JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-3-2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, in ST No. 03/2020 whereby the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 7-11-2019 the son of Fhulbasan (since deceased) namely; Heeru Ram (PW-7) lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P/7) stating, inter alia, that while he was cutting the crop in his field, which is situated behind his house, at about 2.00 pm his father Bal Singh (PW-4) came out of the house and shouted that his mother was killed by the present appellant by way of axe. When he went to house he saw that in Kothaar ¼dksBkj½ the dead body of his mother was lying in the pool of blood. Having enquired as to why such assault was made by the appellant, the father disclosed the fact that his mother has objected using the pathway towards the Kothaar of the accused and advised him to take another route. On such allegation, the appellant went to his house; came with an axe; and assaulted his mother whereby she died. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and the statements of the witnesses were recorded including the statement of eyewitness Bal Singh (PW-4), husband of the deceased. At the instance of the appellant, bloodstained full pant, half T-shirt and axe were recovered and the same were sent to FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P/22), human blood was found on axe and garments.

3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, received the case on transfer for trial.

4. During trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he has been falsely implicated.

5. Upon appreciation of facts and evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned supra. Thus, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is a major contradiction prevails in the statement of PW-4 Bal Singh and disclosure of statement to PW-3 Heeru Ram and PW-5 Jaleshwari, who were son and daughter-in-law of the deceased. She would further submit that the statement of PW-4 Bal Singh would show that he was not able to see from a distance as such the very version of his statement, who was the sole inmate of house, becomes doubtful. She would also submit that at the time of incident only two persons were in the house i.e. the deceased and her husband PW-4 Bal Singh and except the husband no body has seen the incident, therefore, a doubt has been created as to who has killed the deceased. Learned counsel would submit that from the nature of evidence, it is evident that there is no motive and only on presumption the appellant has been inculpated with whom the deceased and her family members had a previous animosity. She would submit that in absence of motive the crime cannot be attributed to the appellant. According to the learned counsel, though the alleged axe and garments were recovered from the accused, but the nature and proof of human blood has not been established that it belongs to the deceased. Consequently, in absence of any evidence the entire case of the prosecution is based on presumption and the benefit of doubt should have be