In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence should be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

( 1 ) THE appellant Vinod Kumar has been convicted of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Meera and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) THERE are no eye witnesses of the incident. The case is based entirely on circumstancial evidence.

( 3 ) VINOD and Meera were married in the year 1983. They were living as tenants in the house of Dharam Singh. Both were working. Meera was working with Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Vinod at a garment factory of Shiv Dayal. It is alleged that on 4th May, 1987 at about 8. 30 p. m. Vinod went to the factory where Meera was working and brought her home. At about 10 p. m. Dharam Singh saw Vinod sitting on a Cot in his room in the darkness and learning that electric connection was out of order, asked Vinod to take a diya or candle from him but he did not take anything. Vinod went to his factory at about 12 mid night after killing his wife and remained there till next morning. On 5th May, 1987 at about 8 a. m. Vinod raised an alarm and asked the neighbours to see as to what had happened to his wife. The alarm attracted the neighbours and Dharam Singh his 698 landlord. Vinod did not call any Doctor nor made attempts to call the police. Someone else informed the police. Vinod also went to his employer Shiv Dayal and told him that his wife has been bitten by snake and had died. On request of Vinod Shiv Dayal cleared his accounts after making the payments. Sub-Inspector Ram Pal Singh reached the house and found the body of Meera lying on a cot and on the body some neem leaves had also been put. No injury was visible except finger tip of the right middle finger was found cut with blade. The dead body was sent for post-martem to All India Institute of Medical Science and after collection of the post-martem report, case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered on 20th May, 1987 and the Vinod was arrested.

( 4 ) APART from the examination of police officials the prosecution examined PW-1 Girija Shanker Pandey, Supervisor working in M/s. Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd. where Meera was working, Dharam Singh, PW-2 being landlord of Vinod, Shiv Dayal,pw-3 in whose garment factory Vinod was working and PW-11 Sub-Inspector Ram Pal Singh Investigating Officer of the case. In defence the accused examined Santosh Kumar, DW-1, brother of the deceased Meera.

( 5 ) THE disclosure statement of the accused Exhibit PW-8 / C was also recorded. The same was, however, not taken into consideration against Vinod for his conviction as no recovery was made after recording of the disclosure statement. It was rightly held to be not admissible. The circumstances on the basis of which Vinod was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge are these: 1. The accused brought the deceased Smt. Meera from the Vikram Overseas Pvt. Ltd. at about 8. 30 p. m. 2. At about 10 p. m. accused was found sitting on the Cot in darkness in his room and despite asking by Dharam Singh he did not lit "diya" or Candle. 3. At about 12 p. m. he went again to the factory and stayed there at night upto 8 a. m. without being on duty there. 4. The accused went to his house at about 8 a. m. on 5th May, 1988 and raised alarm that his wife has been bitten by snake in the presence of neighbours. 5. He did not call any Doctor Jior did he try to see the body of the deceased to find out, as to what had happened to her. 6. He went to his employer Shiv Dayal, told him that his wife had been bitten by a snake and she died and got his account cleared showing his intention to leave the place. 7. He himself did not lodge any report with the police.

( 6 ) THE legal principles for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence are well settled inseries of decisions of High Courts and the Apex Court. Acase which rests upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; the circumstance should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointin