IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused, along with consistent witness statements and incriminating evidence, can lead to a conviction. Additionally, the court applied the parameters for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, leading to a modified conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-12-2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.123/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with usual default stipulations.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that PW-7 Kamdev Kosle made an oral report at police station Amlidih that on 7-5-2018 the accused came to his house; stated that he has assaulted his wife namely; Gouri Bai (since deceased); she was lying on the floor; and he does not know whether she was alive or dead. The accused asked PW-7 Kamdev Kosle to take him to police station. Subsequently, said PW-7 Kamdev Kosle along with one Hemant Dahre went to the house of accused and saw that his wife was lying on the floor in a pool of blood with severe injuries. The wall and floor were also having bloodstains. The said oral report of PW-7 Kamdev was recorded in the rojnamacha sanha; thereafter dehati merg was registered; and after the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Memorandum of the accused was recorded and the weapon used i.e. wooden handle of Pickaxe ¼dqnky½ was recovered and after recording the statements of witnesses charge sheet was filed.

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg, 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 15 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. Appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC has raised a defence that PW-7 Kamdev Kosle was having illicit relation with his wife, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the crime.

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. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of PW-7 Kamdev Kosle and the timing of recovery, memorandum as also the dehati nalishi. He would further submit that when the dead body was found, as per the inquest report, the appellant was not present on the spot. It is on the statement of PW-7 Kamdev the appellant has been inculpated. He would also submit that statement of PW-7 Kamdev would show that the appellant was having injury on his head and was not mentally fit and taking advantage of it, PW-7 Kamdev, who was having some affair with the deceased, the appellant has been falsely implicated. He would submit that as per the memorandum of the accused only the wooden handle of pickaxe was disclosed, which was alleged to be used for the offence, but in the seizure, on the basis of memorandum, in addition to such wooden handle of pickaxe, the bloodstained clothes were recovered.

(ii) Learned counsel would submit that when the appellant went to the house of PW-7 Kamdev to inform about the incident, as per the prosecution, no bloodstains were present on his clothes and, therefore, such state of affair would be highly improper to accept in the given set of fact that after killing wife the appellant would change his clothes then will roam around. He would submit that even the bloodstains which were said to have found on the clothes of the appellant the group was not matched and in absence of any eyewitness when the appellant was not present in the house the prosecution only dependent on the circumstantial evidence. Consequent