JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This present appeal is against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.115/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE

Under Section 302 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for three months

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Purnima Sarthi had lodged a report on 23.07.2017 that when she along with her husband-deceased were sleeping at their house, at 11 PM, she saw that her husband was being assaulted by her mother-in-law Bhagwanti Bai on his head and having seen the assault, she fled away from the place of occurrence. Due to assault, her husband fell unconscious. Thereafter, she went to her relative-Ravindra and Gajadhar, Uncle-inlaw and thereafter, injured husband was taken to the hospital at Lakhanpur and after that, he was referred to District Hospital at Ambikapur. The injured was then admitted to the Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and eventually, he was referred to hospital at Raipur. On the report of the complainant, offence under Section 307 of the IPC was registered and from the spot, soil, clothes and gaiti were seized. During the course of treatment, Ajay Sarthi died on 02.08.2017 and therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered. According to the postmortem report, the death was caused due to the injury caused on the head and was homicidal in nature. As the appellant was absconding, on enquiry, the police caught hold her from the house of one Ramapati Pandey and on her memorandum, the clothes wearing at the time of commission of offence were seized vide Ex.P-13. After recording the statement of witnesses, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and after evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellant is based on presumption as statement of the alleged eye-witness would show that she has completely disowned that she has seen the incident. He further submitted that other witnesses examined by the prosecution would show that they are hearsay witnesses and the seizure witnesses in this case have also not supported the case of the prosecution, which is alleged that bloodstained clothes were seized from the accused. He would further submit that the alleged clothes were seized, but the statement of the doctor would show that when it was given, the seal were opened, therefore, there has been interpolation of the evidence, for which, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. He would also submit that it is a case of no evidence, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur may be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that as far as statement of eye-witness Purnima (PW-2) is concerned, she has seen happening of the incident, which is followed by the recovery of weapon i.e. gaiti used in the commission of offence. It is stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory report on record would show that the clothes of the accused and the weapon-gaiti were stained with human blood, therefore, those incriminating facts have not been explained by the appellant, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid and no interference is called for.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. According to the prosecution, initially, after the deceased was assau