Kamat, J. - In Sessions Case No. 32/91 by the Judgment and Order dated 26th May/7th June 1993 the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered his wife Geeta and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals against his conviction.

2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that between 1.30 p.m. on 14th December 1990 to 8.30a.m. on 15th December 1990 in Room No. 204 of Hotel Four Pillars, Panaji, Goa he intentionally caused the death by strangulating his wife Geeta and quietly left for Bombay by bus in the afternoon of 15th December 1990.

3. Prosecution case unfolded suggests that the appellant and his wife Geeta arrived from Bangalore at Panaji, Goa on the morning of 14th December 1990 and sought a room at Tourist Hostel run by the Goa Tourism Development Corporation. As the Tourist Hostel could not accommodate the couple the same Hostel arranged a room at the hotel known as Four Pillars by accepting an advance rent of Rs. 150/- under a receipt. The couple accordingly checked in Hotel Four Pillars upon allotment of room No. 204. The couple was last seen in the hotel for service of tea about at about 11.00 a.m. on that day. On the next morning at about 8.30 the Receptionist complained to the owner that there was no answer from room No. 204. Police were alerted and when the door was opened with the help of some key, Geeta was found dead lying on the bed covered up - to the nock with white bed - sheet. The wheels of investigation started and upon assistance of Bangalore Police appellant was apprehended, at Malad, Bombay on 15th January 1991 in front of Dipa Cinema Theatre. Accordingly the appellant was taken in custody and handed over to Goa Police.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the evidence has proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as admittedly there is no eye - witness or direct evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is by now well settled that such evidence must satisfy three main tests (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.

A conviction can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence when there can be no explanation for any other hypothesis than - that of the guilt of the accused and it should be not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but must be incompatible with his innocence.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has found the following circumstantial evidence against the accused:

(i) The accused and the deceased having been seen last by the mother of the deceased on 13.12.1990 leaving together at 6 p.m.;

(ii) The accused and the deceased coming to Panaji on 14.12.1990 in the morning and being accommodated in hotel Four Pillars and identification by three witnesses;

(iii) Entry in hotel register of Four Pillars, specimen and admitted handwritings of the accused and the opinion of the Handwriting Expert;

(iv) Clothes MO 2 and MO 3 of the accused found in Room No. 204, as well as the suit case No. 1;

(v) Key of Room No. 204 of hotel Four Pillars found at Mali Jetty from where buses used to go to Bombay.

(vi) Sale of Gold chains to goldsmith at Ghatkopar, Bombay on 15.12.1990 at 7 p.m. and

(vii) Falsity of defence."

6. When this appeal was being heard several doubts have been raised on behalf of the appellant as also great suspicion cast in the matter of collection of evidence and investigation. The chain of events starting from the time the couple, that is, the appellant and his wife Geeta, left Bangalore on 13.12.1990, the discovery of the dead body of Geeta on