RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6-1-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (for short, “the trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2006, whereby the trial Court after holding the appellants guilty for commission of murder and causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant Pervez Ahmad was driving one Mahendra pick-up vehicle bearing registration number CG-04 CD 6786 rashly and negligently on 21-5-2005 at about 9.00 a.m., near village Kodebod, dashed Bharat Sahu (deceased) and thereafter both the appellants took him to their vehicle for treatment and dead body of Bharat Sahu was found near Marhimatanagar of Raipur at night of 22-5-2005. His dead body was brought to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, for postmortem and after post-mortem it is found that the deceased died due to poison. Viscera of the body was sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur and as per report thereof, poison Carbosulfan was found in his body. Thereafter, the matter was investigated for commission of murder of said Bharat Sahu. Certain seizures were made and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions charged the appellants for the offence mentioned above and in alternative charge under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was also framed against the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty, and therefore, trial was conducted.

3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused/appellants in commission of crime in question, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants have also been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants submits as under:

(I) That the case of the prosecution is based on circumstance of last seen theory, but the evidence is not as such to form basis of conviction;

(ii) That taking the deceased to the hospital was natural and humanly conduct of the appellants and the same is not any incriminating circumstance against them;

(iii) That to justify of conviction in case of death by poisoning it has to be proved by the prosecution that the appellants had poison in their possession but evidence on this count is lacking;

(iv) That there is no connecting piece of evidence against the appellants in this regard and no link in chain of evidence led by the prosecution has been proved and the finding arrived at by the trial Court is perverse.

6. Per contra, State counsel supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court.

7. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. PW/1 Sudama Ram Sahu is a person who reported about the accident by pick up vehicle to Police Station as per Ex.P/1 and signed the map Ex.P/2. PW/2 Ramlal Sahu deposed that Bharat Sahu was going to village Kodebada on his bicycle and one Mahendra Pick-up vehicle dashed his vehicle and both the appellant after alighting from vehicle took the injured Bharat Sahu in their vehic