JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 47/2015 by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for one month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 17.02.2015, near Bharatmata School, Tarbahar, the appellant herein caused the death of Chotu @ Omprakash by strangulation and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that, PW-1, Vinod Kumar Suryawanshi, Police Constable No. 1233, Police Station: Tarbahar was on duty on 17.02.2015 at night and at 01:00 PM, he noticed that the appellant was carrying a body of a person and after seeing the body, he inquired from the appellant and then the appellant informed his name to him and also disclosed the name of the person to whom he was carrying and stated his name as Chotu. He also informed that they used to do the work of collection of scraps and also informed that they both consumed liquor and nitra drug in front of Bharatmata School and they slept there and after sometime, he saw that froth was coming out from the mouth of Chotu, therefore, he picked him up and was proceeding towards Durga Pandal to make him sleep. Thereafter, ambulance was called and the deceased was taken to the Hospital, where he was declared dead. On the basis of aforesaid, Merg Intimation Ex.P/1 was registered. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/20. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/13. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. P.C. Banerjee (PW-4) and his report is Exhibit-P/11 wherein, he has opined the death of the deceased as homicidal which was due to strangulation. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P/17, steel cap was recovered from his possession.

3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC 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 offence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The defence has examined none and not exhibited any document.

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

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recovery of dead body from the possession of the appellant in absence of other incriminating circumstances would not lead to the conviction of the appellant and the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that learned trial Court has found 6 circumstances which have been proved against the appellant and cataloged in Para 13 of the judgment, therefore, the learned Trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

9. The first question for consideration is, whether the death of deceased Chotu @ Omprakash was homicidal in nature ?

10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. P.C. Banerje