Point of Law: One of fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that burden of proof squarely rests on prosecution and that general burden never shifts.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey. J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 29/2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 26-27.04.2012 the appellant committed murder of his wife Gotimbai, with the use of axe.

3. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Santan (P.W. 1), who is the father of the deceased, lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) at Police Station - Pipariya on 27.04.2012 at about 6:15 AM to the effect that the appellant herein had come to his house along with the deceased and their three children to attend the marriage. Further, Santan (P.W. 1) had advanced Rs. 2 lakhs for selection of his son Manoj (P.W. 7) as Police officer, however, his son could not get selected, and therefore he demanded the money back. In night of 26.04.2012, the deceased also asked the appellant herein to refund the said amount, due to which quarrel took place between them. On 27.04.2012, in morning hours, the wife of Santan (P.W. 1) apprised him that the deceased is lying dead. Santan (P.W. 1) also went to the spot and saw the deceased dead lying face up on the earth and the blood stained axe (tangiya) was also kept near her dead body. The appellant was missing from the house; therefore, Santan (P.W. 1) on the basis of strong suspicion lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) against the appellant herein.

4. On the basis of FIR (Ex.P/1), Merg Intimation (Ex.P/2) was registered and the investigation begun to run. ASI, Vishnu Prasad Sharma (P.W. 11) prepared the Inquest vide Ex.P/9. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Kawardha. Spot map was prepared vide Ex./P15. Blood stained soil, plain soil, and iron axe (tangiya) were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/11. Vide postmortem report Ex.P/13, Dr. P.C. Prabhakar (P.W. 10) had opined that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding, which was result of chopping off of her cervical and artery bone. On 27.04.2012 the clothes worn by deceased were seized vide Ex.P/16, the appellant herein was arrested, his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P/3, and pursuant thereto lungi worn by him was recovered from his possession vide Ex.P/5. Also, one gold locket and gold nose pin (fulli) was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant vide Ex.P/4. The seized articles were sent for F.S.L. and identification of gold locket and nose pin was conducted by Nayab Tahsildar, P.R. Bhaskar (P.W. 5), wherein Santan (P.W. 1) and his son Manoj (P.W. 7) identified those articles as belonging to the deceased. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, which was committed to the Court of Session, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, C.G. for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/accused. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and brought 20 documents into record. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the guilt, and got exhibited 05 documents D/1 to D/5.

6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, finding the following circumstances established :-

(i) That, five years back amount o