PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

(1) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife.

(2) At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the wife of the appellant was brutally murdered in her matrimonial house in the intervening night of 30th and 31st March 1997; the fact that she was murdered is evidenced by the post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A as per which the deceased had received 8 injuries, of which, injury No. 1 was caused by a hard blunt force and the remaining were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Further, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased died due to injury No.4 which had cut the neck of the deceased and that the said injury by itself was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. It was further admitted that there is no evidence of any forced entry into the house or of the presence of any other family member in the house when the wife of the appellant was murdered.

To put it pithily, the contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant centered on the issue: Whether from the evidence on record a finding of guilt could be returned against the appellant?

(3) The learned Trial Judge has returned a finding of guilt on the basis of four circumstances against the appellant. The same are:-

a. That the post-mortem report of the deceased conclusively established a case of homicide.

b. The place where the deceased was killed was the matrimonial house of the deceased.

c. The appellant was absconding and said conduct of absconding was suggestive of the guilt of the appellant.

d. A knife, a darat (straight sickle) and a darati (curved sickle), Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14 recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant as also a kurta Ex.P-15 and a pyjama Ex.P-16 recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant were stained with human blood and the blood on the pyjama, on reaction, revealed it to be of group 'A' which was the blood group of the deceased; and hair recovered from the darati was similar to the hair of the deceased in morphological and microscopical characteristics.

(4) It was urged at the hearing of the appeal that the recoveries of Exs.P-12 to P-16 were from an open field and no public witness was associated with the recovery and hence the recoveries were highly tainted. It was further submitted that mere presence of human blood on four articles recovered and presence of human blood of group 'A' from the fifth was not conclusive of the fact that the said blood was that of the deceased. Pertaining to the forensic examination of the hair of the deceased and the hair found on the darati, learned counsel urged that in the absence of a DNA analysis it could not be said with certainty that the hair recovered from the darati was that of the deceased. Pertaining to the circumstance that the deceased was found murdered in her housed learned counsel urged that there was no evidence that the appellant was seen in his house in the intervening night when his wife was murdered. On the contrary, learned counsel urged, that the testimony of DW-1 established that the appellant stayed in the house of his uncle Jaipal DW-1, in the intervening night of 30th and 31st March 1997. Thus, it was urged that firstly there was evidence of the appellant not being in his matrimonial house in the night when the murder took place; alternatively it was urged that in the absence of any evidence led by the prosecution that the appellant was seen in his house in the intervening night when the murder took place, from the sole circumstance of the appellant's wife being murdered in her matrimonial house, no inference of guilt could be drawn against the appellant. With respect to the circumstance of absconding, learned counsel urged that the testimony of DW-1 established that the appellant was not absconding and that prior to the night when his wife was murdered the appellant was with DW-1 and lived with him till