JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 20.11.2012 at about 1:00 pm, when complainant-Dilip Rai had gone out of the house to carry the handcart (Bsyk) for selling Panipuri where his wife- Poonam Rai (hereinafter called as 'deceased) was also standing, at that time, appellant (co-brother-in-law of complainant) came there armed with sharp edged iron axe and while threatening them to life, assaulted the deceased with axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries over her body and died. During the assault, when complainant-Dilip Rai also tried to intervene, appellant also assaulted him, as result of which complainant sustained injuries over his body. On information, Dehatinalishi vide Ex.P-1 was recorded, based on which numbered merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-20 and FIR Ex.P-18 was lodged against the appellant. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-13. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was shock due to injuries to vital organs and death was homicidal in nature. Vide Ex.P-9A, complainant- Dilip Rai was sent for medical examination where PW-8 Dr. B.S. Chandel conducted examination over the body of injured-Dilip Rai and found one incised and lacerated wounds. During investigation, memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-14 consequent to which one iron axe and clothes of the appellant were seized vide Exs.P-16 & P-17 respectively. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-23 but no FSL report has been brought on record. Vide Ex.P-22, appellant was arrested.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offences.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents i.e. Exs.P-1 to P-24. In his defence, he has examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Darshan Singh and not exhibited any documents.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 & 307 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that conviction of the appellant is based on PW-1 Dilip Rai whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not reliable as he has not seen the incident. He would also