(first wife), the appellant committed murder of the deceased by strangulation. Furthermore, Ganeshwari Bai (PW-08) in her statement before the Court has clearly stated that the deceased, who was her sister, was the first wife of the appellant and, on the will and consent of her parents, the appellant has engaged her as his second wife and brought her to his house and, further, prior to the incident, she was also living with the appellant and the deceased in one house. She has further stated that on the date and time of the offence, she was sleeping with the appellant (her husband) and children in one room, whereas the deceased was sleeping in the parchi of the house alongwith her son- Aditya (PW16). As such, since Ganeshwari Bai (PW-08) was residing with the appellant, as he has brought her to his house though he was already legally married with the deceased, therefore, the relationship between the appellant and the deceased on that ground was not cordial is clearly established and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is also correct find of fact based on evidence. Thus, motive of the offence on the part of the appellant is duly found established. However, it is well settled law that motive may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence, but it cannot take place of conclusive proof. (See: Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri2 ). In a recent decision rendered in the matter of
