IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction cannot stand without credible, corroborated evidence linking the accused to the crime, emphasizing the burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ramkumar Choubey, J.

1.Albeit, the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.19365/2025, which is first application filed under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short "CrPC") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, rather pressing on the said application, the learned counsel for the parties concur to argue the matter finally. Thus, it is heard finally.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Damoh in S.T. No.207/2017 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

3. The encapsulated facts necessary to reach a decisive conclusion are that the first informant Kallu Patel on 27.09.2017 made a written report to the effect that his real brother Suraj Patel (hereafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was an auto-rickshaw driver. On 26.09.2017 at about 7.0’clock, deceased had gone to city for running auto-rickshaw. On 27.09.2017 at 8:00, he came to know that at Khajri Mohalla some unknown person has killed the deceased and his corpse is lying on the road. When he reached on spot, he found that the deceased was lying on the road and on scanning his body, he found that deceased had sustained an incised wound behind the neck measuring 7 inch long & 2 inch deep, caused by sharp-edged weapon and blood had sprawled on the road and it was assumed that some unknown person has committed the murder of the deceased by means of a sharp-edged weapon. On that basis, Sub Inspector R.P. Choudhary of Police Station Kotwali, District Damoh registered Dehati Nalishi and a inquest intimation No.0/17 under Section 174 of CrPC and thereafter an FIR bearing Crime No.696/2017 was registered against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the investigation was set in motion.

3.1 During investigation, statement of witnesses living in vicinity namely Mukku alias Mukesh Yadav, Prem Kumar alias Pappu, Munna alias Butler, etc. were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and also under Section 164 of CrPC. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was shackled and on the basis of his memorandum (Ex.P/17) recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, an axe, used in the commission of offence, was recovered from his possession.

3.2 After completion of investigation, a final report was submitted to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, who vide order dated 13.12.2017 committed the case to the Court of Session, being exclusively triable by it.

3.3 At trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded fallacious implication. On the fulcrum of material gleaned by the prosecution and the evidence adduced, the learned Special Judge vide judgment 31.05.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned above. Hence, the appellant/accused has filed the instant criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused sanguinely propounds that the offence might have been committed by some unknown person and the appellant/accused has, without any foundation, been incriminated falsely. She asserts that in the absence of any incriminating material available on record against the appellant/accused, the learned trial court has convicted him on assumptions, based on uncorroborated evidence. On these premise, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted.

5. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the case rests on last seen theory inasmuc