JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 10th May, 2001 passed by Sri Abdul Samad, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial no. 50 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and further to under go R/I for two years u/s. 201 I.P.C. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Initially, a U.D. case no. 16 of 1988 dated 13th August, 1988 was registered on the fard beyan of the present accused but later on, in course of investigation, when the concerned I.O. prepared the inquest report of the dead-body and received post mortem report, a case of murder u/s. 302/ 201 I.P.C. was registered against the accused on basis of self F.I.R. (Exhibit-3) of the I.O. 2. In his fard beyan, accused stated that he was married with the daughter of one Banandhi Mahto, namely, Deomatiya Devi. One daughter and one son had been born from his said wife. The age of the daughter was four years and that of the son was 6 to 7 months at the time of occurrence. It was reported that his wife was suffering from mental disease and at one time, she tried to commit suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, he sent his wife to his sasural but after sometimes, he brought her to his house. He further reported that a day before the alleged occurrence in the evening, both of them returned to their house after working in their field and. his wife told him to play with the baby but he refused as he was tired. This led to a hot altercation between them. Thereafter, at about 12 midnight, he (accused) had gone to jungle for grazing his she-buffalo. When he returned to his house, he did not find his wife in the house. Thereafter, he and his father started• searching her and saw the dead-body of the deceased lying in a village well. According to the accused, the deceased, due to hot altercation, left the house in .the night and committed suicide after jumping into the well. When he returned to his house, he did not find his wife in the house. Thereafter, he and his father started• searching her and saw the dead-body of the deceased lying in a village well. According to the accused, the deceased, due to hot altercation, left the house in .the night and committed suicide after jumping into the well. On the above fard beyan of the accused, the police registered the alleged U.D. case but in course of investigation, after the dead-body of the deceased was taken out from the well, at time of preparing inquest report of the dead-body, which created suspicion in his mind that the deceased did not commit suicide rather she was murdered and thrown in the well. Furthermore, the I.O. found that the deadbody was of two days earlier. She was murdered and thrown in well in order to destroy the evidence of the murder. His suspicion was strengthened by the medical report which disclosed that the deceased dead-body contained several ante mortem injuries and she died, due to haemorrhage and shock. Her death was homicidal and had taken place in between 48 to 96 hours. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the I.O. came to the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide rather it was a case of murder and as such he filed his written report to the concerned Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station for instituting a case of murder against the accused. Accordingly, the instant case was registered against the accused. On the basis of written F.I.R., the police also drew up a formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-I) to that effect. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet u/s. 302/201 I.P.C. against the accused. In course of trial, prosecution produced altogether 10 witnesses in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused. P.W. 1, Murari Ram, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of the Officer-in-Charge of Manika P.S. on the formal F.I.R.; P.W. 2, Banandhi Mahto, father of the deceased, Deomatiya Devi; P.W. 3, Dr. In course of trial, prosecution produced altogether 10 witnesses in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused. P.W. 1, Murari Ram, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of the Officer-in-Charge of Manika P.S. on the formal F.I.R.; P.W. 2, Banandhi Mahto, father of the deceased, Deomatiya Devi; P.W. 3, Dr. Narendra Kumar Misar, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased and found some ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased; P.W. 4, Mithu Prasad Sahu, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of S.I., Surya Narayan; P.W. 5, Musafir Yadav and P.W. 6, Muni Mistry, both are witnesses to the inquest report; P.W. 7, Sukhru Mahto, he has been tendered; P. W. 8, Chitranjan Pandey, is a formal witness, who proved the writing of S.I. on the charge sheet; P.W. 9, Samodhi Yadav, he is uncle of the deceased, who stated that Ram Brichh had informed him that his daughterin-law, Deomatiya Devi had fled away from her sasural. Thereafter, on suspicion, he along with one person went to the sasural and found the dead-body of the deceased lying in the well. P.W. 10, Nandish Yadav, who is a cousin of the deceased, stated that he was informed by Ram Brichh that the deceased fled away from her sasural and during the course of search, the deadbody was found in the well. He further stated that the accused, Guna Mahto used to assault the deceased. In the cross-examination, he stated that in presence of police, the dead-body was recovered from well. 3. Learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He held that in the evening of 12th August, 1988 when the accused and his deceased wife came to their house after working in the field, some altercation and quarrel took place between them for allowing their small child to play. In course of such altercation, the accused assaulted his wife as a result of which she died and then the accused threw her body into the well after sometime. Having noticed the evidence of the Doctor that no water was found in the stomach of the deceased and her death was homicidal. Learned court below disbelieved the plea of the accused that the deceased committed suicide after jumping into the well and held that the deceased was murdered. Having noticed the evidence of the Doctor that no water was found in the stomach of the deceased and her death was homicidal. Learned court below disbelieved the plea of the accused that the deceased committed suicide after jumping into the well and held that the deceased was murdered. Learned court below further noticed the opinion of the Doctor that the death of the deceased occurred between 48 to 96 hours that means the deceased had been done to death on or before the evening of 12th August, 1988, which tallies with the evidence brought on record. The plea as was initially taken by the accused that the deceased fled away due to mental disease and committed suicide was rejected in view of the medical evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the intention to cause murder; there is no eye witness. The chain is not complete to hold the accused guilty for the charges on the basis of so-called circumstantial evidence. Learned A.P.P., refuting the argument, has submitted that there are circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the accused, such as: (i) Motive. (ii) The conduct of the accused giving wrong information to the police for saving' skin from the consequences of the case. (iii) Medical evidence. (iv) Improbable defence plea. And (v) The deceased died while she was living in the house of the accused. 5. It is an admitted fact that the deceased, wife of the accused was living with the accused in ,his house at the relevant time of occurrence. P. W. 2, Banandhi Mahto, father of the deceased in his evidence stated that his Samdhi, Ram Brichh i.e. father of the accused came to his house and informed him that the deceased fled away on Thursday (11th August 1988). When P.W. 2 asked as to why the deceased had fled away, Ram Brichh could not give any reason. Ram Brichh also informed P.W. 2 that he made a thorough search of the deceased but he could not find. P.W. 2 proceeded to Panki P.S. along with his samdhi but on the way, his brother met him and told that the dead-body of his daughter was recovered from a well. Ram Brichh also informed P.W. 2 that he made a thorough search of the deceased but he could not find. P.W. 2 proceeded to Panki P.S. along with his samdhi but on the way, his brother met him and told that the dead-body of his daughter was recovered from a well. Though his Samdhi told him (P.W. 2) that the deceased was suffering from mental disease but he could not find any sign of such disease in his daughter. Similar was the testimony of P.W. 9, Samodhi Yadav, uncle of the deceased. He stated that on Friday (12th August, 1988), Ram Brichh came to his house and told him that the deceased had fled away and asked whether the deceased had come to his village or not. On this, he (P.W. 9) suspected and then he along with other villagers went to village Janho, the village of in-laws (sasural) of the deceased and saw the dead-body of the deceased floating in the well. On being asked, the villagers told him that Yesterday (11th August, 1988), they tried to find out the dead-body in the well by means of Jhagar but the dead-body was not found. They expressed surprise as to how the dead-body of the deceased was floating in the well on the next day. P.W. 9 stated that he suspected that the husband of the deceased might have killed the deceased and thrown the dead-body in the well as he always used to beat the deceased. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 stated that the well concerned is situated on the land of the accused and it is fenced by wood. This witness stood to his evidence even during cross-examination and no contradiction could be brought in his statement. P.W. 10, Nandish Yadav is a distant cousin of the deceased. His testimony supports the evidence of the above two witnesses. He also stated that on Friday (12th August, 1988), Ram Brichh came to his village and told him that the deceased fled away Yesterday (11th August, 1988). He suspected on such statement as the accused used to beat the deceased. He further stated that on 13th August, 1988, a Saturday, he, along with Samodhi Yadav, Laldeo Yadav and others went to village Janho where the villagers informed them that they saw the dead-body of the deceased in the well. He suspected on such statement as the accused used to beat the deceased. He further stated that on 13th August, 1988, a Saturday, he, along with Samodhi Yadav, Laldeo Yadav and others went to village Janho where the villagers informed them that they saw the dead-body of the deceased in the well. Thereafter, they also went and saw the dead-body of the deceased floating in the well. They marked certain injuries on the dead-body and the villagers told them that the accused used to beat the deceased. In the cross-examination, he stated that the dead-body was recovered from the well in his presence and at the time, neither the accused nor his father was present near the well, though several villagers were present. He further stated that some of the villagers told him that in the night of Thursday, some quarrel took place in between the accused and his wife (deceased). This only shows that the deceased used to be beaten by the accused frequently and there was no good relation between them. The aforesaid evidence further shows that the father of the accused put a false plea before the father and relatives of the deceased that the deceased had fled away as she was suffering from mental disease. The recovery of the dead-body from the well also stands proved from the above evidence apart from the fact that the dead-body of the deceased had some ante mortem injuries. 6. It is also desirable to discuss the ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased as per medical evidence of P.W. 3, Dr. Narendra, Kumar Misar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 14th August, 1988 at about 3 P.M. In course of post mortem, he found, on external examination, face and neck of the deceased black. Deceased was bleeding through nostrils. On external examination, he found preneral cavity contained blood: Right lung found buried. Abdomen proto rued cavity found to contain liquid blood. Stomach on dissection contained digested food and no water. Injuries found were ante mortem in nature. Ascending column tissues of retro peritorunel portion on right side found blood stained. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock and' nature of death was. homicidal. Time elapsed since death was 48 to 96 hours. Stomach on dissection contained digested food and no water. Injuries found were ante mortem in nature. Ascending column tissues of retro peritorunel portion on right side found blood stained. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock and' nature of death was. homicidal. Time elapsed since death was 48 to 96 hours. The defence could not derive any benefit nor was anything adverse found in the cross-examination of the Doctor. Thus, the medical evidence of doctor suggests that the deceased was murdered and she had not committed suicide. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence of formal witnesses, such as P.W.1, Murari Ram, who proved the writing of Sub-Inspector of Police; P.W. 5, Musafir Yadav, who is inquest report witness; P.W. 6, Muni Mistry. and P.W. 7, Sukhru Mahto, who were tendered by the prosecution and P.W. 8, Chitaranjan Pandey, a formal witness, who proved the writing of Sub-Inspector of Police on the chargesheet. 7. From the records, it will be evident . that initially, U.D. case no 16 of 1988 dated 13th August, 1988 was registered on the fard beyan of the accused. Later on, in course of investigation, when the concerned 1.0. prepared the inquest report of the dead-body and received post mortem report, a case of murder u/s. 302/201 I.P.C. was registered against the accused on the basis of self F.I.R. (Exhibit-3) of the I.O. The accused, in his fard beyan, stated that he was married to deceased, Deomatiya Devi and has one daughter aged about 4 years and one son• aged about 6 to 7 months at the time of alleged occurrence. He reported that his wife was suffl3ring from mental disease and at one time she tried to commit suicide by hanging herself. He further stated that a day before the alleged occurrence (12th August, 1988) in the evening, he and his wife (deceased) returned to their house after working in their field and his wife told him to play with the baby but he refused as he was tired. This led to hot altercation between them •and thereafter he had gone to jungle at about 12 mid night (12/13th August, 1988) for grazing his she buffalo. When he returned to his house, did not find his wife in the house. This led to hot altercation between them •and thereafter he had gone to jungle at about 12 mid night (12/13th August, 1988) for grazing his she buffalo. When he returned to his house, did not find his wife in the house. Thereafter, he and his father started searching her and saw the deadbody of the deceased lying in the village well. If the aforesaid version of the accused is accepted, as he reported in U.D. case, then it is to be accepted that the deceased was with accused till mid night of 12/13th August, 1988. As per the said version on the next day (13th August) 1988), the accused and his father, Ram Brichh started searching the deceased and saw the dead-body of the deceased in the well. If i.e. the version of the accused as reported in U.D. case, then why his father went two daxs earlier i.e. on 11th August, 1988 to the house of the father of deceased (P.w. 2) and stated that the deceased fled away on the said day (Thursday). What was the occasion for Ram Brichh, father of the accused to go on the next date i. e. 12th August, 1988 and to ask P.W. 9, uncle of the deceased whether the deceased has come to his village or not. The medical evidence suggests that the death took place 48 to 96 hours prior to post mortem. Autopsy on the body of the deceased was done on 14th August, 1988 at about 3 P.M. As per medical evidence, if calculation is made,• the deceased died sometime between 12th August, 1988 (about 3 P.M.) and 10th August, 1988 (about 3 P.M.) that is why the I.O. suspected that the deceased was murdered at least two days before the post mortem. At least one day prior to the date of recovery of body, she was murdered and her body was thrown in the well. For the purpose of conviction of a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which, interference (sic-inference?) of guilt can be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and if all the circumstances are put together, they not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain. It must be such that in all probability only one conclusion can be arrived that the act has been done by the accused. In this case, prosecution could bring on record the evidence to suggest the motive as the accused used to beat the deceased. The evidence including the report of accused in U.D. case further suggests that the deceased was living with the accused and last seen with the accused. The conduct of the accused giving wrong information to the police that the deceased was with him till mid night of 12/13th August, 1988; his statement that the deceased committed suicide but medical evidence suggests the death of the deceased prior to 12th August, 1988 (noon) due to several ante mortem injuries, improbable and doubtful statement of accused that he left the house at 12 mid night for grazing his she buffalo, all this being a chain of circumstantial evidence, leads to only one conclusion that the accused committed murder of the deceased and none else and then thrown her deadbody into the well. To mis-lead the police, he lodged U.D. case, took plea that the deceased was suffering from mental disease and because of some hot altercation, she committed suicide sometime between mid night of 12/13th August, 1988 and the morning of 13th August, 1988 when he returned to his house. The ocular evidence of P.Ws. 2,9 and 10, if they are read along with medical evidence of P.W.3 and the F.I.R. which contains fard beyan of accused in U.D. case, one can arrive to one conclusion that the accused committed murder of his wife, Deomatiya Devi. When considered all the pros and cons of the prosecution case and the evidence, appearing against the accused, which have meticulously been considered and discussed by the learned court below, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned court below, doers not require interferes (sic-interference?) by this Court. 8. Viewed thus, I find no merit in this criminal appeal, which fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th May, 2001 passed by Sri Abdul Samad, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial no. 50 of 1989 arising out of Manika P.S. case no. 35 of 1988, corresponding to G.R. no. Viewed thus, I find no merit in this criminal appeal, which fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10th May, 2001 passed by Sri Abdul Samad, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial no. 50 of 1989 arising out of Manika P.S. case no. 35 of 1988, corresponding to G.R. no. 399 of 1988 against the appellant, Guna Mahto is, hereby confirmed.