JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, in Sessions serial no. 1008 of 2008 (sessions Trial No. 4 (4 of 2009)) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months more has been assailed. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that appellant was married to the victim Purnima Pramanik 16 years prior to the incident. Prior to the marriage appellant had been married to the elder sister of Purnima. From the first marriage, a son named Ashish was born. From the wedlock between the appellant and the deceased another son, Baban, was born to the couple. It is alleged that the appellant used to ill-treated his wife over domestic issues. On 26.07.2007 appellant took the victim for a baul song programme at Nowda Panoor village. They, however, did not return home and on the next day i.e. on 27.01.2007 at around 7 a.m. the dead body of Purnima with bleeding injuries was found in the land of the appellant. Father of Purnima, Naba Kumar Pramanik (since deceased) lodged F.I.R. before Berhampur Police Station being F.I.R. No. 41 of 2007 dated 27.01.2007 under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Inquest and post mortem were held over the dead body of the victim. After the incident appellant was untraceable in the village and during investigation warrant, proclamation and attachment were issued to secure his arrest. Finally, the appellant was arrested on 20th November, 2008 and put on trial. 3. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Berhampur, Murshidabad, for trial and disposal. 4. Charges were framed under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. 6. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. 6. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the self-same judgment and order, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the circumstances proved in the case unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. P.W. 6, scribe of the F.I.R., claimed that it was recorded on the dictates of the police. Seizures allegedly effected from the barber shop of the appellant were not sent for FSL examination. Motive of the crime has not been proved. Evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 10 suffered from embellishments and ought not to be relied upon. Mere abscondence of the appellant cannot be a ground to establish his guilt. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. He relied on various authorities in support of his submission. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 clearly establish that in the evening of 26.01.2007 appellant left with his wife, the victim, from his residence to attend a baul song programme in a nearby village. P.Ws. 5 and 10 saw that the appellant and the victim leaving the musical soiree together. On the next morning, mutilated dead body of the victim was recovered from the cultivable land owned by the appellant. Appellant went missing from his village from the day of occurrence and could not be traced out. In the course of investigation blood stained wearing apparels of the appellant was recovered from his barber shop. These circumstances prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference. 9. P.W.S 7 and 8 are the sons of the appellant. They were present in the house on the fateful night i.e. on 26.01.2007 when the appellant and his wife left for hearing baul songs organised in a nearby village on the occasion of Saraswati Puja. 10. 9. P.W.S 7 and 8 are the sons of the appellant. They were present in the house on the fateful night i.e. on 26.01.2007 when the appellant and his wife left for hearing baul songs organised in a nearby village on the occasion of Saraswati Puja. 10. P.W. 7, Baban Pramanik, deposed on 26.01.2007 at about 7 p.m. his father went to hear baul songs being accompanied by his mother at Nowda Panoor village. They did not return that night. On the next morning, when he was returning home after completion of his private tuition he found that dead body of his mother was lying in the rai crop field beside a high drain. His step brother Ashish, P.W. 8, informed his grandparents and his maternal uncle about the incident. 11. P.W. 8, Ashish Pramanik, also deposed in similar lines and stated at 7 p.m. on 26.01.2007 his parents went to hear baul song at Nowda Panoor village. They did not return at night. In the next morning at about 8 a.m. he heard his mother was lying dead in their mustard seed field beside a high drain. He informed his grand parents and his maternal uncle. They came to the house and rushed to the place of occurrence. He found his mother lying dead with injuries on her forehead and other parts of her body. One of her eyes was uprooted. Prior to her death there was disturbance in the family as their father wanted to discontinue their studies which was resisted by their mother. He also deposed that his grand father Naba Kumar Pramanik, de facto complainant, is no more. 12. In cross-examination, he stated F.I.R. was lodged at Berhampur Police Station by his dadu in writing wherein responsibility for murder of his step mother was fixed on the murderer by mentioning his name. Thereafter he stated that his dadu lodged another F.I.R. at the p.o. 13. Evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is corroborated by P.W. 2, Dilip Pramanik, cousin of the appellant and P.W. 3, Dinanath Datta, a co-villager. P.W. 2 deposed the appellant had taken the victim to hear baul songs at Nowda Panoor village. They did not return at night. On the next morning he got information that dead body of the victim was found in the rai crop field of the appellant. P.W. 2 deposed the appellant had taken the victim to hear baul songs at Nowda Panoor village. They did not return at night. On the next morning he got information that dead body of the victim was found in the rai crop field of the appellant. He reached the spot and found stab injury on the head of the victim. Her head was broken. Appellant was untraceable in the village. 14. P.W.3, Dina Nath Datta, a co-villager deposed that there was disturbance in the matrimonial life of the appellant as the latter wanted to discontinue the studies of his children which was resisted by his wife, the victim. On 26.1.2007 he saw the appellant accompanying his wife towards Nowda Panoor to hear baul songs. On the next day, he received information relating to the death of the victim whose dead body was found in the rai crop field of the appellant near southern side of the village. Police came to the spot and prepared inquest report. He signed on the inquest report. Police also seized one stained pant and shirt from the barbar shop of the appellant situated at Katabagan market. 15. P.W.1, Bijay Kumar Pramanik is the brother of the victim and P.W.4, Shibani Pramanik is her mother. Both the witnesses deposed that the victim was married to the appellant and there was disturbance during her matrimonial life. At around 8.00 a.m. they received information that the dead body of the victim was lying in the rai crop field of the appellant. They rushed to the spot and found stab injuries on the forehead of the victim. They deposed that the children of the victim disclosed the incident to them. P.W.1 signed on the inquest report. 16. P.W.4, Shibani Pramanik, however, in cross-examination stated that the appellant had doubted the fidelity of the victim and hence used to torture on her. 17. P.W.5, Naba Kumar Paramanik, is a resident of village Nowda Panoor village. He deposed baul song programme was organized in their village on the occasion of Saraswati puja. He had seen the appellant and the victim during the baul song programme. At 10/10.30 P.M. the appellant left the spot with his wife. 18. In cross-examination, he stated there were sitting arrangements for male and female audience in the programme. There were 60/70 male audience. Programme commenced from 7/7.30 P.M. and continued upto 12/1.00 mid night. He had seen the appellant and the victim during the baul song programme. At 10/10.30 P.M. the appellant left the spot with his wife. 18. In cross-examination, he stated there were sitting arrangements for male and female audience in the programme. There were 60/70 male audience. Programme commenced from 7/7.30 P.M. and continued upto 12/1.00 mid night. Ajit Pramanik and his wife were sitting in front of his house as the surroundings stage was crowded. 19. P.W.10, Pradip Chanda is a co-villager of the appellant who deposed he had also gone to Nowda Panoor village to hear baul songs. He left the function at 10.00 P.M. While returning home from Nowda Panoor to Kadamati, he saw Ajit Paramanik riding a bi-cycle with his wife as a pillion rider. 20. P.W.9, Dr. Swapan Kumar Mondal held the post mortem over the dead body of the victim on 27.2.2007 and found the following injuries; "1. Severe lacerated injury over face involving whole of the face. Both the eyes are severely injured. 2. Frontal bone is factured." 21. He opined that death of the victim was due to cardio respiratory failure due to shock and hemorrhage from above mentioned injuries which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He proved the post mortem report. 22. P.W.6, Ajay Mondal is the scribe of the first information report. He, however, was declared hostile. He stated he wrote the complaint at the instruction of the police. 23. P.W.13, Chandan Kumar Das, S.I. of Police was attached to Berhampore Police Station on the date of incident. He deposed he received one written complaint from one Nabakumar Pramanik and filled up the formal first information report. Investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.15. 24. P.W.12 to P.W.15 are the police officers who investigated the case. 25. P.W.15, Habibar Rahaman is the first investigating officer. He deposed he went to the place of occurrence, drew up rough sketch map with index, Ext.6. He held inquest over the dead body of the victim, Ext.1/2. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination through P.W.11. 24. P.W.12 to P.W.15 are the police officers who investigated the case. 25. P.W.15, Habibar Rahaman is the first investigating officer. He deposed he went to the place of occurrence, drew up rough sketch map with index, Ext.6. He held inquest over the dead body of the victim, Ext.1/2. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination through P.W.11. He seized two light green coloured printed socks, one of which was blood stained, one green and reddish coloured woolen mufler, one piece of 'shankha', one check full-shirt with blood stains in some parts, one pair black ladies footwear and one deep flower printed ladies 'chadar', one pair of light blue 'Hawai chappal' with blood stains, blood stained soil under a seizure list, Ext.8 at the place of occurrence. He identified the articles in Court. He seized blood/mud stained full pant from the saloon of the appellant under a seizure list, Ext.7. He could not trace out the appellant. Upon transfer, he handed over the investigation to the I.C. Berhampore Police Station. 26. P.W.12, Arup Kumar Roy is the second investigating officer. He tried to arrest the appellant but as the appellant had absconded, he prayed for issuance of warrant, proclamation attachment before the court against the appellant. Subsequently, upon transfer, he handed over investigation to I.C. Berhampore Police Station. 27. P.W.14, Abul Kasem was also unable to apprehend the accused and submitted charge sheet against the appellant as absconder. 28. These are the prosecution evidence on record. Evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 sons of the appellant along with P.W.2, his cousin and P.W.3, a neighbour establish beyond doubt that on 26.1.2007 at 7.00 P.M., the appellant had left his residence with his wife to attend a programme of baul songs organised at Nowda Panoor village on the occasion of Saraswati Puja. The couple did not return home that night. The aforesaid witnesses have withstood the extensive cross-examination apart from minor contradictions. Hence, their consistent versions have wholly established the aforesaid fact. 29. P.W.5 is a resident of Nowda Panoor village. He deposed that baul song ceremony was held in his village in the evening of 26.1.2007. Large number of people had assembled and as appellant and the victim were unable to find a suitable place amongst the audience, they were sitting in front of his house and watching the programme. 29. P.W.5 is a resident of Nowda Panoor village. He deposed that baul song ceremony was held in his village in the evening of 26.1.2007. Large number of people had assembled and as appellant and the victim were unable to find a suitable place amongst the audience, they were sitting in front of his house and watching the programme. They left the place around 10/10.30 P.M. The evidence of P.W.5 has been criticized with regard to omissions in his earlier statement to the police and the improbability of the said witness noticing the couple amongst the large congregation which had assembled to hear baul songs. 30. I have analysed the evidence of the said witness with due care and circumspection in the light of the aforesaid objections raised by the appellant. The couple was a resident of Kadamati village while P.W.5 was a resident of Nowda Panoor village - an adjoining village. Hence, it is not unlikely that the appellant would be known to P.W.5. That apart, P.W.5 in cross-examination explained that the couple was unable to find a place near the stage and were sitting in front of his house and watching the programme. The aforesaid facts and circumstances establish the credibility of the said witness that he had not only seen the couple watching the said programme sitting in front of his house but had seen them leave the spot at around 10/10.30 P.M. The evidence of the aforesaid witness is corroborated by P.W.10, a co-villager of the appellant. He had also come to watch baul songs at Nowda Panoor village. P.W.10 left the soiree for his residence at Kadamati around 10.00 P.M. While he was returning to Kadamati, he found the appellant riding a bi-cycle with his wife as a pillion rider down the road. The aforesaid witnesses, therefore, unequivocally establish not only the presence of the couple at the baul song ceremony but also the fact that they departed from the said soiree around 10/10.30 P.M. and proceeded towards Kadamati. 31. However, the couple never returned home. In the early hours of the next day, the mutilated dead body of the victim was found in the mustard seed field of the appellant. Her body was discovered by the villagers as well as her son, P.w.7. P.W.8 her step son telephoned her parents and brother who rushed to the spot. 31. However, the couple never returned home. In the early hours of the next day, the mutilated dead body of the victim was found in the mustard seed field of the appellant. Her body was discovered by the villagers as well as her son, P.w.7. P.W.8 her step son telephoned her parents and brother who rushed to the spot. Police was informed about the incident and inquest was held over her body. P.W.13 deposed Naba Kumar Pramanik, father of the victim, lodged written complaint at police station. 32. It is argued FIR has not been proved in this case. P.W.6, the scribe, was declared hostile, and stated FIR was written on the dictates of the police. P.W.8 also prevaricated with regard to the place where complaint was handed over to police. Naba Kumar Pramanik, de facto complainant and father of the victim, could not be examined as he had expired in the meantime. However, in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, namely, brother and mother of the victim, with regard to the circumstances in which they along with the de facto complainant had come to know of the incident from P.W.s 7 and 8 which is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and in view of the deposition of P.W.13 who stated he received written complaint from Naba Kumar Pramanik at police station, I am of the opinion the contrarian evidence of the hostile witness does not cause a dent to the prosecution case. 33. P.W.9, post-mortem doctor found severe lacerated injuries on her head fracture and opined that the death of the victim was due to above noted injuries due to ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 34. Evidence has also come on record that since the fateful night, the appellant was untraceable in the village and had been declared a proclaimed offender till his arrest two years after the incident. 35. From the aforesaid evidence on record it appears that the couple had left their residence at 7.00 p.m. to attend the baul song ceremony which was organized at Nawda Panoor and had been last seen leaving the said ceremony and going to their village together around 10/10.30 P.M. by P.W.5 and P.W.10. Subsequently, her dead body was discovered in the mustard seed field of the appellant around 8.00 a.m. on the next day. Subsequently, her dead body was discovered in the mustard seed field of the appellant around 8.00 a.m. on the next day. The close proximity between the time when the appellant and the victim were last seen together by P.W.5 and P.W.10 and the discovery of her dead body in the early hours of the next morning clearly establishes the live link between the last seen "circumstance" and the ghastly homicidal death suffered by the housewife. Proximity between the two events firmly establishes the culpability of the appellant. It rules out the possibility of involvement of any other person in the murder of the victim particularly in the backdrop of the appellant failing to explain away the circumstances leading to the homicidal death of his wife. The aforesaid factual background is rendered further sinister by the abscondence of the appellant from the village immediately after the incident. Since the fateful incident the appellant was not traceable in his village. Repeated efforts on the part of the investigating agency to apprehend him also came to naught and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Hence, I am constrained to hold that in the factual backdrop of the case abscondence of the appellant soon after the incident is an additional circumstance establishing his guilt and proving the prosecution case beyond doubt. 36. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant on Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 754 in support of the proposition that mere abscondence of an accused cannot be a ground to infer guilt. There is no quarrel with the proposition that abscondence per se cannot be a ground to hold the accused guilty of the offence 37. On the other hand, abscondence must be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the cited report, there was no evidence that the victim and the accused had been seen together immediately before the incident. Extra judicial confession of the accused was not believed as it militated against other circumstances. In the backdrop of such weak and unconvincing evidence on record, the court was not persuaded to come to a finding of guilt merely on the abscondence of the accused. In the present case, there is clinching evidence that the appellant and the victim had left the residence together on the previous night to attend a musical programme. In the backdrop of such weak and unconvincing evidence on record, the court was not persuaded to come to a finding of guilt merely on the abscondence of the accused. In the present case, there is clinching evidence that the appellant and the victim had left the residence together on the previous night to attend a musical programme. They were seen leaving the musical programme and proceeding to their village together around 10/10.30 P.M. On the next morning mutilated body of the victim was found in the field of the appellant and the appellant was untraceable from the village since then. Abscondence of the appellant in the present case when viewed in the light of other incriminating circumstances assumes significance. Furthermore, during trial appellant failed to explain whether he parted company from his wife with whom he was last seen proceeding towards their village as also about his whereabouts since then till his arrest two years after the incident. 38. Hence, I am of the opinion abscondence of the accused in the present case is an additional circumstance which militates against his innocence and reinforces his guilt in the factual backdrop of the case and the aforesaid authority is of little assistance to him. 39. The other authority, Ganpat Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2017) 16 SCC 353 cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, is also factually distinguishable from the instant case. In the said report, unlike the present case, there was a long gap between the last seen theory and the death of the victim. Body of the victim was recovered seven days after the incident and time of death was also not proved by medical evidence. Recovery of the articles belonging to the victim were not identified during trial. In the light of the aforesaid gaps in the chain of circumstances the court refused to convict the appellant. The factual matrix discussed above establish beyond doubt the close proximity between the 'last seen' theory and the homicidal death of the victim in this case which occurred within a couple of hours of one another. Hence, I am of the view the aforesaid authority cannot come to the aid of the appellant. 40. Finally it is argued motive of crime has been proved. Motive to commit crime no doubt is an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, I am of the view the aforesaid authority cannot come to the aid of the appellant. 40. Finally it is argued motive of crime has been proved. Motive to commit crime no doubt is an important factor in a case based on circumstantial evidence. However, if the circumstances in a case form a complete chain which leave no doubt in one's mind with regard to culpability of the accused, mere absence of motive, in my considered opinion, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case as a whole. 41. Circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case form a complete chain and establish the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt and rules out any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 43. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 44. I find that the appellant does not have criminal antecedents and has roots in the society. These circumstances, though not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of his conviction and sentence in the present case, may be taken into consideration by the appropriate government authority in the event the appellant makes a prayer for remission of his sentence upon completion of 14 years of imprisonment in terms of Section 432 read with Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 45. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 46. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 47. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities. I agree.