JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.23/2015 by the Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2015 at about 3:30 pm, at village Budupara Irpa, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, C.G., the appellant assaulted his father's elder brother-Jaggu, aged about 40 years (hereinafter called as 'deceased') with axe, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries over his body and died and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased had done some work of excavation in the field of appellant herein and the appellant had not paid Rs.50/- to him and on account of dispute of that wages, appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased- Jaggu with axe, as result of which he suffered grievous injuries over his body and died. The matter was reported by PW-2 Sannu and PW-7 Maniram to PW-12 Paresh Benjam, Village Sarpanch. Thereafter, village panchayat meeting was convened and in presence of PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu, appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession that he has committed murder of deceased. Pursuant to this, merg intimation Ex.P-10 was recorded, FIR Ex.P-9 was registered against the appellant and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-21. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-6 and the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-14 Dr. Pradeep Baghel, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-22. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was coma with cardio-respiratory arrest due to internal haemorrhage and mode of death was homicidal in nature. From the spot, axe & stone were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (unexhibited), no blood has been found on the seized axe and stone.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted 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 has examined as many as 16 witnesses and brought on record 25 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 IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on extra-judicial confession given by him allegedly before the village panchayat meeting in presence of PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu, which is a very weak piece of evidence and 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. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-2 Sannu, PW-12 Paresh Benjam, PW-13 Pandaru Ram Ranjami and PW-16 Mangdu is true and voluntary. As such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and the instant appeal is lia