In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and of conclusive nature, leaving no reasonable ground for belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. The presence of the accused at the crucial time must be established with unimpeachable evidence, and incriminating evidence must be supported by positive proof and FSL reports.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th of November, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 345/93 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

Deceased- Rajan Bai was the wife of the appellant. She was residing with the appellant and mother of the appellant. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to extend monitory help to his sister and brother-in-law (Jija), therefore, the deceased was unhappy and she used to quarrel with the appellant. The allegations are that on account of this, on 12.12.1992 at about 12:00 in the noon the appellant assaulted the deceased by an axe and ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. The case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances on which the learned Session Judge held that the appellant was liable for conviction under Section 302 IPC:

"1. When the witnesses reached to the house of the appellant, mother of the appellant did not tell them that who caused injuries to the deceased.

2. The appellant did not give any explanation as to how the deceased died homicidal death in his house.

3. The appellant had motive to kill the deceased because she used to stop the appellant to give monitory help to his sister and brother-in-law.

4. The appellant ran away from his house immediately after the incident.

5. A Tangiya was seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P-17) on the memorandum statement (Ex-P-16) of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act."

3. Mrs. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. She argued that the above circumstances were not sufficient to hold the appellant guilt of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions case.

6. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have to be fully established and all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should not be capable of being explained and the chain of the circumstantial evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. This is what the Supreme Court said in many cases. Therefore, we ought to be satisfied that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies leave no option but to hold that the crime imputed to the appellant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. Firstly, we shall consider the above motive. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive has greater relevancy or significance, however, the principle is that when positive evidence against the accused is clear in relation to the offence, motive is not of much importance. Mere absence of motive even if assume, will not per-se entitle the accused to acquittal, if otherwise, the commission of the crime is proved by cogent and reliable evidence. In the instant case, though the above motive has been set-forth by the prosecution, but there is absolutely no evidence about the same. There is no evidence that the appellant used to give monitory help to his sister and brother in law; and on this account the deceased used to quarrel with him. Even, otherwise, in our opinion, such small events between husband and wife would hardly become t