The court ruled that the appellant committed culpable homicide, not murder, establishing that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, albeit strong, did not demonstrate premeditation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.9.2019 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Raigarh in ST No.81/2018 whereby accused/appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.5.2018 Smt. Ramkumari Sarthi lodged a report at Police Station – Kotraroad to the effect that on 15.5.2018 at around 7-8 pm they all had their dinner and thereafter the complainant along with her husband went towards the kitchen garden (Badi) for sleeping and the accused/appellant and her son deceased Dilip Kumar Sarthi went towards the courtyard for sleeping. Both the accused/appellant and the deceased started quarreling at night. At around 4 am she heard the sound of someone pushing the door, so she went to the courtyard and saw that both the accused and the deceased were not on their bed and smoke was emanating from their room. When she went towards that room, she saw that there was fire and the accused/appellant told her that she killed her son and set him on fire. When the complainant went into the room, the deceased had died and burnt. On this report, the crime was registered and after due investigation charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC was filed against the accused/appellant followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court, to which the accused abjured her guilt and prayed for trial.

3. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by her in defence.

4. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. There are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstantial evidence as required under the law. The evidence of PW-3 Purnima Yadav is not at all reliable. The appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion and there is no motive proved by the prosecution against the appellant for commission of this heinous offence. Even the memorandum and seizure have also not been proved in accordance with law. The material witnesses of the prosecution are interested ones, so their evidence ought to have been scrutinized with great care and caution but that has not been done by learned trial Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case as against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and th