Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant - accused person under S.374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.52/2012 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under S.302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that elder brother of the appellant, namely, Satosh Pateva lodged a report in Police Chowki Patewa to the effect that on 07.04.2012 between 12:00 to 02:00 or in and around, wife of the appellant - Dropati Bai was found dead inside the house. It is alleged by the prosecution that on account of old quarrel between them, the appellant committed her murder by sharp edged weapon, i.e. Kattal (used for fish cutting / tabbal) and thereafter he ran away from the spot.

3. During investigation, inquest (Ex.P.2) over the dead body was conducted in presence of witnesses. Spot map (Ex.P.8) was prepared. F.I.R. was lodged by Santosh Pateva, brother of appellant, vide Ex.P.1. Merg intimation was registered vide Exs.P - 21 and P - 22. Vide Ex.P - 7 bloodstained soil, plain soil, bloodstained, Kattal (Tabbal) and two sets of mobile phone as well as bloodstained pillow were seized from the spot. Dead body of the deceased Dropati Bai was subjected to the postmortem by Dr. Giridharilal Chandrakar (P.W.11) and as per postmortem report (Ex.P.9), the cause of death is severe haemorrahge and injury to wind pipe trachea and esophagus and nature of death is homicidal.
As per the memorandum of statement of the appellant (Ex.P.4), blood stained shirt and other material were recovered vide Ex.P - 5. According to FSL report (Ex.P.24), human blood was found on the weapon of offence - Katfa / (Tabbal) and blood was found on shirt of accused, pillow and clothes of deceased etc.

4. After due investigation, the appellant was charge - sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund for its trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused person abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 19 witnesses and brought into record 26 documents and defence in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

6. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused person for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal, inasmuch, it did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to him, the appellant was not present at the house and without considering the evidence adduced in this regard, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant as such.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offen