The absence of legally admissible evidence leads to acquittal and emphasizes caution in relying solely on extrajudicial confessions.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in ST No. 133/09 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to undergo additional RI for one month.

2. As per prosecution case, on account of some old dispute in the intervening night of 2nd / 3rd October, 2009 the accused / appellant committed murder of deceased Samundsai while the deceased was sleeping in the nearby house of the appellant, by causing two axe injuries on his head. Merg intimation Ex. P / 8 was recorded on 3.10.2009 at 11.30 am at the instance of PW - 3 Umashankar, grandson of the deceased. Based on that, FIR (Ex. P / 7) was recorded on 3.10.2009 at 11.40 am at the instance of PW - 3 Umashankar under S.302 of IPC against unknown person. Inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted on 3.10.2009 vide Ex. P / 15. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted on dead body on 3.10.2009 by Dr. C. L. Gavde (PW - 2) vide Ex. P / 2, according to which there was cut wound, fracture of the forehead, lacerated wound over occipital region and the cause of death was head injury and that the death was homicidal in nature. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under S.302 of IPC and charge was framed against the accused / appellant accordingly.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused / appellant was also recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) that the accused / appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of so - called extrajudicial confession made by him before PW - 4 Pooranlal whereas as per case diary statement of this witness, no such extrajudicial confession was made by the appellant.
(ii) the other piece of evidence against the accused / appellant is seizure of Tangi and clothes of the appellant vide Ex. P / 12 & P / 13 pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex. P / 11, however, in absence of any FSL report, the same cannot be connected with the crime in question as it has not been proved that these articles were stained with blood.
(iii) that in fact the present is a case of no evidence, yet the accused / appellant has been convicted under S.302 of IPC.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that conviction of the appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court.

7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

8. PW - 3 Umashankar, grand - son of the deceased at whose instance merg intimation Ex. P / 8 and FIR (Ex. P / 7) were recorded, has stated that on the night of the incident his grand - father Samundsai was sleeping in the courtyard of his new house, he went there to offer him food but his grand - father refused to eat. On the second day when he was passing through the house of the deceased, he found the deceased lying in front of the house drenched with blood. There was injury on his head and he had died. He has stated that on account of some old dispute between the