The main legal point established in the judgment is that extra judicial confession and recovery of evidence are weak pieces of evidence and must inspire confidence. The prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/08/2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.175/2011 whereby learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur has though acquitted the coaccused persons namely Murarilal Sahu, Yogesh Kumar Sahu and Narmadabai Sahu from charges punishable under Sections 302/34 and 304(B)/34 of IPC but has convicted the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/08/2011 at about 9:30 PM at village Khargahni, Distt. Bilaspur, the appellant herein along with three coaccused persons in furtherance of their common intention murdered Sarojini Sahu with an axe on the pretext of dowry and thereby, committed the offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Yogesh Sahu (husband of the deceased) lodged a report at Police Station Kota that he works as a 'chowkidar' at Forest Department and on 25/08/2011 at about 08:00 AM, he had gone to work and his wife Sarojini Sahu was at home. At about 11:30 AM, he received a phone call from his younger brother Rajesh (though cited witness but not examined by the prosecution) that their brother Devendra (the appellant herein) has killed Sarojini Sahu and blood is oozing out of her neck. Upon asking, complainant Yogesh Sahu got to know that appellant had killed his wife Sarojini Sahu by assaulting her with an axe.

4. On the basis of the said report, FIR was lodged vide Ex. P/10 and merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/11 and the wheels of investigation started running. Najri naksha was prepared vide Ex. P/12 and Bloodstained soil as well as plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex. P/6 along with the pieces of bangles worn by the deceased. The witnesses were summoned vide Ex. P/1 and thereafter, inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/2 and the dead body of deceased Sarojini Sahu was sent for postmortem at Community Health Center, Kota which was conducted by Dr. Sandeep Dwivedi (P.W.11)) and the postmortem report has been filed as Ex. P/9 according to which cause of death is excessive internal bleeding and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant thereof, memorandum statement of the appellant/accused was recorded vide Ex. P/5 and recovery of axe along with the shirt worn by him was made from his possession. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P/19 but no FSL report has been brought on record. The appellant herein along with other accused persons namely Murarilal Sahu (father-in-law), Yogesh Kumar Sahu (husband) and Narmadabai Sahu (mother-in-law) were taken into custody. Thereafter, statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and after due investigation, the appellants/accused persons was chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 304B/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and brought into record 31 documents. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence but the statements of Lahura Bai, Bhagwati Sahu, Santosh Kumar Sahu and Ramsnehi Sahu have been exhibited as D/1 to D/4, respectively.

6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, though acquitted Murarilal Sahu (father-in-law), Yogesh Kumar Sahu (husband) and Narmadabai Sahu (mother inlaw) from the charges levelled against them but convicted the appellant herein Devendra Kumar Sahu (brother-in-law) for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, fi