Rathi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 383 read with section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.7.1999 passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.135/97, whereby appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. It is not in dispute that Mahesh (since deceased) was working in a Hotel at Village Ghunghuti with Bachhu (PW 5) for the last 10 years.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that against the backdrop of a recent quarrel, on 20.5.1997, appellant informed Bachhu at his Hotel, that he will kill Mahesh and after a while, in the evening, Parvati (PW 1) came at the Hotel and informed Bachhu that Mahesh was brutally assaulted by the appellant with a cricket Bat. Bachhu rushed to the spot and saw that Mahesh was lying on a cot in a severely injured condition and was breathing sparsely. While he was taking Mahesh to Police Station, near the Hotel, Mahesh succumbed to the injuries thus caused. Thereafter, at 7.30 a.m. First Information Report (Ex. P/4) was lodged by Bachhu at Kotwali Shahdol, whereupon Morgue No.63/97 (Ex.P/16) was registered. During investigation, Bat used for committing the offence, was seized at the instance of the appellant and as per the Forensic Science Lab report (Ex. P/18), human blood was found on the Bat.

4. Dr. Mukund Chaturvedi (PW 8), who conducted the autopsy, vide his report (Ex.P/9), noted as follows:

“Lacerated wound present over left maxillary region and left temporal and frontal region. Vertically directed. Frontal and temporal bones fractured bilaterally. There is fracture of left maxilla also. Fracture of right tibia and fibula compound in nature. Lacerated wound present at the mid 1/3rd of right leg anteriorly”.

According to him, cause of death was extensive laceration of brain caused by comminuted fracture of skull vault brought about by strike by hard and blunt object associated with compound fracture of tibia and fibula. Mode of death was coma as a result of head injury.

5. Appellant was charged with the offence under section 302 of the IPC. Appellant denied the charge and pleaded false implication.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of conviction deserved to be set aside. She submitted that the appellant is in jail for the last more than 13 years and, therefore, his case may be considered compassionately.

7. In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction is well merited.

8. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the evidence and material on record.

9. Parvati Bai (PW 1), Vinay (PW 2), Sudarshan Prasad (PW 3), Shivbhajan (PW 4), Bachhu (PW 5), Shrinivas (PW 6), Adarsh Kumar Pandey (PW 7), Dr. Mukund Chaturvedi (PW 8), Pannalal (PW 9), C.M.Pandey (PW 10), Head Constable Mahabali (PW 11) and Investigating Officer S.S.Mishr (PW 12) were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges.

10. Child witness Vinay deposed that when he along with his friends was playing in the ground situated in front of his house, a man came and after snatching the Bat from Adarsh, went to the house of Mahesh, from where they heard the sound of assaulting someone. He categorically identified the appellant as the person who had snatched the Bat from Adarsh. He also deposed that he had informed the incident to his Bua (aunt) Parvati.

11. Child witness Adarsh, though was declared hostile, yet in answer to the leading questions, admitted that appellant had snatched the Bat from him, went to the house of Mahesh and assaulted Mahesh. He further deposed that he had informed about the incident to Bua of Vinay viz. Parvati Bai.

12. Parvati Bai deposed that on 20/5/1997 when she was going to her home at Vill