An accused is entitled to a fair trial and opportunity to challenge evidence under Art. 21 of the Constitution; failure in providing due process renders conviction unsustainable.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2014 passed by the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.35/2012 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' the IPC - ) and S.25 and S.27 of Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that deceased Sanjeev Singh was engaged as contractor in Jindal Iron Factory, Patrapali. It is alleged that the deceased had illicit relation with the wife of the appellant. On the intervening night, of 18-19/9/2011 deceased was invited by the appellant and the other accused persons namely - Sohan Lal and Rajkishore for having drinks and subsequent to that the deceased was shot thrice from a Desi Katta by this appellant causing him fatal injuries, which resulted in his death. Vinod Kumar Chouhan PW - 1 lodged the morgue intimation Ex.P - 1 and FIR Ex.P - 2. The police registered offence under S.302 of IPC against unknown person. Postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. S. Lakda PW - 6, who opined by his report Ex.P - 12, that the death of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar Singh was homicidal. Investigation was taken - up, in which, the appellant was apprehended and interrogated who gave statement on memorandum vide Ex.P - 19, leading to the discovery of the firearm. At the instance of the appellant, the seizure of firearm a Desi Katta was made from the possession of this appellant vide Ex.P - 22. The Investigating Officer had made inspection of the spot and prepared Crime Details Forrn Ex.P - 3 and from the very spot seizure of articles were made which were three blank shells of cartridges, on the bottom of which it was written 8 MM KF., other belongings of the deceased, the blood stained soil and plain soil, The seized firearm and the empty cartridges were sent for ballistic examination vide ballistic report Ex.P39. It has been reported that the empty cartridges found from the spot were shot from the firearm that was seized from the appellant. The statement of witnesses were recorded under S.161 ,CrPC and on completion of investigation, the charge - sheet has filed before the Court.

3. After the committal procedure, the learned Sessions Court took cognizance in the case and charged the appellant with offences under S.120 - B, 302 of IPC and S.25 and S.27 of Arms Act . The co - accused persons Sohan Lal and Rajkishore were charged with commission of offences under S.120 - B, 302/34 of IPC. The appellant and the co - accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant and the co - accused persons were examined under S.313 of CrPC, in which, they denied all the incriminating evidence present against them and made a statement of their innocence. No evidence was led in defence. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defence has delivered the impugned judgment, in which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. However, the co - accused persons were acquitted of all the charges against them.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the conviction against the appellant is totally erroneous. The evidence of prosecution was not of the quality to have inspired confidence of the Court. The case against the appellant was totally based on the circumstantial evidence. The FIR Ex.P - 2 was lodged against unknown person. Their was no witness to depose about the deceased and the appellant being last seen together. Parsuram Mehto PW - 4 has not supported the prosecution case. He has only stated that he was only acquainted with the deceased. Further, the witnesses of search and s