JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, in Sessions Case No. 130/B of 1996-97 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life is impugned in this Criminal Appeal.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as an Assistant Driver in the Indian Railways and at the time of occurrence he was posted at Bolangir. About one and half months prior to the date of occurrence the appellant had taken a house on rent near the Railway Station Road belonging to the informant (P.W.1) and he was staying in the said rented house with his wife M. Jayalaxmi (deceased) and two small children. In the evening of 20.8.1996 the deceased was seen alive by the informant and his wife (P.W.2). The informant's family was staying nearby. On 21.8.1996 till 11 a.m., wife of the informant (P.W.2) did not see the deceased and she intimated the said fact to the informant (P.W.1). Though the informant did not give much empha¬sis on this information,however, at about 1.30 p.m. P.W.2 discov¬ered that the back door of the rented house of the appellant had been closed from inside and blood was seeping out under the door leaves of the back door. Thereafter P.W.2 informed the said fact to the informant and they asked the appellant as to why blood was seeping through the back door as well as whereabouts of the de¬ceased. The further case of the prosecution is that on being questioned, the appellant admitted to have killed his wife on the previous night because of domestic quarrel. The informant there¬after lodged an F.I.R. in Bolangir Town Police Station. Investi¬gation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge sheet for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was submitted.

3. The appellant took the plea of denial and no specific defence plea was advanced by him.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has exam¬ined as many as 14 witnesses in all, out of whom P.W.1 is the informant and P.W.2 is the wife of the informant. P.W.3 is an advocate and all the three above witnesses are stated to be the witnesses to an extra-judicial confession. P.Ws.10 and 11 are Doctors who conducted the post mortem examination. Rests of the witnesses are all seizure witnesses and police officials.

5. The trial Court relying on the conduct of the appellant after the occurrence as well as the evidence with regard to leading to discovery of weapon of offence and other materials found the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted him thereunder.

6. Mr. S. S. Rao learned counsel for the appellant chal¬lenged the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the evidence with regard to extra judicial confession is not at all acceptable and the only other evidence left to be considered by the Court is that the appellant led the police for recovery of certain articles including the weapon of offence. It was further contended by Shri Rao that since the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had not been able to prove all the circumstances which can ultimately lead to a con¬clusion that the appellant is the author of the crime. It was further contended that the chain of circumstances was neither complete nor was there any material to show that it was the appellant alone who could have committed the offence.

7. The learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the death being homicidal, the Court has to look to the conduct of the appellant immediately after the occur¬rence and on considering such conduct of the appellant as well as the fact that he led the police for recovery of weapon of offence and other materials, conviction of the appellant passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir should be maintained.

8. From the analysis of the prosecution case as laid before the trial Court, it appears that the prosecution relied on circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant. The first circums