JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. In this appeal, Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate appears under instructions from Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the appellant as also Shri R.V. Jajwade, Advocate who was requested to assist the Court yesterday when there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd October 2011 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month.

3. The prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case is that the dead body of deceased Dr. Gopal Vishwas was found by the side of Arpa River in village-Thakurdeva, which led to initiation of proceedings of inquest by the police after giving notices to the witnesses. The dead body was sent for postmortem and postmortem was conducted and a report in that regard was prepared by Dr. A.K. Sanyal (PW-4). Upon examination of the deceased, which comprised of internal as well as external examination, injuries were found and according to the doctor, death was as a result of head injury caused within 24 hrs. and was homicidal in nature. During inquiry, present appellant and another co-accused Gambhir Nishad emerged as suspects. The weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence was said to have been seized from co-accused Gambhir. As far as present appellant is concerned, prosecution case was that he was also involved in the alleged incident of murder of deceased Gopal along with co-accused Gambhir and blood stained clothes of the appellant were also seized from his possession in the presence of witnesses. A mobile phone said to be owned by deceased-Gopal was also seized from Kaliram (PW-2). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Appellant Tillu @ Shiv Kumar Nishad and co-accused Gambhir Nishad @ Rupendra Nishad both were tried for alleged commission of offence of murder of Dr. Gopal. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court convicted both appellant-Tillu and co-accused Gambhir based on recovery, last seen and a motive on the part of Gambhir to kill the deceased. This conviction of the accused gave rise to two appeals, one filed by accused/appellant-Tillu and other by co-accused Gambhir Nishad.

4. The two appeals were listed for hearing together but later on, appellant-accused Gambhir in CRA No. 840 of 2011 died, therefore, his appeal stands abated and this order shall govern disposal of CRA No. 174 of 2011 filed by appellant-Tillu @ Shiv Kumar Nishad.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned trial Court has ordered conviction of Tillu @ Shiv Kumar Nishad on extremely doubtful circumstantial evidence, which has failed to translate suspicion into truth so as to warrant conviction. Contention is that the prosecution case of recovery of blood stained shirt and pant of the present appellant from his possession is not free from doubt because the manner in which the independent witnesses of seizure namely Chhedilal Dewangan (PW-12) and Narayan (PW-13) have stated before the Court cannot be said to have supported the prosecution case of recovery from the possession of the appellant Tillu. Therefore, the FSL report of clothes found stained with blood does not connect appellant-Tillu with the alleged commission of offence. Next limb of submission is that though Kaliram (PW-2) states that when in the night, he rang up Dr. Gopal, Dr. Gopal as well as Tillu both talked to him and Tillu told him not to disturb them for some time and the evidence of Kamal Kumar (PW-7) that in the evening of 16.11.2010, deceased was seen along with appellant-Tillu near Guha Chat Bhandar, that by itself does not complete the chain of circumstances s