.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he has to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month.

2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are that on 19.12.2018 at about 09:00 pm to 10:00 pm, the appellant/accused has committed the murder of his father-Punit Ram Vatti by assaulting him with the aid of axe (Tangiya) on his head and neck and thereafter went to the house of his uncle (Santuram Vatti), the complainant, on the same day at 11:00 pm and informed him that he murdered his father as he often used to quarrel with him and had earlier lodged the report against him. The complainant, Santuram Vatti went to his brother’s house, namely, Anturam Vatti and thereafter, they went to the house of the appellant, where they found the deceased lying near bed of his veranda in pool of blood. He lodged the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-5) and based upon which, the FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. in connection with Crime No.84/2018. Inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P-8 and on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P-14), an axe (Tangiya) was recovered on 21.12.2018 vide seizure memo (Ex.P-15) from the possession of the appellant. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy on 20.12.2018, which was conducted by Dr. S. N. Dhruw (PW-1), who opined vide his report (Ex.P-1) that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and coma due to head injury (excessive bleeding) and was found to be homicidal in nature. An axe (Tangiya) alleged to have been used and bloodstained tracksuit of the appellant was sent for its chemical examination, where human blood was found on the alleged axe (Tangiya) vide FSL Report (Ex.P-24). The Appellant was arrested and the statement of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and, the final report was accordingly submitted by the investigating officer before the concerned Magistrate, who in turn, has committed the matter to the Court of Sessions in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for its trial.

3. The appellant has denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, while none was examined by the appellant in rebuttal.

5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before his uncles, namely, Santuram Vatti (PW-4), Anturam Vatti (PW-10) and brother-Nageshwar @ Nagesh Vatti (PW-11) and that by placing his reliance further upon the recovery of axe (Tangiya) from the appellant based upon his disclosure (Ex.P-14), where human blood was found as per FSL Report (Ex.P-24), held that the appellant was an author of the crime in question and, in consequence, convicted him for the commission of murder of his father-Punit Ram under Section 302 of I.P.C. and awarded him the sentence as mentioned herein-above.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the appellant is an author of the alleged crime by placing its reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by him before his relatives is apparently contrary to law, particularly, when the alleged confession was not duly established by the prosecution in accordance with law