IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused lies upon the accused, and in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur C.G. in Sessions Trial No.44/2019, 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.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 21- 22.03.2019 in between 11:00 pm to 8:00 am at village Murma Patelpara, appellant herein, after suspecting the character of his wife-Mangli Bai (hereinafter called as 'deceased'), committed her murder by assaulting her with wooden stick and after committing the murder of deceased, appellant severed the neck of deceased by blade and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Further case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2019 at about 11:00 pm, PW-6 Savitri heard the shoutings of her sister-in-law / deceased and when she went to her house, she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased by wooden stick on her head, as a result of which, she fell down on the floor. Thereafter, deceased asked for water from her and after giving water to her, she returned to her home. On the next day at about 8:00 am, she again went to the house of deceased and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. Thereafter, she informed the incident to police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-17, FIR (Exs.P-18 & P-19) were registered against the appellant and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-15. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-8 Dr. Shreshth Mishra, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-15. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was stated to be asphyxia due to trachea disruption, hypovolemic shock due to internal as well as external haemorrhage and nature of death was opined to be homicidal. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-4, pursuant to which one wooden stick and one blade were seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-5 and from the spot, plain and blood stain soil and pieces of bangles were seized vide Ex.P-06. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-26), human blood of group 'B' has been found on the seized articles. Query report has also been obtained vide Ex.P-16 and as per the said report, injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the seized wooden stick and blade. Accused/appellant was arrested on 23.03.2019.

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 11 witnesses and brought on record 27 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 conjectures and surmises the trial Court held the appellant guilty. He would further submit that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He would also submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove motive of the offence and that t