JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.41/2012, whereby the learned court below convicted the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.04.2012 at about 10:00 AM complainant Sahangu Ram (PW1) gave information to the Police Station - Manpur as to presence of an unknown dead body in Khairkatta. On the basis of said information, merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was registered. The dead body of the deceased was recovered and sent for postmortem.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that, deceased Ballar Sai was resident of Village Phulkodo and worked as a labourer, who often used to visit Village Khairkatta for labor. Two-three days after the date of incident, wife of the appellant herein namely Bisantin Bai (PW18) informed Jyoti Bai (PW4) that the deceased Ballar Sai had his meal in their home on the night of the incident and he was touching the anklet worn by Kumari Bharti (PW2), her niece, upon which Kumari Bharti (PW2) shouted and they woke up. The appellant herein while pulling the deceased, brought him out of the house. Thereafter, meeting took place in the village where many persons were present including Jyoti Bai (PW4) and Kumari Bharti (PW2). It was informed by Kumari Bharti (PW2) in the said meeting that the deceased was touching her anklet while she was asleep. Jyoti Bai (PW4) also has stated similarly in the said meeting. As per the prosecution, the appellant herein on coming to know about the above fact, took the deceased to nearby fields and killed him by axe and threw his dead body in a pit. The FIR (Ex.P/19) was registered on 08.04.2012 and thereafter, the wheels of investigation began running. The investigation officer, N.L.Mandavi (PW17), took the appellant herein into custody and, thereafter, recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P/7). Pursuant thereto, one axe was recovered and lungi and baniyan (vest) worn by the appellant were seized by vide Ex.P/8. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C was recorded and seized articles were sent for chemical examinations vide Ex.P/12 and after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. The appellant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents including FSL report. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein he denied the guilt; however, he examined none in his defense.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid, against which present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the memorandum and seizure witnesses Amar Sai (PW9) and Hire Singh (PW12) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Other independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution’s version. He further submits that in FSL report (Ex.P/21) blood has not been found and there is absence of motive in the case. He also submits that chain of the circumstances is not complete so as to the base the conviction of the appellant. He lastly argues that the appellant has been falsely roped in this case, therefore he is entitled for acquittal

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State