamla)2, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 967 and (Mahavir Prasad v. State of Rajasthan)3, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 272. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the prosecution had not examined material witnesses Rukhmabai and Shyam with whose help, the accused made efforts to trace his missing wife. He submitted that the defence be given opportunity to examine the said witnesses. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, has urged that evidence on record upon which reliance has been placed by the trial Court, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant and that there is no reason or justification to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, has urged that evidence on record upon which reliance has been placed by the trial Court, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant and that there is no reason or justification to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 5. The prosecution has firstly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 5 Dashrath Thakre who has stated that on 26-12-1993 at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., he was coming towards Hinganghat by Nandgaon Road and near Nandgaon Naka he saw accused Jahangir going towards Nandgaon side with one girl on bicycle who was of 20/22 years of age. He identified the said girl on the basis of photograph which had been recovered by the police from P.W. 6. Sanjay Gulani to whom the said photograph was given by the accused 2/3 months prior to the incident. The said photograph was of the accused and the deceased. Except for putting bare suggestions in cross-examination, there was no cross-examination on the last-seen evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 Sanjay proves that the accused and the deceased who were husband and wife, were last seen together on 26-12-1993 at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found on 31-12-1993 near Wana river. According to the prosecution case, the accused absconded and was not traceable with effect from 27-12-1993 and ultimately, he was arrested on 7-1-1994 from his native place at Calcutta. 6. The prosecution has examined P.W. 2 Gajanan Pal who has stated that he used to supply milk everyday in the morning at the house of accused and that he had given milk at the house of accused on 26-12-1993, but on 27-12-93 and 28-12-93 when he, as usual, visited the house of accused for giving milk, the door was locked. This witness was not cross-examined at all. However, the accused in a statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. denied that his house was locked on 27-12-93 and 28-12-93. When the police had gone to the house of accused on 4-1-94, the same was found locked from outside and the lock was broken open. This witness was not cross-examined at all. However, the accused in a statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. denied that his house was locked on 27-12-93 and 28-12-93. When the police had gone to the house of accused on 4-1-94, the same was found locked from outside and the lock was broken open. The case of the accused is that he had gone to the Police Station with Shyam Devgirikar to lodge the missing report, but the police asked him to search by going to village and he borrowed money from Mrs. Verma and went to Calcutta. No material whatsoever has been produced by the appellant to substantiate his version that he had gone to the Police Station to lodge missing report. The appellant was ultimately arrested from his native place at Calcutta on 7-1-1994. It may also be pointed out here that the accused has gone to the extent of even denying the fact of invitation given by Shankar Latkar( P.W. 3). It is on account of this invitation that the wife of the accused, according to Rekha (P.W. 4) had collected water from the tap at about 5.00 p.m. 7. There is no dispute that the wife of accused was last seen with him and that thereafter she was found missing. When somebody's wife is missing, it is but natural that he would make efforts of reporting the fact of missing to the police and also make whatever efforts are possible to trace his missing wife. No missing report was lodged by the accused nor there is any evidence on record that he made efforts to trace his missing wife. The stand taken by him in his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. is nothing but after-thought and it does not get support from any material on record. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish three incriminating circumstances against the appellant, viz., (i) that, the accused had not filed any missing report of his wife; (ii) the accused had absconded, and (iii) accused has taken a false stand that he went to the Police Station to lodge missing report, but he was told by the police to search in the village. P.S.I. Mukund Lambe (P.W. 9) has denied the suggestion given to him that Shyam Devgirikar and accused had visited Police Station to give report about missing of deceased. P.S.I. Mukund Lambe (P.W. 9) has denied the suggestion given to him that Shyam Devgirikar and accused had visited Police Station to give report about missing of deceased. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged that said Shyam Devgirikar and Rukhmabai from whom the accused had borrowed Rs. 1,000/- to proceed for Calcutta, were material witnesses, but the same have not been examined by the prosecution. His contention is that the material witnesses have been dropped by the prosecution as a result of which, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. 8. First of all, in our opinion, the said witnesses cannot be said to be material witnesses for the prosecution and secondly, the accused could very well have examined the said witnesses in case the accused thought that he could prove his case with the help of the said witnesses. The belated request made by the learned Advocate for the appellant at this stage to permit the defence to examine the said witnesses cannot be granted. In addition, the prosecution has also led evidence of Gajanan Lambat P.W. 7 who has stated that the accused took them to Wana river near Babul tree and Beshram tree. At that place, one bindi and pin was attached by the police. The said bindi was sent for comparison to the Chemical Analyst with a pack of bindis which was recovered from the house of the accused out of which one bindi was missing. According to the Chemical Aanlyst, the said bindi recovered from the said spot, is similar to the pack of bindis which was found at the house of the accused. This evidence which has been led by the prosecution is relevant as subsequent conduct under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act which links the accused with the crime. 9. In addition, the police found two magazines titled, "DAFA 302" from the house of the accused which, according to the trial Court, reflects the state of mind of the accused. This piece of evidence by itself may be of no consequence, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, recovery of magazines, "DAFA 302" which deals with murders of beloveds, assumes significance especially when the deceased was murdered by strangulation. The fact that she was murdered by strangulation has been duly established by prosecution through the evidence of Medical Officer Lalitkumar Kose (P.W. 8). 10. The fact that she was murdered by strangulation has been duly established by prosecution through the evidence of Medical Officer Lalitkumar Kose (P.W. 8). 10. The incriminating circumstances, thus, established against the accused are (i) the accused was last seen with his wife at about 5.30 p.m. on 26-12-1993 after which they were not seen and they did not go to the house of Shankar Latkar who had invited them to come on that day; (ii) the accused did not lodge any missing report nor made any efforts to trace his wife; (iii) the accused absconded and was not found after 26-12-1993 till he was arrested on 7-1-1994 from his native place at Calcutta; (iv) the recovery of bindi from near the spot which was found to be similar to the pack of bindis which was recovered from the house of accused out of which one bindi was missing; (v) recovery of magazines "DAFA 302", and (vi) the false explanation and defence which provides additional link. 11. In a case where husband and wife are last seen together, on account of very nature of their relationship, a heavy burden lies on the partner not only to take immediate steps and make efforts to trace the missing partner, but to lodge a missing report with the police. In other words, there is heavy burden on the accused to explain as to what had happened to his wife after she was last seen with him. The fact that the accused neither lodged missing report nor made efforts to trace his wife is itself a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused. By marriage, a strong bond unites two human beings who are required in law to look after welfare and interest of each other. The missing of one's partner is not a matter which can be lightly taken by the other partner and as we have already pointed out, a heavy burden is upon the partner to explain as to how the other partner was missing when it is established by cogent evidence that they were last seen together after which one of them was not seen till found to be dead. In our opinion, there is strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant for doing away with his wife. Learned Advocate for the appellant had urged before us that the prosecution had failed to establish motive. In our opinion, there is strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant for doing away with his wife. Learned Advocate for the appellant had urged before us that the prosecution had failed to establish motive. Motive is always locked in the heart of the accused and it is well known dictum that even devil may not know the thoughts of man. Motive, no doubt, assumes importance in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, yet the absence of motive is not fatal if the circumstantial evidence is established with cogent evidence. In the light of duty inter se husband and wife, on the missing of the other partner, the rulings upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant would not be of much help to the case of the appellant. None of the said cases is of husband and wife and accordingly, the legal duty about which we have spoken, does not come into picture in the said cases. 12. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----