JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant-accused herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 102/2014 by which appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 17.07.2014 at about 6:30 pm at village Annpurna (Shankarpara), Police Station Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) appellant assaulted his father's brother [uncle (Bade Pita)] Vikul Singh on his neck by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby, committed the said offence.

3. It is further case of the prosecution that Vikul Singh (now deceased) used to curse the appellant to die under the influence of liquor, due to which appellant had grudge against Vikul Singh. On the date of offence, the appellant had seen Vikul Singh going towards the field so he followed him armed with axe and assaulted him by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. The incident was informed to Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2) by the appellant and thereafter he (PW-2) informed the incident to Babu Singh (PW-1). Babu Singh (PW-1) reported the matter to the police. Merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs. P/1 & P/2, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/7) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. G.L. Miri (PW-4), cause of death is fracture of thyroid cartilage (trachea) mode of death to be asphyxia due to chocking of windpipe by blood and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex.P/8), axe has been seized vide Ex.P/9. Seized Articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant herein abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He further submits that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession which he had allegedly given to Babu Singh (PW-1), Aditya Kumar Ahir (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-7) and Chain Sai (PW-8), but it is not true and voluntary and, therefore, conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2014 and there is no direct evidence against the appellant and appellant deserves to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession which was given by the appellant herein to Babu Singh (PW-1), Aditya Ku