1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 91/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Ajay Singh had gone from his house on 29.05.2019 at about 08:00 PM after having meals for the purpose of tendu patta work and thereafter did not return. According to the prosecution, during the intervening night of 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019, the present appellant Jaipal @ Korwa Singh along with co-accused Basanti Singh (acquitted) and juvenile co-accused Mangru @ Dalai Singh assaulted Ajay Singh by mens of a sword at Baghaltwa Pahad situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ramanujganj, thereby causing his death by severing his neck. On 31.05.2019, information regarding a dead body lying in the forest area was received, whereafter Ramswarath Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased, along with villagers reached the spot and found the dead body of Ajay Singh lying in mutilated condition with severed neck. Thereafter merg intimation was lodged and merg inquiry was initiated.

3. On the basis of the merg inquiry and postmortem report indicating homicidal death, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 97/2019 was registered at Police Station Ramanujganj for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons.

4. During investigation, inquest over the dead body was conducted and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded. The appellant was taken into custody and memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded, pursuant to which one sword alleged to have been used in the commission of offence was seized. Seized articles were sent for forensic examination and FSL report was obtained. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.

5. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant and co-accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC along with Sections 25 (1-b) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded, wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. No defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. It is further contended that prosecution witnesses Rambasawan Singh (PW-1) and Ramswarath Singh (PW-3), who are close relatives of the deceased, merely stated that they came to know later that the appellant committed the murder, but not disclosed the source of such information. Their statements are hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. It is also argued that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) turned hostile and Vishwanath Singh (PW-4) specifically stated that he did not know who committed the murder. It is further contended that prosecution has failed to establish