JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Sections 450, 392 read with Section 397 & 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, respectively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14-9-2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., at Village Khapri, the appellant herein unauthorizedly trespassed the house of deceased Phulwabai and robbed golden ornaments & Rs.6,000/- in cash and strangulated her by a cloth (dupatta) and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on being informed by Kushal Ram (PW-1), morgue intimation was registered and thereafter, shav panchnama was conducted vide Ex.P-23 and on the recommendation of panchas, dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Soni (PW-3) vide Ex.P-8 in which he opined that cause of death is shock due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to rupture of right kidney by heavy force applied in right lumbar region (back of abdomen) and death was homicidal in nature. Three injuries were noticed by the doctor over the body of the deceased. Nazri naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-3 and mathmaila dupatta was recovered vide Ex.P-11. Other articles were seized vide Ex.P-10. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-9 pursuant to which one pair of anklet, silver chain and other gold & silver articles were seized vide Ex.P-13 and other articles were seized vide Exs.P-14 to P-16. Measurement panchnama of the seized ornaments is Ex.P-21. Thereafter, seized articles were identified by Geeta Bai (PW-2) to be belonging to her mother, in the test identification parade conducted vide Ex.P-6 proved by Vijay Kumar (PW-4) & Chimanlal Patel (PW-8).

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. After usual investigation, the accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 450, 302 & 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and brought on record 27 exhibits. The defence has examined none and no document was brought on record.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 450, 392 read with Section 397 & 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.

6. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentences awarded are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record and therefore conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant are liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the Executive Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade vide Ex.P-6 namely, D.C. Banjare has not been examined which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and furthermore, Ex.P-6 has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and as such, th