A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was tried under Section 302 of I. P. C. in Sessions Trial no. 224/93 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha. By Judgment dated 10-1-1997, he has been convicted under Section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story as unfolded during trial, is that the appellant Basant agrawal was married to Babli alias sitabai in May, 1992. The parents of sitabai were residents of village gadarwas Tehsil Bareli district Raisen, the appellant was a resident of Khurai. Their marriage took place in a community ceremony at Jabalpur. After the marriage appellant came to Bhopal alongwith his wife and started business of grocery. In the meantime, his wife used to visit her parent's house. Her eldest brother Rajaram (PW 5) and his wife durgabai (PW 6) were residing in arjunnagar at Raisen. Her another elder brother Liladhar Agarwal (PW 11) was also residing in Arjunnagar at Raisen. He is a teacher by profession. Radhavallabh (PW 10) was her cousin and doing some business and residing at Bhopal. Santosh agarwal (DW 2) is the elder brother of appellant and he was residing at Bhopal and also doing business. After marriage, out of their wedlock, one daughter was also borne to them but she died after sometime. As per prosecution version, after marriage, appellant started teasing and torturing his wife. It is alleged that the reason behind it was that the appellant was having illicit relation with one ramkali, sister-in-law of his elder brother Santosh Agrawal (DW 1 ). It is alleged that the deceased also told about her torturing to her parents and in the month of October the deceased went to her parent's village Gulabgani at Raisen. On 26-10-1993 the appellant also came to Raisen to take her and there the family members of the deceased complained about his ill-behaviour and harassment. The appellant assured that in future he will not behave like that and will also not torture and he brought the deceased from her parent's house to Bhopal. The appellant also assured her parents that in future he will live separately with his brother and shall keep her daughter properly. The appellant assured that in future he will not behave like that and will also not torture and he brought the deceased from her parent's house to Bhopal. The appellant also assured her parents that in future he will live separately with his brother and shall keep her daughter properly. He also invited them to come on the falling Sunday i. e. , on 31-10-1993 to bhopal to observe his behaviour and to see their living. On 31-10-1993, Durgabai (PW 6) who was her Bhabhi and Liladhar (PW 11), her elder brother both went to the house of appellant but they found that the house of appellant was locked. The neighbour of the house informed them that the appellant had gone to Gulabganj. Thereafter, they went to the house of radhavallabh (PW 10 ). ( 3 ) ON 31-10-1993, in the night at about 8 P. M. at Village Khejda near gulabganj situated by the side of railway station, one Manoj (PW 4) alongwith tikaram (PW 1) were working in their field on a tractor. At the same time, one person came to them and asked for help and informed that his wife is not feeling well and she is lying near the railway track and asking for water. Manoj (PW 4)and Tikaram (PW 1) both came on the side of railway track and with the help of torch they had seen the body of the wife of that man, which was lying near the railways track. They told him that they are not in a position to help him, he may go to Khejda and may ask for the help. On the same day at about 10 P. M. that man went to the Gateman Narayan (PW 3) who was on duty at Gate No. 276 and informed him that her wife is not well and she is lying unconscious near the railway track and asking for water. Narayan (PW 3) enquired from him about his whereabouts and that person told Narayan that he is a resident of Bhopal and he was going to khurai alongwith his wife. Thereafter, narayan (PW 3) informed the Station master of Sumer on phone and at the instruction of Station Master, Narayan went on the spot alongwith that person and had seen the body which was lying near the track and found her dead. Thereafter, a written report (Ex. Thereafter, narayan (PW 3) informed the Station master of Sumer on phone and at the instruction of Station Master, Narayan went on the spot alongwith that person and had seen the body which was lying near the track and found her dead. Thereafter, a written report (Ex. P/6) about the incident was sent to the police station gulabganj through Pointman Ramgopal at the instance of Station Master at about 12-30 in the night on the basis of which a Marg No. 20/93 was registered by assistant Sub-Inspector H. N. Tiwari (PW 9 ). The police reached on the spot and in the presence of Narayan (PW 3), a spot-map (Ex. P/8) was prepared. Panchnama lash (Ex. P/11) was also prepared and Safina form was issued. The dead-body was referred to District Hospital Vidisha for medical examination from where it was referred to Medico-legal Institute, Bhopal. On 2-11-1993, the post-mortem of the dead-body was performed by Dr. D. K. Sathpathi (PW 12 ). After the post-mortem examination it was found that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of throttling which was homicidal in nature. After the said report, H. N. Tiwari (PW 9) further investigated the matter and the statements of the witnesses were recorded by him. Thereafter, on 3-11-1993 P. S. Gulabganj registered a crime no. 86/1993 for commission of offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. and the appellant was arrested. The statements of other witnesses were also recorded. During investigation, it was found that the relation between husband and wife were strained and the husband/ appellant was not behaving properly with his wife. He used to beat her. It was found that he was having illicit relation with one Ramkali, sister-in-law of his elder brother. Therefore, on 31-10-1993, appellant brought the deceased to Gulabganj and committed murder of his own wife by throttling. Accordingly a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. ( 4 ) DURING trial, appellant abjured his guilt and contended to have been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to support its case. The appellant examined two witnesses in his defence to show that he was not torturing his wife and treating her properly and further that their relation was cordial. ( 4 ) DURING trial, appellant abjured his guilt and contended to have been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to support its case. The appellant examined two witnesses in his defence to show that he was not torturing his wife and treating her properly and further that their relation was cordial. The trial court after considering the evidence on record found that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence available against the appellant for this involvement in the commission of crime. The trial court also found that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the only appellant who committed murder of his own wife and therefore convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned Senior advocate instructed by Smt. Geeta bhadoriya, Advocate submitted that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant is not reliable and the chain of circumstances is incomplete. He submitted that there are several missing links in the chain and there is no positive evidence against the appellant to show that he alone is the person who committed the murder of his own wife. He further argued that the witnesses namely, rajaram (PW 5), Durgabhai (PW 6), nathuram (PW 7), Radhavallabh (PW 10), and Liladhar (PW 11), all the five are highly interested witnesses. It is submitted that the prosecution has not examined the Station Master of Sumer and pointman Ramgopal. It is submitted that the allegation of illicit relation is also vague and there is no conclusive evidence on record in that respect. It is further stated that the appellant was not identified by the witnesses. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kanan and others v. State of Karala on the question of identification and the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra on the question of circumstantial evidence. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant prays for acquittal of the appellant. In reply, Shri V. G. Khot, learned govt. Advocate for the respondent-State supporting the impugned judgment prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant prays for acquittal of the appellant. In reply, Shri V. G. Khot, learned govt. Advocate for the respondent-State supporting the impugned judgment prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7 ) IN this case, Rajaram (PW 5)brother of the deceased Durgabai (PW 6), her Bhabhi, Nathuram (PW 7), her father, radhavallabh (PW 10), her cousin and liladhar (PW 11), her another brother, all of them consistently and firmly deposed before the court that how the appellant was treating the deceased after his marriage. All they have stated that the relation between both of them was not cordial and the appellant used to beat her. They have further submitted that the appellant was having illicit relation with one Ramkali, sister-in-law of his elder brother Santosh Agrawal (DW 2 ). The evidence of all the said witnesses is therefore consistent and therefore it is established from their evidence that the deceased had gone to Raisen and till 26-10-1993 she had been there and on 26-10-1993 the appellant brought her back from raisen on the assurance that in future he will keep her properly and will give good treatment. Before sending the deceased on 26-10-1993 with appellant, the family members of the deceased had also objected and made complaint about torturing of their daughter but the appellant assured that in future he will not behave like that. The appellant also told them that on coming Sunday, i. e. 31-10-1993 they may come to Bhopal to his house and see his behaviour and the condition in which they are living and also the condition of the deceased. The evidence to this effect is also available on record that on 31-10-1993, Durgabhai (PW 6) and liladhar (PW 11) both went to Bhopal to the house of appellant. It is also on record that the house of the appellant was locked and the neighbours informed them that the appellant had gone to Gulabganj. So far as the evidence of his reaching at gulabganj or at Sumer is concerned, the evidence of Tikaram (PW 1) who was working on the tractor in his field and Narayan (PW 3) who is a Gateman posted on the railway station is material. So far as the evidence of his reaching at gulabganj or at Sumer is concerned, the evidence of Tikaram (PW 1) who was working on the tractor in his field and Narayan (PW 3) who is a Gateman posted on the railway station is material. Tikaram (PW 1) deposed that on the day of incident at about 8 P. M. in the night, appellant basant Agrawal came to him and told him that his wife is not keeping well, you come and see her. She is lying near the railway track. Thereafter, Tikaram (PW 1)alongwith Manoj (PW 4) reached on the spot and had seen that the wife of appellant was lying flat. Thereafter, they told him that they could not do anything in this matter. Manoj (PW 4) has not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile. In the cross-examination tikaram (PW 1) has stated that the appellant was not known to them and he had not seen him before that day. He could not say whether she was conscious or not or whether she was the wife of appellant or not. Narayan (PW 3), is another witness of prosecution, who was the Gateman on the railway crossing between Gulabganj and Sumer. He has categorically deposed that the appellant had come to him at 10 P. M. and had informed him that her wife is feeling breathlessness and lying unconscious and asking for water. He told him that you take the water in a pot, but appellant told that he is alone and due to fear he could not go alone. Thereafter, he asked about his whereabouts and then informed on phone to the Station Master of Sumer about the incident and after reaching on the spot saw the lady who was lying on the railway track through torch. He had seen the body of the deceased and it was found that she is dead. Thereafter, when he went towards the gate the appellant also accompanied him and accordingly the information was given to Station master and on that information, after about an hour, the police came on the spot. There was no effective cross-examination from this witness. He has also deposed before the court that the appellant had told him that earlier he had also come near the crossing at about 7 O' clock but due to darkness he could not be seen. There was no effective cross-examination from this witness. He has also deposed before the court that the appellant had told him that earlier he had also come near the crossing at about 7 O' clock but due to darkness he could not be seen. These two witnesses are quite independent witnesses. They were not knowing to the appellant but they identified him in the court and there is no reason that why they will give false statement against the appellant and why they will falsely implicate him. They have narrated whatever they had seen. Another witness of the prosecution is Shamsher Khan (PW 2) who is the witness of Panchnama Lash (Ex. P/1 ). Though he was declared hostile but he has supported the Panchnama lash and has stated that it was recorded in his presence and he had signed over it. This document (Ex. P/ 1) appears to be a material document, which has been found proved. A very material fact that has come on record in this document is that the appellant was also present at the time of preparation of Ex. P/ 1. The body of the deceased was covered with blanket and it has been mentioned that the said blanket was removed by appellant Basant agrawal himself at the time of its preparation. There is no cross-examination from this witness on this point. There is one more aspect that in the Panchnama lash which is the first document, names of the deceased and appellant with his full residential address have been mentioned. If appellant was not there on the spot how witnesses came to know about the name of the deceased or about the name of her husband and his residential address. Thus from Ex. P/1 it is clear that the appellant remained present on the spot and he disclosed the name of the deceased as well as his own name and the residential address. If it was the body of unknown person then it would not have been possible for the witnesses to mention all those aspects as have been mentioned in the Panchanama Lash (Ex. P/1 ). Ex. P/6 is the document by which the Station Master had given information of the incident to P. S. Gulabganj, which has been proved by Investigating Officer h. N. Tiwari (PW 9 ). P/1 ). Ex. P/6 is the document by which the Station Master had given information of the incident to P. S. Gulabganj, which has been proved by Investigating Officer h. N. Tiwari (PW 9 ). In this document, it is also mentioned that the husband of the lady was also sitting near the gateman. Ex. P/10 is the post-mortem report in which the name of the appellant has been mentioned as the person who identified the dead-body at the time of forwarding it for post-mortem examination. One more important fact is that the appellant was arrested as per arrest memo Ex. P/5 at P. S. Gulabganj itself and this document has been proved by N. S. Rathore (PW 8 ). From these documents it appears that appellant remained present on the spot right from the time of incident till his arrest. The prosecution has also furnished the explanation about his after two day's arrest on 3-11-1993 and has stated that after receiving the postmortem report and knowing the cause of death and after recording of statements of witnesses, appellant was arrested. ( 8 ) THE another material evidence on record is of Dr. D. K. Satpathi (PW 12), who had performed the post-mortem of the dead-body. As per post-mortem report (Ex. P/10), the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :-" (1) Multiple abrasion present on rt. Side of neck, there are linear to semilunar in area of 4 cm vertical and 2 cm. transverse starting from 4 cm. below angle of mandible and 6 cm. Rt to midline. (2) Abrasion present on left side of neck which is semilunar and broad with convexity towards outer side starting from 9 cm. left to midline and 3 cm. below angle of mandible size 0. 9 x 0. 2 cm. Subcutaneous tissue and muscles of front of neck is ecchymosed especially at thyroid cartilage region. There is fracture of thyroid cartilage on left side with muscles contused and torduse spot present at upper trachea and thyroid region. " ( 9 ) ACCORDING to doctor, the body was in early to moderate stage of decomposition and the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throtling which is homicidal in nature. The duration of death is within 24-48 hrs. since post-mortem examination. In the cross-examination, Dr. " ( 9 ) ACCORDING to doctor, the body was in early to moderate stage of decomposition and the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throtling which is homicidal in nature. The duration of death is within 24-48 hrs. since post-mortem examination. In the cross-examination, Dr. D. K. Sathpathi (PW 12) has clarified that there was fracture of thyroid cartilage on left side and injures were found on the neck. All the injures were antemortem. No food was found in the stomach and he has not found any signs of struggle by the lady. Thus, the medical evidence supports the prosecution case. In the defence, the contention of the appellant was that he does not know about the death of the deceased but as per the consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses namely, rajaram (PW 5), Durgabai (PW 6), nathuram (PW 7), Radhavallabh (PW 10)and Liladhar (PW 11) on 26-10-1993 deceased Babli had gone with the appellant and till 31-10-1993 was with the appellant, therefore, the defence version is not at all reliable. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant. After assessment of the evidence on record, the following circumstances have been found proved against the appellant: (1) that, the appellant is the husband of the deceased and on 26-10-1993 he brought her back from her parent's house to Bhopal on the assurance that he will keep her properly and would not harass her. (2) that, between the period of 26-10-1993 to 31-10-1993, the deceased was with the appellant and the appellant had invited the parents of the deceased to meet them on 31-10-1993 but when family members of deceased reached there they found that the house of appellant was locked. (3) that, the evidence of illicit relation of the appellant with other lady Ramkali, sister-in-law of his elder brother and that the appellant was not keeping the deceased properly, harassing and teasing her and their relations were not cordial, is also on record. (4) that, on the fateful day of the occurrence at 8 PM. the appellant was seen with the deadbody of the deceased near the railway track by Tikaram (PW 1) as appellant himself had gone to take help from him and he was also seen by narayan (PW 3), who is the gateman. (4) that, on the fateful day of the occurrence at 8 PM. the appellant was seen with the deadbody of the deceased near the railway track by Tikaram (PW 1) as appellant himself had gone to take help from him and he was also seen by narayan (PW 3), who is the gateman. He had seen the dead-body of the deceased and he informed to the Station master whereupon the police reached on the spot. Appellant was present at the time of preparation of Panchnama lash and had also identified the body before it was referred for post-mortem examination but has not explained how he reached there and how she died. (5) Cause of death is throttling and was homicidal in nature which has also non been explained by appellant. (6) His defence that he does not know about the death is not found proved. (7) His another defence that rajaram (PW 5) brother of the deceased had taken her on 26-10-1993 has also not been found proved. ( 10 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid circumstances it is clear and discernible that the chain of circumstances is complete. The motive and mens rea also established in the case. It is also established that on 31-10-1993 the appellant brought the deceased at the place of occurrence on the pretext that he wants to take her to Khurai which is the place of his residence. We do not find that any link is missing in the chain. Merely on the basis of non-examination of Station master of Sumer, it cannot be said that any link in the set of circumstances is missing. So far as the question of torturing to deceased is concerned there is ample evidence on record, which has been narrated by the family members of the deceased. The evidence of family members cannot be discarded merely on the basis that they are related to the deceased. As far as question of illicit relation with Ramkali is concerned, there is sufficient and convincing evidence against the appellant on record. Even, in the case-diary statement of the witnesses they have stated the same version which they have given before the court. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradictions or omissions from their case-diary statements. The case of Sharad birdhichand (supra) also supports the prosecution case. Even, in the case-diary statement of the witnesses they have stated the same version which they have given before the court. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradictions or omissions from their case-diary statements. The case of Sharad birdhichand (supra) also supports the prosecution case. In a case of circumstantial evidence what is required to be proved is that the court should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The Apex Court has also held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must be" established and not "may be" established. If we take up all the circumstances for consideration together with the evidence on record we find that in this case it is the appellant who had committed the crime and there is no suspicion in the evidence of prosecution witnesses especially the evidence of two independent witnesses namely tikaram (PW 1) and Narayan (PW 3) from whom the appellant asked for help. If there was any accidental death, the appellant should have informed to those witnesses and this possibility has also been ruled out by the medical evidence. Therefore, conclusively it can be said that it is the appellant who has committed murder of his own wife and there is no suspicion at all. ( 11 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no identification and the identification before the court first time cannot be held to be acceptable or reasonable. But there are no such circumstances in this case. In the present case, there is no need of any identification parade. The appellant was seen by tikaram (PW 1) and Narayan (PW 3), the body was also seen by them in presence of appellant Basant Agrawal and it was basant Agrawal who told them that the body lying near the railway track was of his own wife and he is her husband. The appellant was seen by tikaram (PW 1) and Narayan (PW 3), the body was also seen by them in presence of appellant Basant Agrawal and it was basant Agrawal who told them that the body lying near the railway track was of his own wife and he is her husband. Narayan (PW 3) is also the witness of panchnama Lash (Ex. P/1), spot-map (Ex. P/8) from which it is clear that he remained present on spot during investigation also. Therefore, we do not think that in such circumstances, it was necessary for the prosecution to conduct any test identification parade. We hold that enough and sufficient material is available against the appellant to connect him and to hold him guilty of the crime. ( 12 ) SO far as the defence evidence is concerned, Shyamsunder (DW 1), who is a friend of appellant, though has stated that the relation between appellant and his wife was cordial and there was no dispute between both of them but in his cross-examination he admits that in his presence there was no dispute between them. However, he does not know what had happened behind his back and he also does not know whether their daughter died. He also expressed his inability to say that when the deceased had gone to Raisen and when she came back to live with the appellant. He admitted that appellant was not discussing his family matters with him and he was only talking about his business. Santosh Agrawal (DW 1) is the elder brother of the appellant and he was examined to prove that the relation between the husband and wife was cordial. He admits that since he did not fulfil the demand of Rs. 5,000/-made by Liladhar (PW 11), their relations were strained and this was the reason that Liladhar (PW 11) was against them. He has deposed that one police man had come and informed him about the death of Babli alias Sitabai at his tea stall and at that time appellant was available in his house. He states that since nobody was there to look after his shop, he had not gone with the police man. He has not explained whether appellant was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law ramkali or not. Considering his evidence, the same does not support the case of the defence and therefore, seems to be not useful for the defence. He states that since nobody was there to look after his shop, he had not gone with the police man. He has not explained whether appellant was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law ramkali or not. Considering his evidence, the same does not support the case of the defence and therefore, seems to be not useful for the defence. The trial court has also considered the aforesaid circumstances and the evidence against the appellant and thereafter has found that from all these circumstances it is clear that it is the appellant who has committed murder of his wife. After examining the entire prosecution evidence on record and considering the circumstances and lapses pointed out by the learned Sr. Counsel for appellant, we find that the trial court has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant. It is well settled that in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, however strong to take the place of proof. This situation is not in the present case. In the case in hand, the circumstances has established that appellant has murdered of his own wife and the circumstances consistently and, unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Thus, we find that there is strong circumstantial evidence on record on the basis of which the guilt of the accused-appellant can be said to have been established. Therefore, we do not find any case for interference in the findings recorded by the trial court. ( 13 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of appellant recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S. T. No. 224/93 as per the impugned judgment are confirmed. Appeal dismissed. .