Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires stringent standards; the prosecution's failure to present cohesive evidence resulted in the acquittal of the appellant.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under S.374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2014 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, in Sessions Trial No.85/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under S.302 and S.201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03.08.2012 at 11:00 a.m. at village Usaritola forest, Police Station - Dondilohara, the appellant assaulted his wife Sonibai by stone and also strangulated her and in order to screen himself from the offence, buried the dead body nearby and thereby the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife Sonibai and also used to beat her and on the date of offence, he had taken his wife to Usaritola forest to collect firewood where the deceased Sonibai said to have demanded money to go to her parental house to celebrate Rakshabandhan, which the appellant did not extend favour and on the contrary, he assaulted her by stone and when she fell down, he is said to have strangulated her by which she died and thereafter, he brought pickaxe and spade from his house and buried the dead body. On 11.08.2012, a missing report was lodged and thereafter, Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P - 17) was registered at Zero number and thereafter, on 20.08.2012 at 10:10 a.m., the Merg Intimation vide Ex.P - 16 was registered at the instance of appellant that he had killed his wife when she demanded money to go to her parental house to celebrate Rakshabandhan and then buried the dead body at that place, pursuant to which, vide Ex. P - 1, dead body exhumation panchnama was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses and dead body was exhumed and thereafter, the offence was registered. Thereafter with the permission of S.D.M., Dondilohara, from the house of the appellant, pickaxe was recovered vide Ex.P - 4 and blood smeared soil was seized vide Ex.P - 7. Inquest was conducted on 20.08.2012 vide Ex.P - 3 and thereafter, the dead body was sent for post - mortem, which was referred to the Medical College, Raipur, and post - mortem was conducted by Dr. R. K. Singh (PW - 9), who has proved post - mortem report vide EX.P - 16A. According to the post - mortem report, dead body was of a female in moderate to advanced stage of decomposition and death was due to injuries to head and neck region caused by hard and blunt object and death was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as manyas 10 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents and the appellant - accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offences under S.302 and S.201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as above, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the merg intimation was registered as per Ex. P