MILAP CHANDRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated October 30, 1982, by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus: On September 30, 1977, Durga Narain (P. W. 9) submitted report (Ex. P. 4) in the Police Station, Gangrar (Chittorgarh) stating that a dead body in a decomposed condition was lying near the well of village Tersta. Proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code were commenced. During these proceedings, it was found that the dead body was of Mst. Rami, wife of the accused and that she was a victim of murder. Thereupon, F. I. R. (Ex. P. 28) was recorded registering the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and usual investigation was commenced. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Goverdhan Lal (P. W. 10 ). He prepared the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 8) and opined that the cause of death was injuries to vital organs and the big vessels. On opening the house of the deceased, blood was found on the walls, cot and on a rope. The accused appellant was not available and was said to be absconding. The prosecution case, further, was that the accused had illicit relations with his brothers wife which was resented to by the deceased. On account of this, quarrels used to take place between them. This according to the prosecution, was the motive for committing the murder of Mst. Rami. At first a challan under Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed. The accused Girdhari Lal was arrested on February 21, 1981. He gave information (Ex. P. 11) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereof certain ornaments, said to be belonging to the deceased Mst. Rami, were recovered After completing the investigation, a supplementary challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh.

( 3 ) THE accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also produced and proved 34 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused admitted that Mst. Rami was his wife. He denied having committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. He stated that he had gone out of his village in connection with his service. He produced no evidence in his defence. After trial the Sessions Judge, by the judgment under appeal, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the circumstances proved against the accused make out a case that it was he who committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rami. Aggrieved by this the accused has preferred the present appeal in this court.

( 4 ) THE accused was unrepresented and, therefore, Shri Suresh Kumbhat, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curaie, to argue the appeal on behalf of the accused. We have heard the Amicus Curaie and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned Amicus Curaie has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused and the deceased had slept in their house in the night of occurrence or that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. There is also no evidence that the accused had left his house after locking it from outside. The prosecution has, also failed to prove that Mst. Rami was wearing at the time of murder or immediately before it, the ornaments, Article 1 to 5, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. He has also contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused had absconded Even otherwise, submits learned Amicus Curaie, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the murder of