Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in S.T. No.27/2016 whereby and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below:-

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently

2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellants is that on 13.12.2015, Gokulram (PW-1), husband of deceased, lodged a oral report in police station Manpur to the effect that on 11.12.2015, he had gone in search of job on cycle and when on 12.12.2015 at around 2.00 pm, he returned his home he found that his wife (since deceased) was not present in the house. Upon inquiring from his son Pramod whereabouts of deceased, he showed his ignorance. Thereafter, Gokulram (PW-1) went to Bharritola market and while returning from the market, at around 5.00 PM, Prem (accused/appellant) met him on the way and called him to his home. Thereafter, he immediately went to the house of Prem (accused/appellant) where he informed Gokulram (PW-1) that his wife has been killed and hidden in their maize field. Thereafter, Gokulram (PW-1) went with village Kotwar, Ranjit Hidko, Doulat Hidko and other villagers & saw that Gokulram’s wife was murdered and hidden in maize filed covering with a fertilizer sack. As it was night on 12.12.2015, therefore, he went to the police station on 13.12.2015 and on his oral complaint, merg (Ex.P-1) was registered followed by an FIR (Ex.P-2) against unknown person.

3. On 13.12.2015, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-4 by Mukesh Yadav, Inspector (PW-19) and dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Manpur vide Ex.P-23-A, where Dr. Nishant Sori (PW-17) and Dr. Seema Thakur (PW-18) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased who gave their report under Ex.P-23 noticing following injuries :-

(i) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm above right eyeball under the eye orbit.

(ii) Lacerated wound in the size of 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in nasal septum.

(iii) Lacerated would in the size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in chest.

(iv) Lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5cm in chest.

(v) Contusion in the size of 10 cm x 5 cm in chest in bluish red color.

(vi) All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

The doctor has opined the cause of death of deceased to be hypovolumic shock due to injuries in vital organ etc.

(Brain and lungs) and the death was homicidal in nature.

4. The police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-6. Spot map was also prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P-7. From the spot, white- green colour fertilizer sacks and 03 Nos. of white plastic bags were seized in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P-9. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-10. Vaginal slides of deceased, petticoat, underwear, saree etc. were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P- 19. On 16.12.2015, memorandum statement of accused Guman Singh was