and they were aware of the search of the appellant and therefore, they could nab the appellant at Secunderabad. He was brought to Mumbai and thereafter, PW-10 Balasaheb Jadhav arrested him on 31.3.2008 i.e. almost three months after the incident. From the evidence of PW-7 Vishnu Darade, Police Head Constable of Tilak Nagar Police Station, it is brought on record that on 1.1.2008 the appellant went to the police station to lodge a missing complaint of his wife Jyoti that Jyoti had not come home since last two days. Then he went to Bar and found her. This shows that if his wife was not found, the appellant was keen to get her back and therefore, he went to the police station and lodged complaint. However, the prosecution case unfolds that body of Jyoti was found on 3.1.2008 and since then, appellant Raju did not enquire about his wife. He did not go to any police station, he did not find out Jyoti and did not try to contact his wife Jyoti. This behaviour of the appellant Raju is totally inconsistent with his prior conduct of going to police station, giving non-cognizable case about his wife as she had not returned home since last two days before the incident. The appellant was found at Secunderabad. If the person is not found and absconding, itself is not a circumstance in isolation to be considered against him, however, considering the entire scenario of the circumstances and the totality of the evidence produced by the prosecution on record, we are of the view that this is also an incriminating circumstance
