Conviction cannot be sustained when key eye-witnesses and seizure witnesses turn hostile, and forensic evidence is compromised by a lack of proven safe custody and significant delay.

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No.109/2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Maniram) by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months.

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 13.05.2016, at about 12:05 AM, at Uraonpara, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG), the accused- appellant herein assaulted his brother, namely, Dhaniram (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of knife, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence.

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that when the matter was reported to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/22) and FIR (Ex.P/10) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/06 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/05. Spot map was also prepared vide Ex.P/01 & Ex.P/08, whereas Panchnama was also prepared vide Ex.P/02. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Vijay Lakda (PW-07) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/19), cause of death of the deceased is shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding and nature of death is homicidal. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/25 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/14. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, knife was seized vide Ex.P/15. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination, in which, as per FSL report (Ex.P/27) it has been opined that stains human blood were found on the knife seized from the appellant. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents, whereas the appellant- accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel argued that two eye- witnesses, namely, Purnu Ram Uraon (PW-01) and Nirmala Uraon (PW-02) have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Even, witnesses of memorandum (Ex.P/14) and seizure (Ex.P/15) have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they both have also turned hostile, as such, seizure of knife pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant is also of no help to the prosecution. Merely, because in the FSL report (Ex.P/27) human blood has been found in the said knife, the same has been made basis for the conviction of