K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 787/2000 filed this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 13-4-2001, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, warangal. ( 2 ) A charge under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code was framed against the accused for causing the death of his wife Putta Prema by hacking her with an axe on 9-4-1995. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. ( 3 ) THE Circle Inspector of Police, Ghanpur, who was examined as P. W. 12, filed a charge- sheet alleging that the marriage of the accused with the deceased took place about 15 years prior to the year 1995. They lived happily for ten years. They were blessed with a daughter. Thereafter the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased and used to harass her. In that connection, a "panchayat" was held. The elders advised P. W. 1 the father of the deceased-to send the deceased to the house of the accused, but he declined to do so, on the ground that the accused would harass her. Then the accused informed the parents of the deceased that he would reside with them in their village. The accused and the deceased accordingly lived in the house of the parents of the deceased for six months. Thereafter, accused took a portion of the house of P. Ws. 4 and 5 on rent and put up his family therein. Three days thereafter i. e. , on 9-4-1995 at 9 a. m. P. W. 4 heard the cries of the deceased and rushed to her portion of the house. She found the accused running away from the house. She saw the deceased lying at the main door in a pool of blood. She raised cries on hearing which p. Ws. 1 to 3 came there. They took the deceased to Dharmasagar Police Station on a cart. P. W. 1 lodged a report with the police. Ex. P-1 is the said report. The deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal. On the same day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On 10-4-1995, the Asst. 1 to 3 came there. They took the deceased to Dharmasagar Police Station on a cart. P. W. 1 lodged a report with the police. Ex. P-1 is the said report. The deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal. On the same day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On 10-4-1995, the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police-P. W. 11-conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W. 10 conducted post-mortem examination and opined that the death of the deceased was on account of the head injury. Ex. P-4 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor. Later P. W. 12-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. On completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. When the accused denied the charge under Section 302 IPC, Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. On assessment of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by his judgment dated 13-4-2001, against which the accused filed the present appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that except the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 5, there was no other evidence, that the circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that there was no motive for the accused to kill his own wife, and so the impugned judgment should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor contended that the accused and the deceased were residing in the same house at the time of the incident, that the accused was seen running away after the occurrence and the deceased was immediately found lying with head injury and so there was no possibility for any third person to enter into the house, and that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife and that was the motive for him to commit the offence, and hence the appeal should be dismissed. ( 5 ) P. W. 11 conducted inquest in the presence of P. W. 9. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. P. W. 10 conducted autopsy and opined that the deceased died as a result of the head injury sustained by her. Ex. P-4 is the post-mortem certificate. ( 5 ) P. W. 11 conducted inquest in the presence of P. W. 9. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. P. W. 10 conducted autopsy and opined that the deceased died as a result of the head injury sustained by her. Ex. P-4 is the post-mortem certificate. The evidence of these witnesses and the recitals in these documents remain uncontroverted. Therefore, we hold that the deceased met with a homicidal death. ( 6 ) AS regards the contention that the accused had no motive, motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the Prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. In some cases it may be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence while in some cases inference from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. Though motive established is a weak one, it does not mean that it is by itself sufficient lead to any inference against the Prosecution. ( 7 ) THE motive in this case as spoken to by the witnesses was that the accused was suspecting the character of his wife. P. W. 1 the father of the deceased-stated that the accused used to harass the deceased whenever she questioned him as to why he had not gone for coolie work. He stated that a "panchayat" was also held in that connection. Though he did not state about the suspicion of the accused on the character of the deceased, P. W. 2 the mother of the deceased-stated that the accused harassed the deceased as he suspected her character whenever she talked with others. Though in her chief-examination she stated that no panchayat was held, it was elicited in her cross-examination that a Panchayat did take place. P. W. 7 was the Sarpanch of Elkurthy village. He interposed when the accused informed him that P. W. 1 was not sending the deceased to his house to lead the matrimonial life. P. W. 7 convoked P. Ws. 1 to 3 and enquired with them. P. W. 1 disdained to send the deceased with the accused because the latter was suspecting the character of his wife. Then the accused assured that he would reside with the deceased in the house of p. W. 1. P. W. 7 convoked P. Ws. 1 to 3 and enquired with them. P. W. 1 disdained to send the deceased with the accused because the latter was suspecting the character of his wife. Then the accused assured that he would reside with the deceased in the house of p. W. 1. The elders advised P. W. 1 to allow the accused to do so. Accordingly, the accused and the deceased stayed in the house of p. W. 1 for some days. Later the accused took a portion of the house of P. W. 4 on rent and put up his family there. Three days thereafter the deceased was killed. P. W. 7 is a totally independent witness. Being a Sarpanch he used to settle disputes in the village along with others. The fact that the accused approached him and he convened a meeting has not been disputed in the cross- examination. The evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 7 establishes that the accused used to suspect the character of his wife and also used to harass her. Thus we hold that he developed motive to take the extreme step of eliminating his wife. ( 8 ) NOW it has to be seen whether the accused was the assailant of the deceased. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) THE law which is now well settled about circumstantial evidence is that the circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) THE law which is now well settled about circumstantial evidence is that the circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the Court on the follow ing aspects - (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 accused, (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. ( 10 ) THE following circumstances are relied upon by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. They are: (A) the deceased met with homicidal death, (b) the accused and the deceased were residing together in the same house, (c) in the house the deceased was found lying with head injury on the date of incident, and (d) the accused was seen running away from his house immediately thereafter. ( 11 ) AS regards the circumstance (a), we have already held above that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The Prosecution has thus established the first circumstance. ( 12 ) APROPOS the circumstance (b), P. Ws. 1 to 7 have stated in one voice that the accused took a portion of the house of P. Ws. 4 and 5 on rent three days prior to the date of incident and the accused and deceased were living in that house. P. W. 3, brother of the deceased, stated that on the date of incident, he went to the house of the accused in the morning and advised him to go for coolie work. P. Ws. 4 and 5 have corroborated the evidence of p. W. 3 on this aspect. P. W. 3, brother of the deceased, stated that on the date of incident, he went to the house of the accused in the morning and advised him to go for coolie work. P. Ws. 4 and 5 have corroborated the evidence of p. W. 3 on this aspect. The evidence of all these witnesses, which was remained unrebutted in the cross-examination, has established that the accused and the deceased were living in the same house and the evidence of P. Ws. 3 to 5 has further established that the deceased and the accused were in the same house in the morning on the date of incident. ( 13 ) WITH regard to the circumstance (c), p. Ws. 2 and 3 stated that on hearing the cries of P. Ws. 4 and 5 they rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased lying at the main door of the house with injuries to her head. P. W. 1 rushed to the scene of occurrence on being informed by P. w. 5 and found his daughter lying at the main gate of the house with head injury. P. Ws. 4 stated that on hearing the cries of his wife-P. W. 5-he rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying with head injury. P. W. 5 stated that she saw the deceased lying with head injury. Ex. P-2 the observation report of the scene of occurrence-clearly goes to show that the police collected bloodstained earth and control earth from the front room of the house of P. W. 4. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of these witnesses to discredit their testimony on this aspect. Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation that the deceased was lying in the front room of the house in which she was living with her husband on the date of incident in the morning. ( 14 ) NOW remains the last circumstance (d ). This is the most crucial circumstance which reveals the conduct of the accused after the incident. As already held above, it has been well established that the accused and the deceased were living in the house of p. Ws. 4 and 5. P. W. 4 stated that on hearing the cries of his wife-P. W. 5-he rushed to the house. This is the most crucial circumstance which reveals the conduct of the accused after the incident. As already held above, it has been well established that the accused and the deceased were living in the house of p. Ws. 4 and 5. P. W. 4 stated that on hearing the cries of his wife-P. W. 5-he rushed to the house. He saw the accused running away from the house and the deceased lying with head injury. P. W. 5 also stated that she saw the accused running away from the house and the deceased groaning in pain. P. Ws. 4 and 5 were the owners in a part whose house the accused and the deceased were residing on rent. Their presence in the morning at their own house was quite natural. They had no rancour with the accused to speak false against him. They appear to be truthful witnesses. They only stated that they saw the accused running away from the house and the deceased lying in the front room. If they wanted to inculpate the accused, they could have as well stated that they witnessed the accused hacking the deceased. They did not say so. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination which could weaken their testimony. It was simply suggested to these witnesses - and in fact to most of the witnesses except "panch" witnesses - that the deceased had sustained the injury due to her accidentally falling on the door frame of the house. This story cannot hold water in view of the medical evidence of P. W. 11 who emphatically stated that the injury was not possible in such manner. ( 15 ) P. W. 3 is the sibling of the accused. Just before the incident he went to the house of the accused and asked him to accompany him for eoolie work as otherwise the accused would harass the deceased if he stayed at home. The accused did not pay heed to the advice of P. W. 3 who then left the house. Within five minutes thereafter he heard the cries of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and reached the scene of occurrence and found his sister lying in a pool of blood. The accused was not available in the house. The accused did not pay heed to the advice of P. W. 3 who then left the house. Within five minutes thereafter he heard the cries of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and reached the scene of occurrence and found his sister lying in a pool of blood. The accused was not available in the house. This witness does not seem to be lying, as he only stated that five minutes before the incident he was at the house of the accused. Had he intended to implicate the accused falsely in the case, he could have stated that he was present at the time of incident too. ( 16 ) THE evidence of all these witnesses clinchingly establishes that the accused ran away from the house immediately after the incident. Being the husband of the deceased, his natural conduct would be to take her to a hospital for treatment. He did not do so. Instead, he ran away from the scene of occurrence. If any person other than the accused had been the culprit, there was so need for the accused to run away. When p. W. 3 asked the accused to accompany him for coolie work, he turned down his advice on the ground that he was indisposed and would attend coolie work from the next day. Then P. W. 3 left the house. P. W. 4 went to a nearby tap to have a bath and P. W. 5 went to a close by well to dry chilies. It appears that the accused was determined to do away with the life of his wife and was just biding time and as soon as he found no one else in the house he committed the offence. Otherwise, he should not have run away from the house and should have stayed in the house being unwell. ( 17 ) P. W. 3 stated that within five minutes after he left the house of the accused, he heard the cries of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and reached the scene of occurrence. There is evidence on record that immediately the deceased was taken in a cart to the police station and later to the hospital. Therefore, there was no possibility for any third person to enter into the house and commit the offence. 4 and 5 and reached the scene of occurrence. There is evidence on record that immediately the deceased was taken in a cart to the police station and later to the hospital. Therefore, there was no possibility for any third person to enter into the house and commit the offence. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision in Haren Kalita v. The state of Assam. In that case it is held that to implicate a person merely because he was seen running away from the side of the place of the occurrence without anything more would be a very dangerous proposition, that there might be hundred and one reasons for his running from that side, and that it was the duty of the prosecution to exclude any other hypothesis. In that case, the informant on being informed by two persons lodged the first information report and those two persons were not examined, the evidence of the witnesses was disbelieved, the dying declaration was found to have not inspired confidence, and the only evidence was the accused was seen running away from the side of the place of the occurrence. In those circumstances, the Gauhati High Court laid down the above proposition which has no application to the facts of the present case, because the evidence on record unerringly points to the guilt of the accused in the case on hand and it excluded all other hypothesis. ( 19 ) NOW we shall turn to some discrepancies in the case. P. W. 11 stated that p. W. 1 came to the police station with injuries and he sent him to the hospital. P. W. 11 did not appear to have deposed on the basis of the record. Because he stated that he received ex. P-1-report from P. W. 1 at 7. 30 a. m. which is not correct, as the endorsement on Ex. P-1 shows that it was received by the police at 11. 30 a. m. He also stated that on 9-7-1995 he reached the scene of occurrence which is obviously wrong as Ex. P-2-observation report of the scene of occurrence-was dated 9-4-1995. Thus, it is obvious that he did not go through the record at the time of deposition. He did not probably understand the seriousness of the case. Ex. P-1-FIR, shows as though P. W. 1 had witnessed the incident. P-2-observation report of the scene of occurrence-was dated 9-4-1995. Thus, it is obvious that he did not go through the record at the time of deposition. He did not probably understand the seriousness of the case. Ex. P-1-FIR, shows as though P. W. 1 had witnessed the incident. But, P. W. 1 deposed in the Court the manner in which he came to know about the incident. It is settled law that a first information report cannot be used as substantive evidence and can only be used either to corroborate or contradict its maker. P. W. 1 was not cross- examined at all on this point. Therefore, these trifling contradictions do not matter much, when the evidence on record is found sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. These contradictions are so insignificant that they were not even pointed out by the learned counsel. ( 20 ) FROM the evidence on record it can be said that the accused slew his wife and none else. The circumstantial evidence to support the case of the Prosecution can be said to be conclusive in nature with a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible and unmistakable conclusion that it was the accused, and he alone, who drubbed the deceased with an axe. The trial court rightly convicted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the conviction andsentence. In the result,the appealis dismissed.