In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances, duly established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons, i. e. , the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Prakash Sen against the judgment and order passed by Sri L. C. Banerjee, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore convicting the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 2 (3) of 1986.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows: appellant Prakash Sen married Susama Adhikary (the deceased), daughter of Urmila Adhikary (PW 2) and sister of complainant Anima Adhikary (PW 1) and Archana Adhikary (PW 9) about 9 months before the date of occurrence, i. e. , 6-9-83. After marriage, Prakash and his wife Susama resided in the house of Prakash's father at Japur, Bongaon for 2/3 months and thereafter they lived together in a rented house at Gandhipally, Bongaon. They finally shifted to Madhyamgram where they were living together in a rented house at the time of occurrence.

( 3 ) ON 6-9-83 Prakash and Susama came to the house of Rabi Adhikary (PW 5), son-in-law of PW 1 Anima Adhikary, at Paschimpara, Bongaon in the morning. On the same day in the evening Prakash and Susama came to the house of Putul Sarkar (PW 10) at Japur, Bongaon where Susama's mother Urmila (PW 2) met her daughter and son-in-law and talked with them. After staying for about half an hour Prakash and Susama left the house of Putul Sarkar.

( 4 ) AROUND 7-00 PM. on the same day Susama was found on the road at Peadapara, Bongaon in front of the house of one Subhash Paramanik with her throat cut. She was unable to speak. PW 4 Minati Paramanik removed her to the hospital on a rickshaw at 7-15 P. M. where she expired at 7-20 P. M.

( 5 ) PW 1 Anima Adhikary lodged information with the Bongaon Police Station at 10-18 P. M. on the basis of which the police registered a case. PW 13 S. I. Samir Garai took up investigation of the case. He could not apprehend the appellant inspite of repeated attempts. After completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant showing him as absconder. The appellant was subsequently arrested and in the usual course, the case was committed to the Court of Session.

( 6 ) UPON a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the victim and the accused were found in the house of PW 8 Rabi Adhikary in the morning, that they were found together in the evening in the house of PW 10 Putul Sarkar, that thereafter they were found proceeding towards Peadapara, and that shortly thereafter the victim was found with her throat slit and almost in an unconscious state around 7. 00 P. M. at Peadapara. He has further found that the relation between the appellant and his wife was strained due to the fact that the appellant was unemployed and used to extort money from his wife who was doing tailoring job and sell household articles and the appellant, therefore, had some motive, though weak, for murder of his wife. He also found that the appellant absconded for a long time after the occurrence. The learned Judge felt that these circumstances together with the absence of explanation consistent with the innocence of the appellant formed a complete chain of events which is consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. On such a view of the matter, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

( 7 ) MR. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that there is no evidence in support of the alleged motive and the finding of the learned Judge is based on the statement of PW 8 made to the police and recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. which cannot be used as substantive evidence. He has further contended that the alleged abscondence of the appellant has not been proved and that even if pro