G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of the trial court dated 28.07.2011 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2011 whereby the appellant had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Learned Trial Court are:

“1) According to the prosecution case accused Sandeep was married to Sumitra (deceased), sister of the complainant Sukhdev about four years before the incident and couple was blessed with a daughter aged about 2 years; for the last 6 months couple was having temperamental disputes (ann-ban) and complainant and his family tried to make the accused understand; on 22/09/2009 in the morning the accused made a telephonic call to the complainant stating that he alongwith his wife Sumitra (deceased) would be going to Aman Vihar police station where he would divorce her; accordingly complainant went to Aman Vihar police station but the accused did not reach there and after waiting sometime he called the accused on telephone but the same was switched off then at about 11.30am while searching them complainant reached near railway crossing in front of Nangloi Railway quarter and saw the accused and deceased Sumitra who were going on the unmattled way (Kacha rasta) and the complainant also started proceeding towards them and in the meantime he saw that his sister (deceased) had sat beneath the tree and accused Sandeep gave a blow on her neck with a daiv (sharp weapon meant for cutting wood). The complainant went towards them to save his sister but in the meantime the accused had already given several blows with the said weapon to her; complainant caught hold the accused and in the meantime many public persons were gathered there and someone informed the police and the police reached there and statement of the complainant was recorded in which he has stated that his brother-in-law Sandeep had murdered his sister Sumitra. After completing the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC.

3. The prosecution examined twenty three witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case and was not present at the place of occurrence.

4. (i) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant while attacking the impugned judgment has contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is contrary to the material available on the record and the same is based on the surmises and conjectures and is in gross ignorance of settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as by this Hon’ble Court in various cases and is liable to be set aside.

(ii) He has further contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incidents and circumstantial evidence on the basis of statement of PW-14 (SI Shishupal) posted at PCR vehicle which is in contradiction to the statements of PW4 (mother), PW-5 (Sukhdev Singh), PW-12 (Basantlal) and despite glaring contradictions regarding the last seen evidence as alleged by PW-14 (SI Shishupal).

(iii) It has further been submitted that the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of alleged weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes of the appellant lying near the dead body and erroneously came to the conclusion that blood on the blood stained clothes was of the deceased though the clothes could not be connected to the appellant.

(iv) It has further been submitted that the impugned judgment of learned trial court was heavily based on unproved circumstances of last seen evidence and while passing the im