The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and conclusive circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) [in short Cr.P.C.] against the judgment dated 12.03.2013, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.87/2011, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and Sec 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- & RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 06 months and 03 months respectively.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that:

(i) The appellant and the deceased Ashraf were known to each other and on the date of incident i.e. 21.11.2020, in the morning, a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased as appellant did not give the mobile number, name and address of a girl engaged in prostitution. Due to which, on the same day, at about 6.45 p.m., when deceased Ashraf alongwith complainant Irfan and Imran was going towards Khajrana on motorcycle and reached near Radhakunj, appellant met him on the way. He asked the deceased that he want to talk to him and when deceased get down from the motorcycle, appellant assaulted him on his chest with a knife and thereafter fled away from the spot. Complainant Irfan alongwith Imran took the deceased to Life Line Hospital where he was declared dead.

(ii) On the same day at about 8:00 p.m, Head Constable Anil Kumar after receiving the information about the death of the deceased from Life Line Hospital, registered Merg Intimation Report (Ex. P-7) at Police Station Vijaynagar, Indore. On the same day at about 9:00 p.m., SHO Ajay Kaithwas, on the basis of oral complaint made by the complainant Irfan, lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1). Next day, on 22.11.2010, he went to the place of occurrence, prepared spot map (Ex. P-2), seized plain as well as blood soaked soil alongwith deceased blood stained slippers from the place of occurrence as per seizure memo (Ex. P-3). S.I. S.S. Patel went to M.Y. Hospital, called the witnesses issuing safina form (Ex. P-8), prepared Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. P-9) of the dead body of the deceased and vide application (Ex. P-10), sent the same for post-mortem examination.

(iii) On the same day at about 11.15 a.m., Dr. Prashant Rajput conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased's body. He finding one stab wound measuring 2.5 cm. X 0.6 cm. on his chest and one stab wound measuring 2 X 0.5 X 2 cm. on left lateral part of of his left thigh, caused by hard, sharp and penetrating object, prepared postmortem report (Ex. P-11) and opined that the deceased was died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to thoracic region within 24 hours since post-mortem and his death was homicidal in nature.

(iv) On the same day, SHO Ajay Kaithwas arrested the appellant as per arrest memo (Ex. P-4), recorded his disclosure statement (Ex. P-5) and on the basis of which, on his instance, seized blood stained knife, used in the crime, from the place near to the place of occurrence as per seizure memo (Ex. P-6). Vide letter (Ex. P-13) sent all the seized articles to FSL, Rau, Indore and obtained FSL report (Ex. P-15). After completion of investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, who committed the same vide order dated 18.01.2011 to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore.

3. Learned trial Court considering the material prima-facie available on record, framed the charges for the offences punishable u/S 302 of IPC and Sec 25(1-B)b of Arms Act. against the appellant, who abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. In their statement recorded u/S 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded his false implication in the matter. Appellant took the defense that deceased was a quarrelsome person by nature and on the date of incident, appellant was asked to give mobile number of a girl, which was denied by him and on that issue, qua