JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2016 passed by learned First Upper Sessions Judge Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No. 187/2014 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently:

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that from 07:30 PM on 26.05.2014 to 8 AM on 27.05.2014 at village Mirouni, the appellant herein caused the death of his adoptive father Karmaha by strangulating him and in order to screen himself, he lodged a report at the Police Station by giving false information and registered merg intimation vide Ex.P/21.

3. It is admitted position on record that deceased Karmaha had kept Sarhibai as his wife and since they were issueless, deceased Karmaha had adopted the appellant, who was the son of Sarhibai's sister Bhooribai. Further case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2014, deceased Karmaha was under the influence of liqour and in the intervening night of 26-27.05.2014, while Karmaha was sleeping on the cot, appellant strangulated him and caused his death. During investigation, summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex.P/1 and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/2. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/3 and the dead body of deceased Karmaha was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Manoj Kumar Rathore (PW-3) and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/9), cause of death is said to be asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is homicidal. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and first information report was lodged against the appellant vide Ex.P/22 and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Karmaha to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellant to be the author of the crime in question, proceeded to convict him for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 199/193 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant only on the basis of motive of offence, which has not been found established and extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8) which has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the conviction of the appellant is neither well-founded nor well-merited and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to Sahniram (PW-2), Smt. Kara Bai (PW-5), Sitaram (PW-6) and Pitaru Marar (PW-8) is true and voluntary, as such, the trial Court has right