S. Abdul Nazeer, J. JUDGMENT The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No. 64 of 2002 whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: The appellant-accused had married Husanawwa, the deceased about 4 years back and a son was born from the said wedlock. The accused used to suspect the chastity of his wife alleging that she has illicit relationship with others and he used to ill-treat and beat her. Yamanappa, brother of the accused advised him not to ill-treat his wife. The accused even made allegations that his brother Yamanappa had also illicit relationship with his wife-Husanawwa. On account of these allegations Husanawwa started living in her parents house for the past six months. About a week prior to the date of incident, the accused requested his elder brother and other elders to bring his wife back to his house promising that he will look after her properly. The brother of the accused and the elders brought back Husanawwa to the house of the accused after convincing her mother. On 7-11-1989 at about 8.00 p.m. Yamanappa called the complainant and Rajappa and informed them that the accused has taken his wife to collect fuelwood and has not returned so far. Rajappa, Durgappa and the complainant started making enquiry in the village. One Shekharappa met them and informed that at about 12.00 noon he saw accused and Husanawwa walking on the road following his cart. Shekharappa further informed them that he saw the accused and the deceased proceeding towards the land of Yankanna Pati!o During that night when they were searching the accused and Husanawwa, they met Durgappa Madar and Erappa Kori and on enquiry the said persons also informed the same thing. On 8-11-1989 in the morning they again started searching the accused and Husanawwa. At about 7.00 a.m. they noticed the dead body of Husanawwa in the 'Nala' situated in the land of Yankanna Patil. There were bleeding injuries on her neck and face. A bloodstained axe was lying near the dead body. On 8-11-1989 in the morning they again started searching the accused and Husanawwa. At about 7.00 a.m. they noticed the dead body of Husanawwa in the 'Nala' situated in the land of Yankanna Patil. There were bleeding injuries on her neck and face. A bloodstained axe was lying near the dead body. It is alleged that the accused has committed murder intentionally causing death of Husanawwa by assaulting her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. In respect of this incident P.W. 1-Mariyappa lodged a complaint with the concerned police as per Ex. P. 1, on the basis of which the crime' was registered, the investigation was taken up and upon completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused person for the above said offence. 3. The accused was absconding for more than 12 years from the date of commission of the offence. After filing of the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate showing the accused absconding from 30-5-1990, the Magistrate issued warrant against the accused. Thereafter the proclamation was issued. Inspite of the efforts made by the police, the presence of the accused could not be secured. The learned District Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class to record the statement of witnesses and accordingly statement of witnesses was recorded on 17-1-1992 and 6-2-1992. Then the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases. After production of the accused by the C.P.I., Hunagund on 29-7-2002 he was taken to custody. Thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The accused has not pleaded guilty to the charges framed under Section 302 of the IPC. 4. At the trial, the prosecution in order to establish the offence alleged against the accused person led evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 11. Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 were marked during the trial. M.Os 1 to 16 have also been marked during trial. 5. As noticed, the above accused is the husband of the deceased. Yamanappa (C.W. 7) is the elder brother of the accused. P.W. 2-Durgawwa wife of Gyanappa Myagilamani alias Madar is the mother of the deceased Husanawwa. P.W. 3-Durgawwa is the wife of C.W-7-Yamanappa was examined before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and his statement was recorded on 17-1-1992. C.W. 16-Basappa is another witness who was examined before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 6-2-1992. P.W. 2-Durgawwa wife of Gyanappa Myagilamani alias Madar is the mother of the deceased Husanawwa. P.W. 3-Durgawwa is the wife of C.W-7-Yamanappa was examined before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and his statement was recorded on 17-1-1992. C.W. 16-Basappa is another witness who was examined before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 6-2-1992. P.W. 1-Mariyappa speaks about the motive. P.W. 2-Durgawwa is the mother of the deceased Husanawwa who states that Husanawwa had told her that the accused used to beat her. P.W. 3-Durgawwa also states that occasionally accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other. P.W. 4-Dr. Shivaraja Mariyappa Sajjan has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Husanawwa on 9-11-1989. P.W. 5-Mariyappa was working as a Police Constable in Ilkal Police Station during the relevant time. He has carried the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hunagund. P.W. 6-Lagamanna was also working as a Police Constable at Ilkal Police Station during the relevant point of time. He has taken the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem to the Government Hospital, Ilkal. After the post-mortem examination he has handed over the dead body of the deceased to the relatives of the deceased. P.W. 7-Neelappa was a P.S.I. (Crime) at Ilkal Police Station during the year 1989. He has registered the case of Ilkal Police Station on the basis of Ex. P. 1. P.W. 8-Sangappa was the panch witness to the inquest mahazar-Ex. P. 8 and scene of offence Mahazar-Ex. P. 9. P.W. 9-Irappa is a prosecution witness, who has turned hostile and he was cross-examined by the Pubic Prosecutor. P.W. 10-Shivappa was working as a Police Constable in Ilkal Police Station during the relevant point of time. He was deputed by the C.P.I. to carry Articles 1 to 5 for chemical examination, Bangalore. P.W. II-V. Govindayya is the Investigating Officer. 6. The accused person being examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. has denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He did not either examine himself nor did he examine any witnesses on this behalf the plea of the accused is one of total denial. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment and order has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 8. He did not either examine himself nor did he examine any witnesses on this behalf the plea of the accused is one of total denial. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment and order has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 8. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. We have carefully perused the entire material placed on record by the prosecution with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. We have also carefully perused the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has contended as under: In the absence of any motive and circumstance to connect the appellant to the offence alleged, the Court below is not justified in recording conviction against the appellant. The accused used to live in his wife's house to earn his livelihood. P.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that he has no personal knowledge about the dispute between the accused and his wife and that he does not know if the accused was well to do by doing hard work. The admissions would show that P.W. 1 has no personal knowledge about the relationship between the appellant and his wife. Therefore, there is no question of P.W. 1 coming to know the ill-treatment. Even P.W. 3 has admitted in her cross-examination that the quarrel between the accused and his wife was like any other quarrel between husband and wife. Besides that, most of the time the appellant used to stay in the parents house of his wife. All these admissions would show that the appellant was not suspecting the fidelity of his wife. The statements recorded under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not admissible in evidence as there is no opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine them. Further, the Trial Court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased Husanawwa immediately prior to her death. Further, the Trial Court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased Husanawwa immediately prior to her death. It is further contended that the Trial Court is not justified in passing the judgment and order though the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and statements of C.Ws. 7, 9 and 12 do not inspire implicit confidence, credence to the involvement of the appellant for which he has been charged and sentenced. The Court below is not justified in convicting the accused in the absence of any evidence regarding motive, strong circumstances against the accused and in the absence of any clinching proof that the appellant is a party to the commission of a crime. The Court below has committed an error in relying the circumstance of abscondance of the appellant placed by the prosecution. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has contended that the Trial Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. He submits that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has been drawn has been fully proved and the circumstances are conclusive in nature connecting the accused with the crime. He further submits that all the links in the chain of events have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. He further submits that the circumstances such as motive of the accused for murdering his wife Husanawwa, the last scene circumstance, recovery of material object M.O. 1 and absconding of the accused after the commission of offence have been fully established and that each of the circumstance has a link with the other. It is further contended that despite best efforts, the accused could not be procured as he was absconding. Therefore, the evidence was recorded in his absence. Thus, the preconditions of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with and that the deposition of witnesses who have been examined under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can form the basis of conviction. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the light of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the points arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (a) Whether the deceased Smt. Husanawwa has met with a homicidal death? He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the light of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the points arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (a) Whether the deceased Smt. Husanawwa has met with a homicidal death? (b) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused has caused the death of deceased Husanawwa? 12. Re: Point No. I.-P.W. 4-Dr. Shivaraja Sajjan has conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Husanawwa on 9-11-1989 between 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. In his evidence he has stated that on 8-11-1989 Police Constable No. 486 brought the dead body of Husanawwa at about 7.00 p.m. As it was dark he did not conduct post-mortem examination on that day. He has conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Husahawwa on 9-11-1989. On examination he found the following injuries: "(1) There was a sharp cut injury over the right side over right cheek starting from right angle of right eyelid to the back of right ear measuring 5" x 11/2" X 2". Gapping present under laying muscle structures smeared; (2) There was a sharp cut injury over the right cheek starting from the right nostril to the angle of right mandible measuring 3" x 11/2" X 2 " right mandible was fractured; (3) There is a sharp cut injury over the left side starting from left angle of left eye to the temporal area measuring 5" x' 11/2" X 2". Underlying muscles structures smeared; (4) There was a sharp cut injury over the back side of head starting from back of left ear to occipital area measuring 2" x 2" x 1/2"; (5) On discussions the following injuries noticed: (1) There was clotted blood present in the subdural space' on the left side over the temporal area; (2) There was fracture of right maxillary bone and blood was collected into the base of the skull". 13. He has further stated that the said injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause for death of Husanawwa was haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries sustained. He has issued post-mortem report as per Ex. P. 2. He has further stated that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause for death of a person. He has identified the axe, M.O. 1. He has issued post-mortem report as per Ex. P. 2. He has further stated that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause for death of a person. He has identified the axe, M.O. 1. He has further stated that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report can be caused by M.O. I-axe. P.W. 4 has not been cross-examined by the defence Counsel on the nature of injuries suffered by Husanawwa and the cause of her death. It is not in dispute that the death of Husanawwa was on account of injuries sustained by her. Considering the evidence on record it can safely be concluded that the deceased Husanawwa had met with a homicidal death. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Re: Point No. 2.-P.W. 1-Mariyappa has filed complaint as per Ex. P. 1. It is stated in the complaint that the house of the complainant is situated in Madar Keri at Kandagal Village. The house of the accused and his elder brother Yamanappa (C.W. 7) are situated near the house of the complainant. The accused Hanamappa married Husanawwa about four years back and from the said marriage a son was born. The accused used to suspect the chastity of his wife alleging that she has illicit relation with others and he used to ill-treat and beat her. C.W. 7advised him not to ill-treat his wife. The accused has even made allegations against his brother C.W. 7 that he has illicit relation with his wife Husanawwa. Therefore, Husanawwa went to her parents house and started residing with her mother for about six months. About one week back accused requested his brother C.W. 7 and elders Rajappa (C.W. 8), Mudukappa (C.W. 10) and P.W. 1 to bring her back to his house promising to look after her properly. C.W. 8 and P.W. 1 went to the parents house of the deceased in Halli Village and convinced her mother and brought her back to the house of the accused six days prior to the date of complaint. Thereafter the accused and his wife started residing together in their house. During the said 5-6 days, C.W. 7 informed P.W. 1 and C.W. 8 that the accused is ill-treating his wife again. In this regard, C.W. 8 warned the accused. 15. Thereafter the accused and his wife started residing together in their house. During the said 5-6 days, C.W. 7 informed P.W. 1 and C.W. 8 that the accused is ill-treating his wife again. In this regard, C.W. 8 warned the accused. 15. On 7-11-1989 at about 8.00 p.m. C.W. 7 called the P.W. 1 and C.W. 8 and informed them that the accused has taken his wife to collect fuelwood and has not returned so far. C.W. 8, P.W. 3 and P.W. 1 starting making enquiries about the accused in the village. C.W. 12 informed them that about 12.00 noon he saw the accused and his wife walking on the road following his cart. C.W. 12 further informed them that he saw the accused and his wife proceeding towards the land of Yenkanna Patil. On 8-11-1989 in the morning they again started searching the accused and Husanawwa. At about 7.00 a.m. they noticed the dead body of the Husanawwa in the 'Nala' situated in the land of Yenkanna Patil. There were bleeding injuries on her neck and face. A bloodstained axe was lying in the land of the Yenkanna Patil, the handle of the axe was broken. On the basis of these allegations a case was registered in the Ilkal Police Station in Crime No. 91 of 1989. 16. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate showing that the accused was absconding from 30-5-1990. Despite best efforts, the police could not secure the presence of the accused. As directed by the District Judge, the jurisdictional Magistrate has recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. on 17-1-1992 and 6-2-1992. On 29-7-2002 the C.P.I., Hunagund produced the accused and he was taken to custody. Thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence alleged against the accused was exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The charges were framed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 17. P.W. 1-Mariyappa is an independent witness. In his evidence, he has stated that the house of the accused Hanamappa and his elder brother C.W. 7 are situated behind his house and that the accused has murdered his wife. The deceased was married to the accused four years prior to her death. From the said marriage the deceased had given birth to a son. In his evidence, he has stated that the house of the accused Hanamappa and his elder brother C.W. 7 are situated behind his house and that the accused has murdered his wife. The deceased was married to the accused four years prior to her death. From the said marriage the deceased had given birth to a son. After the marriage, the deceased used to reside with the accused. Though initially the relationship between the deceased and the accused was cordial, later on the accused started ill-treating and beating the deceased suspecting her chastity. C.W. 7 had told him that, the accused is ill-treating and beating the deceased suspecting her character. Due to the ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased, the deceased Husanawwa started residing in her parental house at Halli Village. At the instance of C.W. 7, C.W. 8, C.W. 10, P.W. 1 advised the accused not to ill-treat his wife and that they brought the deceased from her parents house to the house of the accused. Accused has agreed that he will not ill-treat the deceased. On the date of death of Husanawwa, the accused took her with him on the pretext of collecting fuelwood in the morning. Thereafter, the accused and Husanawwa did not return to their house at all. On that night C.W. 7, C.W. 8, C.W. 10 and himself and C.W. 11 went in search of the accused and his wife. They searched them in the nearby area. By about 7.00 a.m. on the next day they found the dead body of Husanawwa lying in a 'Nala' in the land which is at a distance of about 5 kilometers from his village. The said Nala is in the land of C.W. 17. There were cut injuries on the neck of Husanawwa. Bloodstained axe was lying on the scene of offence. When they were 'searching for the accused and the deceased, C.W. 7 -Shekharappa told them that he saw the accused and Husanawwa proceeding towards the land of Sanganagouda Palli. He had lodged the complaint in Ilkal Police Station. The complaint is marked at Ex. P. 1. The axe which was lying on the scene of offence is marked as M.O. 1 and the 'broken handle of the axe which was also lying on the scene of offence is marked as M.O. 2. He had lodged the complaint in Ilkal Police Station. The complaint is marked at Ex. P. 1. The axe which was lying on the scene of offence is marked as M.O. 1 and the 'broken handle of the axe which was also lying on the scene of offence is marked as M.O. 2. It is also stated by him that broken bangle pieces were also lying on the scene of offence. He has stated that neither himself nor C.W. 8 and C.W. 10 were intervening in the matters of the persons residing in their village. The dispute started between the accused and the deceased after the birth of a son. He has not personally come to know about the dispute between the accused and his wife. He has denied -the suggestions that C.W. 7 has not told him that the accused was .ill-treating the deceased and beating her, suspecting her chastity. He has further stated that C.W. 12 has told him about the accused taking his wife with him on the pretext of collecting fuelwood at about 4.00 p.m. on the day of incident. They waited till sunset and thereafter started searching While searching they stayed in Kuridoddi during that night and again on the next day morning they started searching Husanawwa. After seeing the dead body they returned to the village from the scene of offence. At about 12 noon or 1.00 p.m. C.W. 8, C.W. 10 and two or three villages were along with him when he lodged the complaint. The PSI got the complaint reduced into writing. The police came to the scene of offence at about 4.00 p.m. and conducted the panchanama. The axe was lying on the left side of the dead body and the handle of the axe was also with the axe. He has admitted that the axe like M.O. 1 are available generally with all the agriculturists. He has denied all the suggestions made to him in the cross-examination. 18. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she has stated that the deceased had told her that the accused was beating her without any reason. Since the accused was ill-treating and beating her, the deceased was residing with her in her house. C.W. 7 and others came to her house to take back the deceased. 18. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she has stated that the deceased had told her that the accused was beating her without any reason. Since the accused was ill-treating and beating her, the deceased was residing with her in her house. C.W. 7 and others came to her house to take back the deceased. When she told them that the accused was ill-treating and beating her daughter, they told her that they will advise the accused not to ill-treat or beat Husanawwa. P.W. 1, C.W. 10 and C.W. 8 had also come along with C.W. 7 to call her daughter. Accordingly, she sent her daughter on the advice to the said persons to the house of the accused. 3-4 days after sending of her daughter to the house of the accused, she received a message about her murder. She was informed that the accused took Husanawwa with him on the pretext of collecting fuelwood and committed her murder. She went to the Government Hospital, Ilkal and saw the dead body of her daughter in the Hospital. There were injuries on her face and other parts of the body. She made enquiries about the accused and she was informed that the accused is not available. She has identified the clothes and articles found on the dead body of the deceased. Bendoli is marked as M.O. 3, Thali is marked as M.O. 4, pair of chappal are marked as M.O. 7, Saree is marked as M.O. 6, Blouse is marked as M.O. 7, Bendoli is marked as M.O. 8, taluka is marked as M.O. 9, nose stud is marked as M.O. 10, copper ring marked as M.O. 11, toe ring marked as M.O. 12, broken bangle pieces are marked as M.O. 13. In her cross-examination she has stated that for the first two months after the marriage the accused was looking after her daughter cordially and thereafter he started ill-treating her. She has denied the suggestions made to her in the cross-examination. 19. P.W. 3 is the sister-in-law of the accused and wife of C.W. 7. In her cross-examination she has stated that the accused and Husanawwa used to quarrel with each other. Husanawwa used to tell her that some times her husband beats her. On the day of incident, she had gone to attend the coolie work. 19. P.W. 3 is the sister-in-law of the accused and wife of C.W. 7. In her cross-examination she has stated that the accused and Husanawwa used to quarrel with each other. Husanawwa used to tell her that some times her husband beats her. On the day of incident, she had gone to attend the coolie work. When she returned from work, she has informed by her mother-in-law that the accused and Husanawwa had gone to bring fuelwood leaving behind their son in her house. Accused and Husanawwa had carried with them an axe and a sickle to collect fuelwood. Thereafter, accused and Husanawwa did not return to her house. P.W. 1, C.W. 8, C.W. 9, C.W. 10 and her husband and others went in search of the accused and Husanawwa. On the next day morning, she was informed that the dead body of Husanawwa was found in a 'Nala'. She went and saw the dead body and found that there were injuries on the head of Husanawwa. The blood had fallen on the scene of offence. The axe and sickle were also lying on the scene of offence. She has further stated that on account of ill-treatment given by the accused, Husanawwa used to reside in her parents house and that herself and her husband used to advise the accused not to ill-treat his wife. She has further stated that her husband along with certain other elders of the village went to Husanawwa's parents house and brought her back to the house of the accused. In her cross-examination she has stated that accused used to visit various places to earn his livelihood and at that time she used to live with his wife in Kandagal. Most of the time accused used to stay in the parental house of his wife. She has further stated that the quarrel between the accused and his wife were like any other quarrel between a husband and a wife. She has denied all the other suggestions put to her in the cross-examination. 20. P.W. 5-Mariyappa is a Police Constable who was working at Ilkal Police Station during the relevant point of time. In his evidence he has stated that on 8-11-1989 at about 8.00 p.m. the original complaint and FIR in the case were given to him by the PSI for handing over to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hunagund. 20. P.W. 5-Mariyappa is a Police Constable who was working at Ilkal Police Station during the relevant point of time. In his evidence he has stated that on 8-11-1989 at about 8.00 p.m. the original complaint and FIR in the case were given to him by the PSI for handing over to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hunagund. FIR is marked through him as Ex. P. 3. He handed over the complaint and Ex. P. 3 to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hunagund at about 8.30 p.m. In this regard he has submitted a report as per Ex. P. 4. In the cross-examination he has stated that he left Ilkal at about 5.00 p.m. and reached Hunagund at about 8.00 p.m. P.W. 6 is also a Police Constable working in Ilkal Police Station during the relevant point of time. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 8-11-1989, in the morning a dead body of Husanawwa was entrusted to him to take the same for post-mortem examination. On the same day he took the dead body to Government Hospital, Ilkal. On 9-11-1989 post-mortem was conducted. Thereafter, he has handed over the body of Husanawwa to the relatives of the deceased. The Medical Officer gave him the clothes and articles found on the dead body of Husanawwa and he has produced the same before the I.O. along with his report. His report is marked as Ex. P. 5. He has further stated that the I.O. had deputed him to search and apprehend the accused person in the case. He has searched the accused at Raichur, Sindhanur, Komalapur Villages from 19-11-1989 to 6-1-1990 but the accused was not traced. He has submitted a report in this regard as per Exs. P. 6 and P. 7. In his cross-examination he has denied the suggestions that he did not take the dead body for post-mortem examination and that he did not search for the accused and that he has submitted the false reports. 21. P.W. 7-Neelappa was working as PSI at Ilkal Police Station during the relevant time. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 8-11-1989 he was SHO of the Police Station and that he had sent Ex. P. 1 to the Police Station for registration of the same and on the basis of Ex. P. 1 a case was registered at Ilkal Police Station. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 8-11-1989 he was SHO of the Police Station and that he had sent Ex. P. 1 to the Police Station for registration of the same and on the basis of Ex. P. 1 a case was registered at Ilkal Police Station. He has sent the FIR for submission to the Court. 22. P.W. 8 is a panch witness to the inquest mahazar. He has deposed that he has seen the dead body of Husanawwa. Ex. P. 8 is the inquest report. He is also a panch witness for the scene of offence mahazar-Ex. P. 9. He has been treated as hostile witness by the prosecution and he has been cross-examined. In the cross-examination he has stated that there were injuries on the neck and face of Husanawwa. He has denied the other suggestions made to him in the cross-examination. P.W. 9-Irappa has stated that he knew C.W. 11-Durgappa who is no more and C.W. 12-Shekharappa who has become insane and his whereabouts are not known. He has also turned hostile and has been cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. P.W. 10 is a Police Constable who was working in Ilkal Police Station in the year 1989. He has stated in his evidence that he was deputed by the CPI to carry the Articles 1 to 5 to the Chemical Examiner, Bangalore. Accordingly, he has proceeded to Bangalore and handed over the articles to C.D., Bangalore on 29-1-1990. After examination, the said articles were returned to him and he has produced those articles before the CPI on 31-1-1990 with his report. The report is marked as Ex. P. 15. 23. P.W. 11-V. Govindayya is the I.O. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 8-11-1989 he received a credible information that one Hanamappa has murdered his wife Husanawwa near Kandagal Village. Immediately thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence along with his staff. He recorded oral complaint of C.W. 1 and then sent the said complaint for registration to the Police Station through a Police Constable. He secured P.W. 8-Sangappa. C.W. 3-Murthujasa, C.W. 5Mariyawwa as panchayathdars and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex. P. 8. Then he sent the dead body for postmortem examination through C.W. 6. In the presence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 3 he prepared the mahazar as per Ex. He secured P.W. 8-Sangappa. C.W. 3-Murthujasa, C.W. 5Mariyawwa as panchayathdars and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex. P. 8. Then he sent the dead body for postmortem examination through C.W. 6. In the presence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 3 he prepared the mahazar as per Ex. P. 9 and under the said mahazar he seized M.O. 1-axe and M.O. 2-broken handle of the axe etc. He recorded the statement of C.W. 7, C.W. 9, C.W. 8, C.W. 10, C.W. 11 and C.W. 12. On 9-11-1989, PC-486 produced before him the clothes and articles found on the dead body of the deceased - M.Os. 6 to 13. He seized the same under mahazar-Ex. P. 10 in the presence of the panchayathdars P.W. 8 and C.W. 4. The Constable through whom he had sent the complaint for registration has brought the copy of FIR and complaint on 8-11-1989. On 9-11-1989 he recorded the statement of P.W. 2, C.W. 15 and C.W. 16. He submitted a requisition to the PWD Authority to prepare the sketch of scene of offence. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation to C.W. 28. C.W. 28-N.B. Patil is also lead In his cross-examination, he has stated that on 8-12-1989 after receipt of information of the accused committing the murder of his wife, he reached the scene of offence at 12.30 or 12.45 p.m. People were present near the scene of offence when he reached there. He has denied the suggestion that he has not recorded statement of any witnesses. He has further denied the suggestion that he prepared the statements and panchanamas by sitting in the police station to suit the case of the prosecution. He has also denied that the accused was not absconding and that he was residing in Kandagal Village itself. He has further denied the suggestions that at the instance of P.W. 1 he has registered a false case against the accused. 24. Admissibility of Evidence under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.-As noticed above after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 30-5-1990 showing that the accused is absconding. The learned Magistrate has issued warrants against the accused on number of occasions. Thereafter, a proclamation was issued. Inspite of the efforts made by the police the presence of the accused could not be secured. The learned Magistrate has issued warrants against the accused on number of occasions. Thereafter, a proclamation was issued. Inspite of the efforts made by the police the presence of the accused could not be secured. The Magistrate sent a letter to the District Judge, Bijapur reporting about the abscondance of the accused and the learned District Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class to record the statement of witnesses. Accordingly, the statement of witnesses were recorded on 17-1-1992 and 6-2-1992 and thereafter the case was transferred to the register of long pending cases. On 29-7-2002 the CPI, Hunagund produced the accused and he was taken to custody and thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence alleged against the accused was exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that C.W. 7-Yamanappa is no more when the matter was taken up for trial by the Sessions Court. This is not disputed by the defence Counsel. P.W. 9 has stated that C.W. 11-Durgappa is also no more and that C.W. 12-Shekharappa has become insane and his whereabouts are not known. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of C.W. 7, C.W. 12 and C.W. 16 along with the evidence of other witnesses to establish the motive and the circumstance that the deceased-Husanawwa was last seen in the company of the accused immediately prior to her death. The death of C.W. 7 when the trial had commenced is not in dispute. The records would also show that the summons issued to C.W. 7 had returned by the concerned Police Constable. Summons was also issued to C.W. 12 by the Court below., A report was submitted stating that C.W. 12 has become insane and has left the village. The evidence of C.W. 7-Yamanappa and C.W. 12-Shekharappa was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 17-1-1992. C.W. 16-Basappa had also died at the time of trial before the Sessions Court. His evidence was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 6-2-1992. Sufficient materials have been produced to establish that the arrest of the accused could not be procured immediately after the murder of Husanawwa. Therefore, the evidence recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the absence of the accused is admissible under Section 299 of the Cr. His evidence was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 6-2-1992. Sufficient materials have been produced to establish that the arrest of the accused could not be procured immediately after the murder of Husanawwa. Therefore, the evidence recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate in the absence of the accused is admissible under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. The Apex Court in Nirmal Singh v State of Haryana 1, has held that if the precondition of Section 299 of Cr. P.C. and Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are established by the prosecution, then the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. before the arrest of the accused can be utilised in evidence in trial after arrest of such accused. It has been held thus: "On a mere perusal of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act it must be concluded the preconditions in both the sections must be established by the prosecution and it is only then the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. before the arrest of the accused can be utilised in evidence in trial after the arrest of such accused only if the persons are dead or would not be available or any other condition enumerated in the second part of Section 299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is established". 25. Motive.-The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of C.W. 7, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to establish the motive for the murder of the deceased-Husanawwa. C.W. 7 is the elder brother of the accused. In his statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he has stated that Husanawwa was married to the accused. The accused was residing separately with his wife in a separate house. Husanawwa was residing in her parents house for about 2 years prior to her death. Himself and the elders went to the parents house of the deceased Husanawwa and brought her back to the house of the accused. C.W. 16-Basappa has stated in his statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate that the accused used to ill-treat his wife. He has further stated that about 5-6 days prior to the murder of Husanawwa, accused had brought his wife to his house through the elders promising to look after her properly. 26. C.W. 16-Basappa has stated in his statement before the jurisdictional Magistrate that the accused used to ill-treat his wife. He has further stated that about 5-6 days prior to the murder of Husanawwa, accused had brought his wife to his house through the elders promising to look after her properly. 26. P.W. 1-Mariyappa in his evidence has stated that Husanawwa was married to the accused four years prior to her death. After her marriage Husanawwa was residing with her husband. Initially the relationship between the accused and the deceased was cordial. Later the accused started ill-treating and beating Husanawwa suspecting her chastity. C.W. 7-Yamanappa had told him about the accused ill-treating Husanawwa and beating her. Due to the said ill-treatment Husanawwa started residing in her parents house at Halli Village. He further states that at the instance of C.W. 7, C.W. 8 and C.W. 10 and himself advised the accused not to ill-treat his wife and brought Husanawwa from her parents house to the house of the accused four days prior to her death. P.W. 2-Durgawwa is the mother of the deceased Husanawwa. In her evidence she states that Husanawwa had told her that accused beats her without any reason. Since the accused was ill-treating and beating Husanawwa she was residing with P.W. 2. She further states that C.W. 7 and others came to her house to take back Husanawwa. She told them that accused is ill-treats and beats Husana''VWa. The elders told her that they will advise the accused not to ill-treat and beat Husanawwa. She states that P.W. 1, C.W. 10, C.W. 8 had also come along with C.W. 7 to call her daughter and accordingly she sent Husanawwa with them to the house of the accused. P.W. 3-Durgawwa is the wife of C.W. 7-Yamanappa and sister-in-law of the accused. She also states that occasionally accused and Husanawwa used to quarrel with each other. Husanawwa used to tell her that some times the accused used to beat her. 27. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the house of the accused and C.W. 7 are situated behind his house. C.W. 7 is none other than the elder brother of the accused and P.W. 3 is the wife of Yamanappa and sister-in-law of the accused. It is also clear that C.W. 7 used to advise the accused not to ill-treat his wife Husanawwa. C.W. 7 is none other than the elder brother of the accused and P.W. 3 is the wife of Yamanappa and sister-in-law of the accused. It is also clear that C.W. 7 used to advise the accused not to ill-treat his wife Husanawwa. The evidence of P.W. 1 and C.W. 7 discloses the ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased Husanawwa. The evidence of P.W. 1 further states that at the request of C.W. 1 they went to the house of P.W. 2-Durgawwa where Husanawwa was residing and they brought her back. The evidence of P.W. 2-Durgawwa provides corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1-Mariyappa. P.W. 1 is an independent witness. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the motive. Even the cross-examination of P.W. 2 makes it clear that the sons of P.W. 2 had sent her to advise the accused and accordingly she has advised the accused. Two months prior to the death of her daughter she has advised the accused not to ill-treat Husanawwa. Her evidence clearly discloses that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel occasionally. P.W. 3 also states the ill-treatment given by the accused to Husanawwa. She further states that her husband Yamanappa (C.W. 7) and herself had advised the accused not to ill-treat his wife. She also states that C.W. 7 had gone to call Husanawwa to come to the house of the accused. Considering the evidence on record the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that there was a motive for the accused to commit the murder of his wife. We do not find any reason to differ with the said finding of the Court below on this point. 28. Last seen circumstance.-Coming to the last seen circumstance of the deceased Husanawwa in the company of the accused immediately prior to her death, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of C.W. 12-Shekharappa. He has stated that h~ owns lands near the land of Sanganagouda Palli. About two years two months ago, he was proceeding to his land in his bullock-cart. At that time, the accused and his wife were proceeding in the same road to bring fuelwood. At that time the accused was armed with axe. It was about 12.00 noon. The accused and his wife were proceeding towards the land of Palli. About two years two months ago, he was proceeding to his land in his bullock-cart. At that time, the accused and his wife were proceeding in the same road to bring fuelwood. At that time the accused was armed with axe. It was about 12.00 noon. The accused and his wife were proceeding towards the land of Palli. P.W. 1-Mariyappa has stated that on the date of death of Husanawwa, the accused took Husanawwa with him on pretext of collecting fuelwood in the morning. They did not return thereafter. P.W. 3-Durgawwa states that when she returned to her house on the date of death of Husanawwa she was informed by Kenchamma-her mother-in-law, that the accused and Husanawwa have gone to bring fuel food. Husanawwa had left her son in her house. The accused and Husanawwa had canied with them an axe and a sickle to collect fuelwood. C.W. 12 in his statement has stated that on the date of incident, he saw the accused and Husanawwa proceeding together towards the land of Sanganagouda Palli at about 12.00 noon. The evidence of C.W. 12-Shekharappa finds conoboration in the evidence of P.W. 3-Durgawwa. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased Husanawwa immediately prior to her death. 29. Recovery of material object.-The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that he was informed that the accused and Husanawwa have not returned. Thereafter, they all searched for the accused and Husanawwa who were not traceable. On the next day morning the dead body of Husanawwa was found near the land of Sanganagowda Palli. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the scene of offence Mahazar as per Ex. P. 9. He seized M.O. 1-axe lying near the scene of offence and M.O. 2-broken handle of the axe. P.W. 3-during her evidence identifies M.O. 1-axe, M.O. 2-handle of the axe and M.O. 14-Sickle. According to P.W. 3 these weapons belongs to the accused and Husanawwa. P. 9. He seized M.O. 1-axe lying near the scene of offence and M.O. 2-broken handle of the axe. P.W. 3-during her evidence identifies M.O. 1-axe, M.O. 2-handle of the axe and M.O. 14-Sickle. According to P.W. 3 these weapons belongs to the accused and Husanawwa. In the cross-examination it is not denied that the said weapons belonged to the accused or Husanawwa though P.W. 3-Durgawwa has stated that axe like M.O. 1 and sickle, M.O. 14 are generally available in the house of agriculturists: Even P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that the axe-M.O. 1 was lying on the left side of the body and the handle of the axe-M.O. 2 was also with the axe. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the axe-M.O. 1 and handle of the axe-M.O. 2 were lying near the scene of offence and they belonged to the accused. The accused has not given any explanation as to why the weapon belonging to him were lying near the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Shivaraj Sajjan makes it clear that' the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report can be caused with M.O. 1. The accused has failed to explain these incriminating circumstances. 30. Abscondance of the accused.-As stated above, though the offence has taken place on 7-11-1989 the accused was absconding and he was produced b9fore the jurisdictional Magistrate on 29-7-2002. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. by the jurisdictional Magistrate. After filing of the charge-sheet NEWs were issued to secure the presence of the accused. However, the accused could not be traced. Finally, proclamation was issued by the Court. Even thereafter the accused was not available for trial. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that the accused did not return to the village after the incident. He further, states that he saw the accused for the first time after the accused left the village on the date of death of deceased Husanawwa. The evidence was recorded on 16-12-2002. Even P.W. 2-Durgawwa has stated that on coming to know about the death of Durgawwa she came to the Hospital. She made enquiries about the accused and she was informed that the accused is not available: She has also stated that she is seeing again the accused for the first time during the Trial. The evidence was recorded on 16-12-2002. Even P.W. 2-Durgawwa has stated that on coming to know about the death of Durgawwa she came to the Hospital. She made enquiries about the accused and she was informed that the accused is not available: She has also stated that she is seeing again the accused for the first time during the Trial. Similarly, P.W. 3-Durgawwa has also spoken about the abscondance of the accused. Even the evidence of Investigating Officer shows that the accused was absconding from his village. P.W. 1 has stated that three months after the death of Husanawwa accused had returned to his village and C.W. 7-Yamanappa told him that Husanawwa died and the accused kept quiet. If the accused was not really knowing about the death of Husanawwa and if he came to know the: death through his brother he could have taken steps to find out the reasons for death of his wife. On the contrary, the abscondance of the accused for a long period of 12 years after the death of the incident is a very strong circumstance against the accused in proving his guilt in this case. 31. Conclusion.-Thus, considering the entire material placed on record the Trial Court has come to a definite conclusion that the accused has murdered his wife-Husanawwa. We are of the view that the prosecution was able to prove that deceased Husanawwa was last seen in the company of the accused. M.O. 1-axe belongs to the accused. The accused and Husanawwa did not return to the house thereafter. Though these circumstances are proved against the accused, no explanation is given by the accused during his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved that the accused had motive to murder the deceased-Husanawwa. The accused was last seen in the company of the deceased-Husanawwa. The accused has failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. In the absence of any such explanation the irresistible conclusion could be drawn from the circumstances is that the accused has caused the death of his wife. The explanation offered in denying the incriminating circumstances cannot be accepted as true. M.O. 1 belongs to the accused which was found lying near the dead body. In the absence of any such explanation the irresistible conclusion could be drawn from the circumstances is that the accused has caused the death of his wife. The explanation offered in denying the incriminating circumstances cannot be accepted as true. M.O. 1 belongs to the accused which was found lying near the dead body. M.O. 1-axe can cause injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, accused was absconding for about 12 years immediately after the murder of the deceased and accused has failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has been drawn has been fully proved and the circumstances connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue we find no merit in this appeal filed by the accused. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant. 32. In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant fails and it is accordingly dismissed.