Point of Law: Section 294 of CrPC states as where any document is filed before any Court by prosecution or accused, particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and prosecution or accused, as case may be, or pleader for prosecution or accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny genuineness of each such document.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29-9-2015, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, respectively.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22-8-2013, at about 10-11 p.m. at Village Hansdand, Khutenpara, under Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, the appellant entered into the house of Budhram (since deceased) and firstly assaulted Jhunni Bai, wife of Budhram, by iron axe by which she suffered injuries which were sufficient to cause death and thereafter, caused the murder of Budhram and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the fateful day, the deceased and his wife were lying in front of their house as their two sons had not returned home from work and therefore they did not close their doors and were waiting for them to come and meanwhile, at 10 O’ clock in the night, the appellant came by pushing the door and asked for liquor/ tobacco from Jhunni Bai (PW-2) to which she said that she did not have the same then the appellant chased her and assaulted her in the courtyard by which she became unconscious and thereafter, the appellant came back and assaulted her husband Budhram on his head, neck and back portion of the body by which he suffered injuries and he was hospitalized where he died on 30-8-2013. It is also the case of the prosecution that on hearing the cries of Budhram and his wife Jhunni Bai, Patango (PW-3) reached to the spot, as she is the neighbour, and on bearing asked, Budhram informed her that Tihar Sai has assaulted him and his wife, which she informed to Uddesh Ram (PW-1) and then Uddesh Ram (PW-1) reached to the spot and thereafter, on the report of Uddesh Ram (PW-1), morgue was registered vide Ex.P-6 on 30-8-2013. Injured Jhunni Bai (PW-2) was sent to Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur where she was medically examined vide Ex.P-12, which has been proved by Dr. Om Prakash Prasad (PW-5). Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-16. Dead body of deceased Budhram was sent for postmortem examination and postmortem was conducted by Dr. Binod Kumar. On the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-8, bloodstained iron axe was seized vide Ex.P-10 and other articles were also seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Upon due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC before the jurisdictional criminal court which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC against the appellant and proceeded on trial. The accused/appellant abjured guilt and entered into trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-19. One document Exhibit D-1 i.e. the statement of injured Jhunni Bai recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has been exhibited on behalf of the defence. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

5. Dr. Binod Kumar who conducted postmortem could not be examined as he was present before the Court on 16-2-2015, but on that day, the Presiding Officer was on leave and thereafter, on 17-8-2015, counsel for the accused made no objection to the postmortem report and on that basis, the court held the death to be homicidal in nature.

6. The trial Court after completion of trial and afte