The court emphasized the importance of establishing the accused's conduct and actions in relation to the crime, and the lack of supporting evidence for the defense's claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.C.S. SAMANT, J.

Heard.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.4.2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2013 whereby and where under the Learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant, his wife – Sudha Bharti (the deceased) and children are residents of village Farhad. On the date of incii.e. on 14.5.2013, deceased - Sudha Bharti was sleeping inside the house, the appellant was sleeping in the Courtyard and his son Manish Bharti (PW-1) had been to some marriage function. Manish Bharti (PW-1) came back to home at about 1:30 am in the night and saw that the appellant was attempting to commit suicide by hanging himself. The appellant said to Manish Bharti (PW-1) that he has killed his mother and he himself wants to die. The information was given to other persons and village Kotwar – Banshilal (PW-2). Banshilal (PW-2) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/2), in which the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the appellant. Merg intimation vide Ex.P/8 was separately registered and lodged. Inquest procedure on the dead body of deceased - Sudha Bharti was taken up. Dr. B.L. Kumre (PW-15) conducted the postmortem examination and reported vide Ex.P/10A. He found various incised wounds on the body of the deceased and on the basis of the findings in the internal examination, he has opined that the cause of death had been neurogenic and hypovolemic shock, which has resulted due to cutting of the main blood vessels. Investigating Officer, Yogita Khapde (PW-11) seized a bloodstained axe, two blood-stained lungis, a blood-stained paidan, broken bangles which were blood-stained and the rope that was hanging from the roof vide Ex.P/4. The clothes worn by the appellant were seized by the police vide Ex.P/8. Seized articles were sent for FSL examination. A spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer and a spot map Ex/P-18A was also got prepared from Patwari, Chandrasen Chouhan (PW-13). Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court.

3. After completion of committal proceedings, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance in the case and framed charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. The appellant pleaded innocence and denied the charges. The prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant/ accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which the appellant denied all the incriminating evidence against him and again he made a statement of innocence and false implication. He made a statement in his defence that he was sleeping in the Courtyard and his wife was sleeping inside the house. He saw a man coming out from the house, who called the appellant and said that he killed his wife and if he raises alarm, he will kill him also. Subsequent to which, out of grief, he attempted to commit suicide. No evidence was led in the defence. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defence, the learned trial Court delivered the impugned judgment by convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner mentioned herein-above.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant is totally baseless and without the support of any evidence of the prosecution. Conviction is although based on circumstantial evidence but the whole chain of circumstantial evidence has not been proved. Learned trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the statement of the appellant that some other person had caused death of the dece