ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The sole appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2000.

2. The appellant, namely, Omlal Orawn has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2002.

3. Informant of this case is husband of Budhani Urawin, the deceased. The fardbeyan of Shano Urawan was recorded at about 06:30 hrs. on 10.11.1998 at village Gilingda. A First Information Report was registered vide Kuchai P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998 under section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. The informant has alleged that last evening when his wife did not return from work at about 5:00 p.m. he went in search for her. He says that when he reached about 200 yards near the field in village-Mahulbad he noticed the appellant running away from the field. He has found the dead body of his wife drenched in blood and a sickle and spade were lying near her dead body. He has stated that there was previous enmity with the appellant who had threatened to kill his wife.

4. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence; the prosecution has not proved the manner in which Budhani Urawin has been done to death.

5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses; the informant, namely, Shano Urawan is PW-4 and the Investigating Officer is PW-9.

6. Dr. Devendra Jee, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Budhani Urawin:

“(i) Incised injury-2”x 1/2” x 1/2” upon right side of face below ear lobe.

(ii) Incised injury-3” x 1” x 4” vertically placed upon right Maxilla going through right maxillary Antrum.

(iii) Incised injury-1” x 1/2” x 1/2” horizontally placed upon right Maxilla 1/2” below injury No.2.

(iv) Incised injury- 1/2” x 1/2” x full thickness of pinna of right ear including tragus.

(v) Incised injury-3” x 1/2” x 4”- behind the right ear upon masloid bone with fracture of right temporal bone with tearing of the meninges and laceration of the brain matter.”

7. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused within 24 hours; the post-mortem examination was conducted on 10.11.1998 at 11:50 a.m.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to record that the informant has stated that he found one injury on the head of his wife whereas the Doctor has found as many as five incised injuries on the dead body.

9. The prosecution has relied upon two circumstances against the appellant; (i) previous enmity and (ii) the appellant was found fleeing away from the scene of the crime.

10. The law on the circumstantial evidence is well-settled. In “Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. State of Bombay”, reported in “AIR 1960 SC 500”, the Supreme Court has observed thus:

“Circumstantial evidence in this context means, a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt.”

11. In “Charan Singh Vs. The State of U.P.” reported in “AIR 1967 SC 520”, the Supreme Court has observed thus:

“5. It is well established that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person, that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. To put it in other words the chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person see Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091 (AIR 1952 SC 343); and Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570: (AIR 1955 SC 801). In 1952 SCR 1091: (AIR 1952 SC 343), this Court referred further to the danger in such cases that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of lega