P.W. 1 happens to be a hearsay witness, as he has testified that when he came to the village after performing his duty, he came to know that the appellant had committed murder of his wife. After knowing all this, when he came to the place of occurrence, he found the appellant present near the dead-body. He has further testified that the appellant at that time was imputing charge against his wife that she was having illicit relationship with someone but this piece of evidence that the appellant, at that point of time, was telling that his wife was having illicit relationship with someone else, does not find corroboration from the earlier statement, wherein it has been stated by the informant-P.W. 1 that the appellant was suspecting that his wife was having illicit relationship with other. Thus, two circumstances are there (i) the appellant was found present near the dead-body having spade on his hands and (ii) he was not allowing the other persons to come near the dead-body but these two circumstances taken together cannot be said to be the circumstances indicating only towards guilt of the appellant alone, as there may be the other reason on account of which the appellant was not allowing the other persons to come near the dead-body.
