The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of the injured witness, the circumstantial evidence, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC.

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C. the accused/appellant has questioned legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2001, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in S.T. No. 433/ 2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 307 and 302 of the IPC, for attempting to commit murder of his wife namely, Khoiti Bai and committing the murder of his son Karamsai aged about 10 months, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to undergo imprisonment for life, respectively. It was further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Khoiti Bai (P.W. 5) was married to the accused/appellant and there was son Karamsai, aged about 10 months out of the wedlock. Their relations became straind, as the accused did not want to keep Khoiti Bai therefore, Khoiti Bai filed a case in the Court. After 7 months, the matter was compromised. Khoiti Bai started residing with the accused in village Duppi. On the fateful day i.e. 2-10-2000, on the occasion of Nayakhani festival, father of Khoiti Bai invited them on feast, therefore, Khoiti Bai and the accused along with their 10 months child were going to village Markadadh. When they were on the way in the forest of Dhandhapur, the accused attacked twice his wife Khoiti Bai on the back side of her neck with knife with intention to cause her death, as a result of which Khoiti Bai sustained injuries on the neck and her 10 months old child Karamsai fell down. The accused turned towards Karamsai and attacked him with same knife on his neck. In order to save her life, Khoiti Bai ran away from the place of occurrence and informed villagers Ramlaxman (P.W. 1). After providing water to her, he took her to the Police Station Rajpur where Khoiti Bai lodged first information report Ex. P/19 in the said police station.

3. Assistant Sub Inspector S.L. Kaushik after registering offence under Section 307 of the IPC took up investigation. The Investigating Officer after giving notice Ex. P/3 to the Panchas, prepared inquest Ex. P/4 on the body of Karamsai. While in the police custody the accused gave memorandum Ex. P/6, in pursuance of that, knife stained with blood, weapon of offence, was seized under Ex. P/5. One full shirt and one Lungi stained with blood of the accused were seized under ex. P/7. One Hero cycle was seized under Ex. P/8. Articles which were lying on the spot were seized under Ex. P/9. Blood stained clothes of injured Khoiti Bai were seized under Ex. P/10. Cloihes of the child were seized under Ex. P/1 1. The body of Karamsai was sent for postmortem examination to the Government Hospital, Rajpur under Ex. P/12-A where Dr. Pritam Ram conducted post-mortem and opined that cause of death of Karamsai was syncope due to severe haemorrhage from incised wound on neck. He further opined that death was homicidal in nature. Khoiti Bai was also sent for medical examination under Ex. P/13. Dr. Pritam Ram examined her injuries. He noticed 2 incised wounds on neck. He prepared injury report Ex. P/l3-A. Knife in question was also sent for examination to Dr. Pritam Ram, who after examination of knife, prepared report Ex. P/14-A and opined that injuries found on the bodies of Khoiti Bai and Karamsai could be caused by the said knife. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar from where report Ex. P/29 was received.

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial.

5. In order to establish the charges against the accused the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded