The central legal point established in the judgment is that a conviction based on single eyewitness testimony and recovered evidence must be of sterling quality and free from doubts. Forensic evidence should provide clarity on the origin of human blood, and in the absence of such clarity, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

JUDGMENT SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This Criminal appeal filed under section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 7-12-2011 passed in Sessions case No. 347 of 2010 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara, whereby appellant was held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In short, the case of prosecution is that the complainant Kavita Bai (PW-1) lodged a report on 14-10-2010 that she, her mother Sukko Bai and younger sister Prita were working on their agricultural field. The elder sister Lalita was at home. After performing the agricultural work and after taking the material arising therefrom, she reached to her house. When the bundle of chaff placed in the Courtyard, Kavita Bai (PW-1) found that her brother-in-law Manish Verma (appellant) came out of the house and fled away towards Rajgurupipariya. Appellant was wearing white shirt and pant, while coming out of the house his sunglasses fell down in the Courtyard. Kavita Bai (PW-1) with the aid of a lamp entered the ‘manjhota’ where her elder sister was lying and there was an injury on the right side of her head and she was bleeding profusely. ‘Vasoola’ and ‘Hansiya’ were found near her body. Kavita Bai (PW-1) called her mother and they found that Lalita is no more.

3. Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-2) was promptly recorded at 18:40 O’clock whereas incident was shown to be of 17:30 O’clock whereas Dehati Marg intimation was recorded 10 minutes thereafter on 14-10-2010 at 18:50 O’clock. On the basis of this prosecution story narrated in the Dehati Nalishi, the FIR was registered on 14-10-2010 at 22:10 hours (Exhibit P/12). In turn, the investigation commenced and appellant was arrested on 22-10-2010 at 01:00 O’clock in the noon.

4. As per the story, on 22-10-2010 at 12:15, O’clock blood stained ‘gamchha’ was allegedly recovered from the appellant. In due course, the matter travelled to the trial Court. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for conducting full fledged trial.

5. The trial Court framed a questions for its determination, recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties came to hold that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court below placed reliance on the statement of Kavita Bai (PW/1) and the recovery of ‘gamchha’ from the appellant. The sentence as mentioned above is directed to be undergone by the appellant.

Submissions of appellant’s counsel : – 6. Shri J. K. Dehariya learned counsel for the appellant submits that ‘Hansiya’ and ‘Vasoola’ allegedly used in commission of crime and found near the dead body were neither seized nor produced in the Court. Hence, Forensic Science laboratory report (abbreviated as : ‘FSL’) is silent about availability of blood stains etc, on the ‘Hansiya’ and ‘Vasoola’.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is mainly convicted on the basis of statement of Kavita (PW-1), recovery of sunglasses of appellant and recovery of blood stained ‘gamchha’. The statement of Gali (PW-3), brother of deceased is relied upon who deposed that he is unable to state with clarity whether sunglasses belong to his brother-in-law/appellant. It is further argued that other witnesses who allegedly seen the appellant coming to the house were not examined.

8. The statement of Kavita (PW-1) does not inspire confidence because as per her statement her sister Lalita was already sitting in the Courtyard when she came back from agricultural field to her own house. As per her statement, appellant was arrested from Sagar. In Para-6 of her deposition, she stated that when she kept the bundle of chaff in the Courtyard, she found that appellant came out of the house and started running towards his house at Rajgurupipariya. She further deposed that while returning from agricultural farm with mother and