ORDER :

(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

With the consent of the parties and taking note of the custody period, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. It is informed by learned GA cum AAG that victim has been intimated about filing of the present appeal and suspension of sentence application. Report is taken on record.

3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of victim, despite information.

4. Accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Sessions Case No.30/2014, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undero six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

5. Succintly stated the facts of the case are that Kanhaiyalal lodged a written report (Ex.P.1) at Police Station Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur on 20.01.2014 alleging therein that in the afternoon at 2:30 pm, two boys came from village-Purapane Singh and informed him that his maternal grand daughter-Asha has expired. It is mentioned that he came on the motorcycle of two boys to village-Purapane Singh and saw his maternal-grand daughter lying in pool of blood. It is also mentioned in the FIR that an axe was lying near the dead body. It is also mentioned in the FIR that on enquiry, the persons who were present there, informed him that Asha has been murdered by her husband-present appellant. On receipt of above report, police registered FIR No.28/2014 and commenced investigation. After due investigation, police filed challan against appellant under Section 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charges for offence under Section 302 IPC. Appellant denied the charges and sought trial. As many as 15 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order dated 0801.2016. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellant that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. A complete chain is not made out and hence the conviction order deserves to be set aside. It is also contended that in the FIR (Ex.P-1), there is no mention about the extra judicial confession made by the accused before complaint. It is contended that in the FIR, there is mention that the axe was near the dead body, however, the police has recovered the axe on the next day from the kitchen, adjacent to the place of occurrence which goes to show that the Investigating Officer has tried to implicate the present appellant. It is also contended that Ex.P-3 (site plan) was prepared on the next day i.e. 21.01.2014, whereas as per the statement of the witnesses, police reached the place of occurrence on the same day and had also prepared site plan on the same day in the presence of the complainant-Kanhaiyalal (PW-2). Similar is the statement of Ramdhan (PW-1).

7. It is also contended that as per the prosecution version, the appellant had locked the room and left the place. The lock was broken by PW-1 (Ramdhan), neither the broken lock, nor the key has been recovered at the instance of the appellant which creates doubt on the prosecution version. It is also contended that no blood stained clothes of the appellant were recovered by the police and no motive has been assigned. It is al