Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained if the chain of circumstances proves the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

R.C.S. Samant, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 against the appellant in Sessions Case No.03/2015 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place-Jagdalpur, C.G. convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 27.11.2014 at about 07:30 P.M., the appellant assaulted the deceased-Sukra with an axe causing him various injuries for the reason stating that the deceased was not giving land to him. The deceased suffered various injuries and died on the spot. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) saw the appellant fleeing from the spot. On the information given by Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7), morgue intimation vide Ex.P/14 was recorded in the Police Station-Darbha. Subsequent to which, F.I.R. Ex.P/13 was also lodged against the present appellant registering the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The police conducted the investigation in which inquest procedure was taken up. The postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. Mahendra Prasad (P.W.-3), who opined in his postmortem report vide Ex.P/8 that the death of the deceased was homicidal resulting from the various injuries caused to him. The appellant was interrogated and his memorandum statement Ex.P/1 was recorded. At the instance of the appellant, an axe having blood stains on it, was seized from his possession vide Ex.P/2. The blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/3 and a blood stained gamcha was also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/7. The seized articles and the cloth of the deceased preserved by the doctor conducting postmortem examination were sent for F.S.L. Examination, report has been submitted by vide Ex.P/22. The statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses. The appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence against him, expressed his ignorance about the prosecution, again he made a statement of being not guilty and that he has been falsely implicated. No witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defense has passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned here-in-above.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous as there had been no evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) was though examined as eye witness, but he has made admission in his cross-examination that he had not seen appellant inflicting injury on the deceased. The witness of extra-judicial confession Mahadeo Nag (P.W.- 1) has made statement in support of prosecution in examination in Chief, but in cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant made a statement that he does not know as to who has killed the deceased. Therefore, this evidence was not sufficient to inspire any confidence. Hence, the conviction against the appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of charge.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) is relevant, as this witness has stated that he saw the appellant, who had in his hands one axe, present on the spot and fleeing immediately, thereafter, the deceased was found in dead condition, having various injuries on his body. The admission made by Mahadeo Nag