IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.71/2018, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.07.2018 at 10:30 pm, appellant went to the house of Manish Yadav (hereinafter called as 'deceased') and took him to his house. When the deceased did not return to his house till morning of 23.07.2018, then complainant-Dinesh Yadav, father of the deceased, went to the house of appellant at 6:00 am where he saw his son (deceased) lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood and the appellant was not present in the house. The incident was informed to PW-9 Yaman Yadav and one Hemant Dewangan and thereafter it was reported to the police station Chikli, Rajnandgaon where Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was registered, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-25) was lodged against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, pursuant to which, Dehati Merg Intimation was recorded vide (Ex.P-2) and spot map was prepared vide Exs.P-3 & P-4. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Nitin Barmate, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-19. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage following stab injuries over chest and abdomen and nature of death was opined to be homicidal. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-8, pursuant to which, one iron pipe stained with blood and half T- shirt of appellant were seized vide Ex.P-12 and vide Exs. P-12 & P-13, full T- shirt of appellant was also seized. Vide Ex.P-27, blood stained organs, hair and chilly powder, mixture of salt and clothes of deceased were seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P- 32), human blood of has been found on the seized articles marked as “C-1, C-2, G, H-1, H-2, H-3 and I”. Query reports have also been obtained vide Exs.P-21, P-22 & P-23 and as per the said reports, injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized iron pipe (Gupti). Accused/appellant was arrested on 23.07.2018 vide Ex.P-33.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 33 documents. In his defence, he has examined none and not exhibited any documents.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and only on the basis of last seen theory, the trial Court held the appellant guilty. She would further submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. She would also submit that there is no iota of evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. As such, his conviction is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said charge.

7. Learned counsel for the State supports t