ORDER : 1. The accused appellant who had been acquitted by the learned trial Court of the charge of commission of the offence of murder of his wife has been found guilty by the High Court in an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the aforesaid order of acquittal. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the High Court. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case is built entirely on circumstantial evidence which has been set out by the High Court in paragraph 21 of its judgment/order. Four circumstances set out by the High Court and found to have been proved and established against the accused appellant are set out below : “(i) The marriage of accused Bhausaheb with deceased Janabai took place in 1985, thereafter victim was ill-treated by the accused, finds support from the statement of prosecution witnesses. (ii) Deceased was last seen in the company of accused Bhausaheb by P.W. 4 Jijabai and thereafter, deceased Janabai did not return from the field. (iii) When the complainant went to the field of accused to enquire about whereabouts of Janabai along with his brother, accused Bhausaheb gave evasive answers and told the complainant that victim has not come to the field. (iv) The dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused Bhausaheb, discovery panchanama was duly proved by P.W.8 and P.W.1, therefore, the chain of circumstance is complete, which leads only to one conclusion that accused Bhausaheb committed murder of his wife and to cause disappearance of the dead body, he covered that dead body in Chadder and concealed near hillock in his field and at his instance the dead-body was recovered.” 3. To the above four circumstances we would like to add that there is a fifth (5th) circumstance and a highly incriminating one, namely, that from the deposition of Machindra (P.W.7), brother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased had not come back home since the previous night and no family member including the accused appellant (deceased’s husband) had lodged any report in this regard. Instead, the accused appellant had gone to work in the field in the next morning in a routine manner. 4. We have considered the evidence and materials on record in support of the case set up by the prosecution. Instead, the accused appellant had gone to work in the field in the next morning in a routine manner. 4. We have considered the evidence and materials on record in support of the case set up by the prosecution. It is our considered view that having regard to the evidence of Kishan, father of the deceased (P.W. 2), Subhash, brother of the deceased (P.W. 5) and Machindra, another brother of the deceased, who was the complainant (P.W.7) the first (1st) circumstance of ill-treatment of the deceased in different forms has been proved and established. 5. The evidence of Jijabai (P.W.4), who is about 75 years of age, with regard to the accused appellant and the deceased being last seen together (second circumstance) also commends to us for acceptance. The third circumstance has been proved by the evidence of P.W.7 where as the fourth circumstance i.e. recovery of the dead-body at the instance of the accused and, therefore, a fact admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been proved by the evidence of Laxman (P.W.1). In this regard, we have specifically noted the grounds on which the learned trial Court thought it proper to disbelieve the prosecution case with regard to recovery of the dead-body. It is our considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 being clear and categorical that the recovery/discovery panchanama was prepared and signed at the spot would indicate that the view taken by the learned trial Court in this regard is not correct. 6. The fifth circumstance i.e. unnatural conduct of the accused appellant in going to the field and not reporting the fact that his wife had not returned home previous night and her whereabouts were not known also stand proved by the evidence of P.W. 7. 7. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances proved and established by the prosecution, in our considered view, can and does point to only one direction to the exclusion of all others, namely, it is the accused appellant alone and nobody else who had committed the crime. 8. We, therefore, cannot find any fault in the reasoning and the eventual conclusion recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 9. The appeal, therefore, has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed.