JUDGMENT :

(Umesh Chandra Sharma J.)

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, Ms. Pooja and Shweta Kesarwani, learned counsel for the sole appellant and Shri N.K Srivastava, learned AGA for the state.

2. This appeal has been preferred by accused Vinod Chaudhari, husband of deceased, Sangeeta, against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2019 of conviction and sentencing in S.T. No. 10 of 2015 (State of UP Vs Vinod Chaudhari) arising out of crime No. 869 of 2014 u/s 302 IPC, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra by ASJ II Sonbhadra.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that informant Lallu Chaudhary, elder brother of the appellant, on being informed by the appellant in the night of 30-9-2014 that his wife has been found dead inside the room, occupied by them rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased laying on the bed with spitted throat. The informant (PW 1) moved the complaint (Ex A13) on 1-10-2014 at 5:15 a.m against unknown miscreants. A chik FIR was prepared and police visited the place of occurrence thereafter and performed the punchanama, sent dead body for post-mortem. As per I.O., during the course of investigation the appellant confessed the guilt and on his pointing blood stained axe alleged to be used in commission of crime was recovered from the heap of woods nearby the place of occurrence. After recording evidence of the concerned witnesses I.O., R.B Maurya (PW-10) submitted charge sheet (Ex Ka 12) against the appellant u/s 302 IPC.

4. On 14-5-2015 the appellant was charged u/s 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Following witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused:

6. Following material exhibits were relied on by the prosecution:

7. After closer of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he outrightly denied all the charges and incriminating evidence against him and claimed to be innocent.

8. In this case all the witnesses of fact and recovery have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution version. The learned trial court has accepted that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, the chain of circumstances is not complete, the motive has not been proved, yet relying on the citations Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657, Tirmukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 and Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 (3) SCC 106, convicted the accused with the help of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that it is incorrect, illegal, arbitrary, severe excessive and against the weight of evidence on record. The appellant has been convicted without considering the facts and evidence on record. The offence was committed