MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2010 by which the appellant has been held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case, FIR and the charge sheet and also the impugned judgment is that on 14.03.2010, at about 9-10 pm, the appellant, his wife-Kurami Hidme (the deceased) and many other villagers met in the house of one Smt. Kurami Hurrey (PW-3) and all of them consumed Tadi (locally made intoxicant). After consumption of the liquor, the deceased did not proceed to her house and went to sleep in the house of Smt. Kurami Hurrey (PW-3) only which annoyed the appellant. When the deceased did not proceed to her house, the appellant gave her blow on the right temporal part of the head resulting in fatal injury and death.

3. Merg intimation (Exhibit P-5) was recorded at 9:40 pm on 15.03.2010 in Police Station Sukma on the information of Kurami Deva (PW-1) that the appellant, the deceased and others consumed liquor. The deceased being in a highly intoxicated state, slept in his house and when the appellant asked her to go back home which was not accepted, the appellant gave a blow on the temporal part of the head of the deceased due to which she died. First Information Report (Exhibit P-6) of the incident was already recorded at 09:35 pm by the police of Police Station Sukma on the report of Kurami Deva (PW-1) that the appellant had murdered his wife. After inquest of the dead body, the same was sent for postmortem. Dr. R.P.S. Paikra (PW-8) conducted the postmortem in which he opined that the death was homicidal in nature. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of materials contained in the charge sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant alleging commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant abjured guilt and demanded trial. The appellant having abjured the guilt was subjected to trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him led by the prosecution. The appellant denied having committed any offence and stated that he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as described above.

5. Assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant has been convicted only on suspicion which, however grave, cannot take place of truth. He submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution has failed to prove circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt by excluding every hypothesis of innocence of the appellant. He further argues that even according to the prosecution, the dead body of the deceased-Kurami Hidme was found in the room of the house of Kurami Hurrey (PW-3) and is not a case where the deceased was in the exclusive company of the appellant in her own house. There were number of persons who had consumed liquor and in the absence of there being any direct evidence of the appellant having inflicted any injury, mere presence of the appellant at the spot where the dead body was found lying, without there being any strong motive for commission of any such overt act, it is highly doubtful whether the injury was inflicted by the appellant who was the husband of th