JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.4.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, in S.T. Case No. 64/216 of 1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), for committing the murder of Tikili Baliarsingh, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The sole appellant was prosecuted for commission of the murder of one Tikili Baliarsingh, the second wife of the informant Gadadhar Baliarsingh (P.W. 5) on 2.10.1995 between 10.00 A.M. and 6.00 P.M. in village Naramanabi. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story, as unravelled during the course of trial is as follows : The informant, who is the husband of the appellant as well as the deceased, lodged an oral report at about 9.30 A.M. on 3.10.1994, which was reduced to writing by the Officer-in-charge of Tangi Police-Station vide Ext. 9/1, by stating that he had married the appellant 22 years preceding the incident. Out of their wedlock, two male children were born. The elder of them was looking after a betel shop in Calcutta, whereas the younger, aged about 9 years, was staying with the appellant in the village. During the subsistence of the first marriage, the informant had married the deceased 3 to 4 years prior to the incident and a female child was born to her. However, there was some misunderstanding and ill-feeting between the first wife and the second wife, even though the former had given consent for the second marriage. On the fateful day at about 9.00 A.M., P.W. 5 went to the house of one Shyam Sundar Alti of Dikhitpada to incur some loan from him. At the time of this departure, the appellant and the deceased along with their children were present in the house. On his return from Dikhitpada at about 6.00 P.M., to his utter dismay, he noticed that his first wife (the appellant) was absent with her male child and the second wife Tikili was lying dead in a pool of blood. There was an iron hammer lying by her side, which too was stained with blood. He made an outcry, as a result of which the neighbours reached at the spot of incident and noticed Tikili to be dead. Even after extensive search, the appellant could not be found out in the village or nearby area. There was an iron hammer lying by her side, which too was stained with blood. He made an outcry, as a result of which the neighbours reached at the spot of incident and noticed Tikili to be dead. Even after extensive search, the appellant could not be found out in the village or nearby area. Therefore, he went to the Sarpanch of Kunjuri Grama Panchayat and reported about the incident to him. With these allegations, he lodged the report at the Police Station stating that he suspected the appellant to have committed the murder of his second wife Tikili Baliarsingh. On the basis of such report, a case u/s 302, IPC was registered against the appellant followed by investigation by the I.O. During investigation, the I.O. visited the spot, held inquest over the deadbody of Tikili, seized the weapon of offence from the spot, collected the Blood-stained earth and sample earth, examined the witnesses, despatched the deadbody for post-mortem examination and sent the incriminating materials to the Chemical Analyst for opinion. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed against the appellant. 3. The defence plea was one of complete denial. The appellant also claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. In order to sustain conviction against the appellant, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. In such a case, the, prosecution is required to prove all the circumstances, which would unerringly indicate the complicity of the accused in the crime. In other words, every link in the chain of events must be firmly established so that there would be no missing link from which the innocence of the accused can be inferred. Keeping this in mind, let us see how far the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the present appellant. 5. The trial Court has based its finding on three circumstances, which are as follows : (1) There was inimical relationship between the appellant and the deceased. (2) The deceased was last seen living in company of the appellant on the date of occurrence at 9.00 A.M. in the house when P.W. 5 left for Dikhitpada to secure a loan. (3) The appellant was found absconding from the house soon after the occurrence without any notice. 6. (2) The deceased was last seen living in company of the appellant on the date of occurrence at 9.00 A.M. in the house when P.W. 5 left for Dikhitpada to secure a loan. (3) The appellant was found absconding from the house soon after the occurrence without any notice. 6. To Appreciate the above circumstances, upon the basis of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant, let us refer to the evidence of P.W. 5. On a brief resume of his evidence, it is disclosed that there was no quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on the date of incident, and their relationship was normal. In that view of the matter, the inference of bitter relationship between the appellant and the deceased is too remote to connect the appellant with the crime. Enmity is a circumstance to prove the motive. But, it is very difficult to prove the motive in a criminal case. Motive for commission of the offence can only be known to the assailant. Merely because, there has been absence of motive, that by itself would not raise an inference of innocence of the accused if it is proved through other evidence placed before the Court that the accused was the author of the crime. 7. The second circumstances, which has been noted by the trial Court, is that the deceased Tikili was last seen living in the company of the appellant at 9.00 A.M. on the date of occurrence in the house of P.W. 5 when he went out to Dikhitpada to secure a loan from Shyam Sundar Alli. In this regard, P.W. 5 has clearly and distinctly stated to have gone out on the date of occurrence to the house of Shyam Sundar AIM at 9.00 A.M. to arrange a loan. At that time, the deceased was living in the company of the appellant. But, when he returned, to his utter dismay, he noticed that the deceased was lying dead and the appellant had absconded. From the testimony of P.W. 5, it has further transpired that the appellant had offered to go with him to Calcutta deserting the deceased. In the statement recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant has unequivocally admitted to have been in the company of the deceased at the time when her husband went out to arrange loan from Shyam Sundar Alli. From the testimony of P.W. 5, it has further transpired that the appellant had offered to go with him to Calcutta deserting the deceased. In the statement recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant has unequivocally admitted to have been in the company of the deceased at the time when her husband went out to arrange loan from Shyam Sundar Alli. There has been no explanation by the appellant as to how the deceased died while the latter was in her company. Thus, the theory of last seen has been amply proved against the appellant. 8. The last circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is that immediately after the occurrence the appellant absconded from the spot. In this connection, P.W. 5 has stated that on his return, he found his second wife lying dead and his first wife had absconded. Turning to the evidence of P.W. 6, it is seen that at about 4.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence, the younger son of the appellant came to his house and left the female child of P.W. 5 through the second wife by impressing him that they would collect the child on their way back. From his statement, at least it is gathered that by 4.00 P.M., Tiklli, the second wife of P.W. 5, was already dead. Immediately after the occurrence, even before the arrival of P.W. 5, the appellant absconded from the house. Had she been innocent, there was no reason to abscond herself immediately after the occurrence. Thus, this circumstance has also been amply proved by the prosecution. 9. The last seen theory and absconding of the appellant raise a strong inference that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who was responsible for causing the murder of the deceased. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the appellant about the above circumstances appearing against her. Therefore, even though enmity between the appellant and the deceased has not been proved, the above two circumstances are clinching and we agree with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant is guilty of committing the murder of the deceased. 10. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby confirmed. 11. 10. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby confirmed. 11. Before parting with the case, we must put on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Patnaik, who dexterously conducted the case. However, since the circumstances are against the appellant, we are constrained to confirm the order of her conviction and sentence. Ch. P.K. Misra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed