JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused person under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.107/2014 by the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, additional SI for six months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on16.06.2014 at about 5:30 pm, complainant Mahadeep Singh (PW-9) lodged a complaint in Police Station Khadgawan stating therein that on the fateful day, at 3:00 pm, he and his mother Sonkunwar (hereinafter called as 'deceased') went to a house under construction. Deceased was standing in courtyard whereas PW-9/complainant went to fetch water from nearby pond to pour the water on the walls of the house and when he returned, he saw the appellant from 20 meters distance away while pressing hands, legs & neck of the deceased and on seeing him, appellant fled away from the spot. When he reached there, he saw his mother (deceased) lying dead. On the basis of complaint made by PW- 9 Mahadeep, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-4 and FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-5. Vide Ex.P-7, spot map was prepared. Inquest proceedings were initiated vide Ex.P.1 wherein name of the appellant was mentioned. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to C.H.C. Khadgawan where Dr. S. Kujur (P.W.13) conducted post-mortem examination and gave report vide Ex. P-8A, according to which, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of throttling and death was homicidal in nature. During course of examination, appellant was taken into custody vide Ex.P-2.

3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 of IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused person abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 09 documents and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1 statement of Ku. Urmila.

5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused person for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal, inasmuch, it did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to him, case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye-witness (PW- 9) Mahadeep Singh whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not reliable and his evidence is also not corroborated by independent witnesses. The prosecution has not been able to prove motive of the offence and that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. On these premises, it was urged that the appellant may be acquitted of the charge while allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit that case of the prosecution rests upon the direct evidence of eye-witness account of PW-9 Mahadeep, son of the deceased. The evidence of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh was fully supported by other prosecution witnesses namely PW-3 Urmila, PW-5 Kunjal Singh, PW-6 Pitamber & PW-7 Sukhwariya Bai. The pr