As per case facts, the appellant, a retired lineman, was habituated to alcohol and frequently quarrelled with and assaulted his wife, Rekha. On the incident day, he abused and beat ... Rekha. Later, their daughter found Rekha dead with stab injuries inside their home. The appellant absconded and was later found having self-inflicted a knife injury. The appeal contested the conviction, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was incomplete, there were no eye-witnesses, motive was not proven, and forensic evidence was inconclusive. The question arose whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant's guilt, ruling out any other hypothesis of innocence. Finally, the appellate court found the homicidal death, prior ill-treatment, last-seen evidence (Rekha returning home where the appellant was present shortly before her death), and the appellant's abscondence, along with his failure to explain the fatal injuries, formed a consistent chain. These circumstances, combined with the Medical Officer's opinion, unerringly pointed to the appellant's guilt, confirming the conviction.