Is absolute perfection in proof to be insisted to record/uphold a verdict of guilty and conviction? Is there any distinction between the "belief" in the existence of a fact by a court and its satisfaction "that a prudent person ought to proceed on the supposition that such fact exists"? Is such "belief" invariably to be insisted in all criminal cases? In the wake of the same definition for the expression`proved' in Civil and Criminal trials under Section 3 of the Evidence Act how can the traditional insistence on a superior probative satisfaction in a criminal trial - that of proof beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, be justified?

2. These thoughts are aroused in our mind incidentally in this case, where the appellant challenges the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in an indictment for uxoricide under Section 302 IPC.

3. The prosecution alleged that the appellant herein has caused the death of his wife Jessy @ Jessamma, who was nine months' pregnant, on 30.4.2002 at about 1.30 a.m. by inflicting multiple injuries on her by stabbing her with a sharp knife - MO11. The prosecution alleged that such injuries were inflicted by the accused on his wife on account of suspicion regarding her chastity.

4. A crime was registered on the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement lodged by PW1, a neighbour at 11 a.m. on 30.4.2002, the offence having been committed earlier at 1.30 a.m. on that day. Exhibit P1(a) FIR was registered and PW17 after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet (final report) against the accused.

5. In all, the prosecution had relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 17, Exts.P1 to P20 and M.Os 1 to 11. The accused had adduced the evidence of DW1 as a defence witness. The prosecution relied on 8 circumstances, which we shall narrate later, to drive home its case against the accused.

6. Though the prosecution expected to place before court evidence in support of the said eight circumstances and examined PWs 1 to 17, in support of its case, the major chunk of the so called independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution leaving the prosecution in a helpless situation. The prosecution was constrained to contend that though the evidence that they had expected to adduce could not be adduced, sufficient evidence has been adduced of circumstances which clearly show that the offence alleged against the accused has been proved.

7. PW1, the neighbour who lodged Exhibit P1 First Information Statement turned hostile to the prosecution with impunity. He tendered evidence against his own version in Exhibit P1 as also the crucial portions of the case diary statement which he had allegedly given before the Investigating Officer. PW1 was not an eye witness. He was a neighbour, who was allegedly informed about the incident by PW14, the son of the accused. He then had allegedly rushed to the house of the accused and there the accused allegedly stated that the deceased had inflicted the injuries on herself. This version was completely disowned by PW1 and he was declared hostile and cross-examined.

8. PWs 2, 3 and 5 supported the prosecution case. They are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to show that the accused had a motive to do away with his wife. In short, the motive is that the accused had suspected the chastity of his pregnant wife-the deceased. His suspicion was that PW5 was having an illicit relationship with her.

9. PW4, a neighbour, was examined by the prosecution with a view to prove its case that he had come to the scene immediately after the occurrence and the accused had advanced a version that the deceased had inflicted injuries on herself. This witness also did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile.

10. PW6 is an attestor to the inquest report Ext.P2. M.Os 1 to 3, the articles found on the dead body, were seized under Ext.P2.

11. PWs 14 and 15 are children of the deceased and the accused. As stated earlier, the prosecution wanted to examine