P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction by which the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigrous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 302 of I. P. C. by the learned Sessions judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1997 (Sessions Case No. 117 of 1996)and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short as it appears from materials on record is that, Ashari Gope (the deceased) aged about 14 years was married with the appellant Kirtichand @ Bideshi Gope in Jaistha 1401 B. S. Ashari Gope came to her father Ashutosh Gope's (P. W. 1) house in Sravan and she returned to her in-laws house in Ashwin. On 22. 10. 94 at morning P. W. 1 received news of death of his daughter Ashari from Umesh Gope (P. W. 2) of Talmu village. Receiving the news P. W. 1 came to village Talmu accompanied by his son manulal Gope (P. W. 4), co-villager Banu Gope and others. P. W. 1 found his daughter Ashari lying dead on khatia inside her room and he noticed black marks i. e. ligature marks on her neck and froth from her nose. His son-in-law i. e. appellant Kirtichand @ Bideshi Gope was in the house at that time and on interrogation by P. W. 1, the appellant confessed his guilt and stated that, on 21. 10. 94 night at about 10,00 P. M. when he wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife Ashari, she declined to have it for her ill health. There was altercation between them and the appellant fastened the neck of his wife Ashari with a muffler and pulled it strongly which resulted into death of Ashari Gope. Thereafter, the appellant tried to escape but he was detained with the help of men of Talmu village. P. W. 1 Ashutosh Gope presented the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) on 22. 10. 94 at 11. 25 hours to P. W. 12 Prabodh Patra at Talmu village and P. W. 12 forwarded the same to Joypur P. S. and the basis of it Joypur P. S. Case No. 63 dated 22. 10. P. W. 1 Ashutosh Gope presented the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) on 22. 10. 94 at 11. 25 hours to P. W. 12 Prabodh Patra at Talmu village and P. W. 12 forwarded the same to Joypur P. S. and the basis of it Joypur P. S. Case No. 63 dated 22. 10. 94 was started against the appellant under section 302 of i. P. C. for murdering his wife. After completing investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and the trial which followed thereafter resulted into conviction of the appellant and hence this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. Rashbehari Mahato being assisted by Sushil Mahato who were engaged by us as State defence for the appellant since this is a jail appeal, contended that, besides P. W. 1 no other witness stated about ligature mark on the neck of deceased. P. W. 2 Umesh Gope who accompanied P. W. 1 did not state about the alleged extra-judicial confession made by this appellant before p. W. 1 and others. Evidence of P. W. 2 reveals that the appellant came to his house at about 12. 00 midnight and told him that his wife Ashari was lying dead inside the room. What the Investigating Officer (hereinafter called the i. O.) stated in his evidence regarding cause of death was not stated by any other witness and no other witness stated that there was altercation between this appellant and deceased regarding refusal of sexual intercourse. ( 4 ) HE further contended that examination under section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr. P. C.) was not proper as question nos. 9, 10, 14, 15 were not stated by the witnesses in such manner in their evidence. There is contradiction between F. I. R. and evidence. P. W. 5 is not a neighbour and his evidence is not reliable. Not a single neighbour was examined to make the prosecution case reliable. The muffler in question was not produced in Court and adverse presumption should be drawn against the prosecution. There is also contradiction in evidence of different witnesses which makes it clear that the witnesses are not trustworthy. ( 5 ) IT was further argued by Mr. Not a single neighbour was examined to make the prosecution case reliable. The muffler in question was not produced in Court and adverse presumption should be drawn against the prosecution. There is also contradiction in evidence of different witnesses which makes it clear that the witnesses are not trustworthy. ( 5 ) IT was further argued by Mr. Mahato that the story of extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence and as there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the appellant the alleged extra judicial confession cannot be considered at all. The Autopsy Surgeon was not sure about the cause of death and P. W. 9 Dr. Dipak Kumar Basak in his evidence stated that cause of death might be due to strangulation, might be homicidal in nature. It is thus clear that the doctor who held post-mortem examination was not sure as to whether it was a homicidal death or suicidal. The appellant is definitely entitled to 'benefit of doubt and he should be acquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed on him should be set aside. ( 6 ) MR. L. M. Dutta appearing for the State contended that P. W. 1, P. W. 4, p. W. 5 and P. W. 6 have stated about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before these witnesses and others. Cross-examination of P. W. 9, the doctor who held post-mortem examination, reveals that, death was not self-caused and the doctor stated that death may not be caused in the instant case by the person herself. The evidence and circumstances establishes that the appellant and his wife Ashari were inside their room and others were elsewhere and subsequently the dead body of wife was recovered from the room. There is no evidence that any other person had access in the room of husband and wife on that night. This circumstances establishes that it was this appellant, who being the husband, murdered his own wife. ( 7 ) MR. Dutta further contended that the defence taken by the appellant is conflicting. According to P. W. 2 the appellant came to his house at about 12 midnight and reported that his wife was lying dead. The appellant during examination under section 313 Cr. ( 7 ) MR. Dutta further contended that the defence taken by the appellant is conflicting. According to P. W. 2 the appellant came to his house at about 12 midnight and reported that his wife was lying dead. The appellant during examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. in response to question No. 28 stated that he was gossiping at night by sitting over the village path and coming to home he found his wife was lying dead. He narrated it to village people and lodged information at police station by the advice of villagers. But in his answer to question No. 13 the appellant stated that his wife was in the khapra room i. e. tiled room and he was in the dalan ghar i. e. pucca room. This answer to question No. 13 during 313 Cr. P. C. examination clearly reveals that the appellant was inside the house and he was responsible for the murder of his wife. The prosecution case was well established from evidence and circumstances and it has been strengthened by corroborating evidence of extra-judicial confession. Learned Trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant. The appeal should be dismissed as there is no ground for interference. ( 8 ) AFTER closely scrutinising the evidence and materials on record we find that in the Sessions Trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. P. W. 1 is the informant who lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1) and is also the father of deceased ashari Gope. P. W. 2 Umesh Gope is a co-villager of appellant and it was P. W. 2 who first informed P. W. 1 about death of Ashari Gope. P. W. 3 Dasarath murmu is a man of village Talmu and Pradhan of that locality and was a witness of seizure and inquest. P. W. 4 Manulal Gope is the elder brother of deceased ashari and he has stated about the extra judicial confession made by this appellant. P. W. 5 Banu Gope and P. W. 6 Nandalal Gope are co-villagers of p. W. 1 and they also stated about the extra-judicial confession made by this appellant before them stating that by fastening a muffler on the neck of his wife Ashari hekilled her. ( 9 ) P. W. 7 Jiban Gope and P. W. 8 Rasaraj Gope stated nothing and they were tendered for cross-ex,amination which were declined by defence. ( 9 ) P. W. 7 Jiban Gope and P. W. 8 Rasaraj Gope stated nothing and they were tendered for cross-ex,amination which were declined by defence. P. W. 9 dr. Dipak Kumar Basak is the Medical Officer-cum-Surgeon who was attached to Purulia Sadar Hospital at the relevant time and held post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Ashari Gope. P. W. 10 Amiya Kr. Biswas is a police constable who carried the dead body of deceased from place of occurrence to Purulia Sadar Hospital morgue for post-mortem examination. P. W. 11 Jiban Kumar Chakraborty is the police officer who received the f. I. R. and started Joypur P. S. Case No. 63 of 94 dated 22. 10. 94 and also filled up formal F. I. R. (Ext. 1/3 ). P. W. 12 Prabodh Chandra Patra is the I. O. of this case who conducted investigation and submitted chargesheet. ( 10 ) THE prosecution case thus rests upon the evidence of P. W. I, P. W. 2, p. W. 4, P. W. 5, P. W. 6, P. W. 9 and P. W. 12. Other witnesses are not so important including P. W. 3. P. W. 3 went to the police station for giving information about unnatural death of wife of this appellant and was a witness of mere seizure and inquest and besides that he stated nothing in his evidence. Let us scrutinize the evidence of the important witnesses in order to assess whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is sustainable. ( 11 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 1 Ashutosh Gope reveals that his daughter Ashari, who was in her teens, aged 14 years only, was given in marriage with the appellant and after spending month of Bhadra in father's house Ashari returned back to her husband's house in the month of Aswin. P. W. 2 Umesh Gope, man of village of the appellant gave him information about death of his daughter ashari and hearing this news he went to appellant's house in Talmu village accompanied by P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6. In appellant's house they saw the dead body of his daughter Ashari lying on khatia in her room and he saw ligature mark on her neck and whitish froth from her nose and mouth. In appellant's house they saw the dead body of his daughter Ashari lying on khatia in her room and he saw ligature mark on her neck and whitish froth from her nose and mouth. When he asked the appellant, he confessed his guilt of committing murder of Ashari and the appellant stated to him that he used a muffler which he tied around the neck of ashari and thereby caused her death. His son-in-law i. e. appellant also brought out the muffler which was used for causing murder of Ashari and subsequently the said muffler was seized by police. His evidence further reveals that the i. O. arrived in the house of appellant about 10 minutes after their arrival. His evidence indicates that besides the persons who accompanied him many other persons were present in the house of appellant who were co-villagers of appellant. ( 12 ) P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 who were co-villagers of P. W. 1 and, P. W. 4 being the son of P. W. 1, fully corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 stating that they accompanied P. W. 1 to village Talmu after hearing the news of death of ashari and came to house of appellant. They saw dead body of Ashari lying on a khatia and found whitish froth from her nose and mouth and also saw "kalshire" i. e. black mark or black colour of bruise on her neck. All of them stated categorically that being questioned by P. W. 1 the appellant told that he caused the death of Ashari with the help of a muffler by fastening the same around her neck. They also stated that the appellant brought out the muffler which he used for causing death of Ashari and subsequently the said muffler was seized by police. Their evidence reveals that when P. W. 1 was interrogating bideshi i. e. the appellant many co-villagers of appellant were present there. Their evidence also reveals that police arrived there within 10-15 minutes after their arrival. The said muffler was identified by these witnesses in Court during their evidence and it was marked material exhibit II. It appears to us that when P. W. 1 was examined earlier the said muffler was not produced in Court before him. Their evidence also reveals that police arrived there within 10-15 minutes after their arrival. The said muffler was identified by these witnesses in Court during their evidence and it was marked material exhibit II. It appears to us that when P. W. 1 was examined earlier the said muffler was not produced in Court before him. In the cross-examination of these witnesses there is no lacuna or defect which can shaken (sic) credibility of their evidence. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 is the Medical Officer-cum-Surgeon who held the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Ashari Gope. His evidence reveals that there was ecchymosis and bruises over the neck, abdomen, cheek and mandibular region left side. Two ligature marks 2" inch apart over the front of neck below the hyound bone. On dissection blood clots and effusion of blood from the mussels was found. Cause of death in his opinion might be due to strangulation on neck-might be homicidal in nature. He stated that this type of signs and death can be caused if a person in fastened around the neck with muffler with great force. If this muffler be rolled and is fastened around the neck death might be caused in this manner. In cross-examination he denied the defence suggestion that the death was caused by Ashari herself. He stated that he does not agree that this death may be caused by the person herself or himself as there was existence of other injuries isolation to the mark of strangulation at the neck. He also stated that the injuries on the cheek may be caused due to pressure or scuffling. In response to question of Court he opined that these kind of injuries might be caused if anybody falls upon the body not due to dragging in any other means. ( 14 ) P. W. 12 is the I. O. of this case and his evidence reveals that on 22. 10. 94 at about 8. 05 A. M. he received information from Anchal Pradhan Dasarath murmu (P. W. 3) about unnatural death of wife of Bideshi. On the basis of that information he made G. D. Entry No. 442 dated 22. 10. 94 (Ext. 5) and after sending message to O. C. , Joypur P. S. he proceeded towards Talmu village and reached the house of the deceased. On the basis of that information he made G. D. Entry No. 442 dated 22. 10. 94 (Ext. 5) and after sending message to O. C. , Joypur P. S. he proceeded towards Talmu village and reached the house of the deceased. Inside the bedroom he found the dead body of wife of accused Bideshi lying on a khatia. He received F. I. R. from P. W. 1 ashutosh Gope and forwarded it to Joypur P. S. and took' up investigation. He seized the muffler and arrested the accused Bideshi and also held inquest over the dead body of Ashari. He found marks of ecchymosis on the throat of deceased and also found froth coming from the nose of deceased. He stated that during investigation it was learnt that on the night of 21,10. 94 there was altercation between the accused and his deceased wife regarding sexual intercourse as ashari was physically unfit at that time. ( 15 ) THE argument that besides P. W. 1 no other witnesses stated about ligature mark is not acceptable to us as we find that the doctor (P. W. 9) and the i. O. (P. W. 12) also stated about the ligature mark. Besides that, P. W. 4 and P. W. 6 stated about black mark on the neck of deceased Ashari. P. W. 4 and P. W. 6 being villagers are not well acquainted with medical terms and that is why they did not use the term "ligature mark" but they stated about black mark on neck of Ashari which amounts to ligature mark. ( 16 ) ANOTHER argument that not a single neighbour was examined to make the prosecution case reliable also does not carry any weight and we reject this argument. Several witnesses have been examined in this case including P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 who are men of village Talmu, i. e. , the village of appellant. It is to be remembered that there is no direct evidence regarding murder of Ashari and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence depends upon its quality and not upon quantity and number of witnesses and non-examination of some other villagers of Talmu village cannot throw the prosecution case out of Court. It is to be remembered that there is no direct evidence regarding murder of Ashari and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence depends upon its quality and not upon quantity and number of witnesses and non-examination of some other villagers of Talmu village cannot throw the prosecution case out of Court. ( 17 ) ANOTHER piece of argument submitted on behalf of the appellant that the autopsy Surgeon was not sure about the cause of death as P. W. 9 stated that cause of death might be due to strangulation, might be homicidal in nature; does not help the appellant at all. The cross-examination of P. W. 9 makes it clear that the death may not be caused by the person herself or himself as there was existence of other injuries isolation to the mark of strangulation at the neck. The injuries on cheek may be caused due to pressure or scuffling. Doctor stated in response to question of Court that these kind of injuries might be caused if anybody falls upon the body not due to dragging in any other means. He opined that if this muffler (material ext. II) be rolled and is fastened around the neck death might be caused. Evidence of P. W. 9, who held the postmortem examination over the dead body of Ashari makes it clear that it was not a suicide but a homicide and evidence of P. W. 2 that Ashari died by way of fastening her neck by herself is not true at all. ( 18 ) IN this connection we make it clear that P. W. 2 has tried to save the appellant, his co-villager by saying that the appellant came to his house at 12 midnight and informed that his wife was found dead inside the room. This evidence of P. W. 2 is not believable at all and the appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. never stated that he went to house of Umesh Gope (P. W. 2) at 12 midnight and informed him that he found his wife lying dead inside the room. In 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant stated that he was gossiping over the kuli i. e. , village path and coming home he found his wife lying dead. He narrated it to village people and thereafter he lodged information at police station. In 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant stated that he was gossiping over the kuli i. e. , village path and coming home he found his wife lying dead. He narrated it to village people and thereafter he lodged information at police station. This statement of appellant in 313 Cr. P. C. has not been supported by villagers and it appears that he has introduced an alibi which has not been proved. P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 who are the villagers of appellant did not state that they or any other villager advised the appellant to go to police station to lodge information. On the other hand, evidence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 12 reveals that it was P. W. 3 and who came to the police station and lodged information about unnatural death of Ashari Gope. ( 19 ) IT is clear that there is no eye-witness to the incident of murder of Ashari and there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Let us analyse what are the circumstances and other materials which the prosecution has been able to produce before the Court during the examination of witnesses at the trial. The prosecution case regarding circumstances first starts with the evidence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 12 which reveals that P. W. 3, the Pradhan of village lodged diary at Baglata Information centre at about 8. 05 A. M. on 22. 10. 94 regarding unnatural death of wife of this appellant. It appears from evidence that this information was given to police before arrival of P. W. 1 and his associates at the house of appellant. The second circumstance is arrival of P. W. 2 in the house of P. W. 1 to give information to P. W. 1 regarding death of Ashari Gope, wife of appellant. ( 20 ) THE third circumstance is that going to house of appellant P. W. 1, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 saw Ashari lying dead on khatia in their room and there were black marks on different parts of her neck including ligature mark. There were bruises, abrasion on neck and evidence of P. W. 9 reveals that there were bruises over abdomen, cheek and mandibular region left side. There were bruises, abrasion on neck and evidence of P. W. 9 reveals that there were bruises over abdomen, cheek and mandibular region left side. The next circumstance is that the I. O. at the time of inquest found blood and liquid substance on private parts of Ashari. Finding of blood and liquid substance from private parts of Ashari clearly suggests that she was in her menstruation and it was the cause of her refusal to sexual intercourse which ultimately caused her death as it appears from circumstances. ( 21 ) THE other circumstances in this case are as follows. Evidence of P. W. 1, p. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 reveals that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before them and the villagers who were present at that time when p. W. 1 interrogated him regarding death of Ashari. Their evidence reveals that the appellant confessed before them that he fastened a muffler on neck of Ashari and pulling it killed her. ( 22 ) IT was argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that these witnesses did not state about refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased and evidence of I. O. in this respect is not believable as it was I. O. only who stated about refusal of sexual intercourse was the cause of death. We are of opinion that this argument is not acceptable to us and it does not help the appellant. It should be remembered that, we the Indians, by our social system, custom, education, ethics etc. feel shy to tell about sexual intercourse openly before the senior members of family, and similarly, the senior members do not discuss about sexual relation between husband and wife in presence of junior members of the family. This social system and shyness played part when P. W. 1, P. W. 4, p. W. 5 and P. W. 6 deposed in Court as they were the father, brother and other senior members of Ashari and obviously for this reason they did not speak specifically that Ashari refused cohabitation with the appellant. The appellant who was in a fit of passion could not bear it and being enraged pounced on ashari and killed her by strangulation. The appellant who was in a fit of passion could not bear it and being enraged pounced on ashari and killed her by strangulation. ( 23 ) THE deceased was the wife of the appellant and deceased was in the room of their house on the night of incident and thereafter her dead body was found. There is no evidence that any other person had access into the bedroom of the appellant. The appellant was to explain how his wife was murdered. The contradictory statement of accused in his examination under section 313 cr. P. C. goes against him. In response to question No. 28 this appellant stated that he was gossiping at night sitting on the village path and returning to home he found his wife lying dead. In the answer to question No. 13 in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. he stated that Ashari was in the khapra room i. e. tiled room and he was in 'dalan ghar' i. e. pucca room. This statement indicates that the appellant was also in the room of his house. The evidence of p. W. 12 (I. O.) reveals that he found the dead body in the concrete building having three rooms facing east. The word 'concrete building' carries the meaning that it was 'dalan ghar' i. e. pucca room. The evidence of I. O. and the contradictory statement of the appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. clearly indicates that no other person had access into the room and it was the appellant who was in his room when his wife was murdered. The evidence and the circumstance leads us to no other hypothesis than that of guilt of the appellant and evidence and circumstances pin points to the appellant as he was the person who killed his wife. ( 24 ) WE have already indicated that P. W. 2 is not a reliable witness as he tried to conceal truth to save the appellant, his co-villager and tried to mislead the Court. P. W. 3 is also not a reliable witness and in evidence he stated that he found dead body of Ashari lying on normal condition over the khatia. P. W. 3 is also not a reliable witness and in evidence he stated that he found dead body of Ashari lying on normal condition over the khatia. But his evidence that he informed the police station and the evidence of I. O. that anchal Pradhan Dasarath Murmu (P. W. 3) gave the information about unnatural death of wife of Bideshi over which he lodged a diary being G. D. Entry No. 442 dated 22. 10. 94 of Baglata I. C. under Joypur P. S. (ext. 5) porves that P. W. 3 while giving evidence in Court tried to conceal truth. P. W. 3's statement in cross-examination that he signed over blank papers is also not believable as his signature marked (ext. 2/3) over inquest report clearly shows that the said signature could not have been obtained over blank paper. His other signatures over seizure lists marked exts. 3 and 3 (a) also shows that he signed over the seizure list as the first witness and these signatures could not have been obtained over blank paper in such a situation where his signatures are found on seizure list. P. W. 3 being a co-villager of appellant also tried to mislead the Court and concealed truth in Court. ( 25 ) WE have already discussed about doctor's opinion that in this case the death cannot be self-caused though in examination-in-chief, the Autopsy surgeon (P. W. 9) opined that death in his opinion might be homicidal in nature. ( 26 ) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that no reliance can be placed upon the extra-judicial confession. Considering the evidence and circumstances we are unable to accept this argument and we find that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P. W. 1, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 and other villagers on interrogation of P. W. 1 is voluntary and reliable. The evidence makes it clear that the said extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before arrival of police. In Piara Singh, vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2274 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Boota Singh, reported in air 1978 SC 1770 , the Supreme Court observed that, "law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. In Piara Singh, vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2274 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Boota Singh, reported in air 1978 SC 1770 , the Supreme Court observed that, "law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. Where the extra-judicial confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants, there was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of such a witness particularly when the extra-judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence". This Court in Safiuddin Mondal vs. State, reported in 1984 Cri. L. J. NOG 140 (Cal.) observed that. "extra-JUDICIAL confession is not irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible if a confession made by an accused of a crime is corroborated by the recovery of the dead body. It is true that extra-judicial confession by itself is rather a weak piece of evidence. But it has to be considered along with the other circumstances". ( 27 ) THE principles of law which we have just quoted indicates that extra-judicial confession cannot itself be the foundation of conviction. But extra-judicial confession if found proved by independent witnesses requires no corroboration and evidence and circumstances supported by the corroborative value of extra-judicial confession can be the basis of conviction. In the instant case there is no ground at all to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6. Their evidence further reveals that the appellant confessed before them that he killed his wife Ashari by tying or fastening a muffler around her neck and he brought out the muffler and gave it to P. W. 1 which was subsequently seized by I. O. and the said muffler was also produced in Court. It was also shown to the Autopsy Surgeon (P. W. 9) and he also stated that if this muffler be rolled and fastened around the neck death might be caused in this manner. Therefore, in the instant case the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy and it is one of the corroborating evidence in the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy and it is one of the corroborating evidence in the instant case. ( 28 ) THE above discussion from evidence and circumstances convincingly establishes that the prosecution has succeeded in linking the chain of circumstances complete so as to lead to the presumption of existence of certain facts behind the incident and the reasonable interference that it was none but the appellant was responsible behind the incident of murder of his wife. The deceased Ashari who was still in her teens and had menstruation at the time of incident was not eager to cohabitation with her husband but, the appellant unable to control his lust treated her like a beast and did not try to understand the grounds of refusal by his wife and being enraged rolled the muffler and pieced it around her neck and by fastening around her neck killed her. The decisions of the Supreme Court in 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 206, Bodh Raj @ Bodha vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1976 SC 2055 , Har Dayal vs. State of u. P. , 1988 Cri. L. J. 721, Balan Nair vs. State of Kerala and 1988 Cri. L. J. 866: AIR 1988 SC 628 , Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, envisages that chain of circumstances must be so complete that there cannot be any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused. In the instant case the evidence and circumstances which was established by the prosecution had made chain of circumstances so complete that there was no scope of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused and the chain of circumstances make it clear that within all possibility it was the appellant who is guilty of murdering his wife. ( 29 ) THE above discussion made by us from evidence and circumstances establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty under section 302 of I. P. C. for murdering his wife. ( 29 ) THE above discussion made by us from evidence and circumstances establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty under section 302 of I. P. C. for murdering his wife. A careful appraisal of evidence and circumstances lead us to no other conclusion but to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below for the offence under section 302 of i. P. C. We find no reason at all to interfere with the findings of the learned court below and the sentence imposed on the appellant by him. We are of the view that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and we confirm the conviction of appellant under section 302 of I. P. C. and sentence imposed on him by the learned Trial Judge. ( 30 ) WITH these observations we dismiss the appeal. ( 31 ) BEFORE concluding with the appeal we would like to place on record our appreciation of the valuable services rendered by the learned advocates for assisting us and the pains undertaken by them to argue the appeal. ( 32 ) SEND down the Lower Court Records along with copy of judgment to the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia for information and necessary action. ( 33 ) SEND a copy of judgment to the Inspector General of Prisons, Government of West Bengal at Writers' Building, Calcutta through Registrar General, High court, for onward communication to the convict/appellant in the particular correctional Home where he is lodged at present. Appeal dismissed.