Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Samir Singh.
For the Respondents: Animesh Tiwari, Sudeep Verma, Aditi Singhvi.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the criminal appeal partly, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) but maintaining the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) [Result].
• The Court held that the death of the deceased (Budhram) could not be proved to be of homicidal nature because the postmortem report, which stated the death was homicidal, was not substantiated by the examination of the doctor who conducted it (!) (!) .
• The Court ruled that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence in itself; it is merely the previous statement of the doctor, and the doctor must be examined in court for the report to be used as evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• The procedure under Section 294 of the CrPC for admitting documents was not correctly followed, as the trial court relied on an alleged admission by counsel without properly summoning and examining the medical witness (!) (!) .
• The oral dying declaration given by the deceased to a neighbor (Patango) was rejected as it was not trustworthy; the investigating officer stated the deceased was unconscious and hospitalized for nine days, making it impossible for him to make a declaration (!) (!) (!) .
• The recovery of the weapon (iron axe) was not properly proved, as the witnesses who signed the memorandum of seizure did not support the case, and the weapon was not sent for forensic examination to establish the presence of blood or a connection to the injuries (!) (!) .
• However, the Court found the conviction under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) well-merited based on the consistent statement of the injured wife (Jhunni Bai), who remained hospitalized for two months and could testify (!) .