C A V JUDGMENT

Per Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2012, whereby and where-under, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-

with default stipulation.

2. According to the prosecution case on 12.02.2012 at about 9.00 PM, Chhattar Sai (deceased) and the appellant went to the house of Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.-8) to perform some rituals. All of them collected the materials for performing Pooja and went to place called Dubatiya. Chhattar Sai (deceased) was performing the rituals it was at that time, the appellant exclaiming that “today I have got the opportunity”, assaulted the deceased – Chhattar Sai with axe and inflicted four injuries on his neck and head, as a result of which, Chhattar Sai died on the spot.

3. Morgue intimation (Ex.P-15) was lodged by the Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.9) and he also lodged the FIR (Ex.P-16). Offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. Inquest procedure was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report is (Ex.P-2). Postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4), who vide his report (Ex.P-11), opined that the cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest, which resulted from multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and the nature of death was homicidal. The appellant/accused was apprehended and interrogated, who gave statement on memorandum vide (Ex.P-4). At the instance of the appellant, an axe was seized from the place indicated by the appellant vide (Ex.P-5). Clothes worn by the appellant at the time of incident were seized vide (Ex.P-7). Formal arrest of the appellant was made vide (Ex.P-6). Spot map was prepared vide (Ex.P-8) by Patwari. Blood stained soil and plain soil was seized from the place of incident vide (Ex.P-9). The seized articles were sent for examination, which was examined by the Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4), who has reported vide (Ex.P-12) opining that the seized weapon could be used to cause injuries that were found present on the neck of the deceased. Crime details form was prepared vide (Ex.P-19). The articles were sent for FSL examination, but there is no FSL report received and produced in the Court. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-

sheet was filed, before the Court concerned.

4. After the committal proceeding, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded innocence and false implication and prayed for trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence present against him and again pleaded innocence and false implication. Opportunity was taken for examining witnesses in defence, but no witness was examined in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence has delivered the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner mentioned herein-above.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. Witnesses of prosecution had not been reliable and trustworthy, their statements are full of contradictions and omissions. The testimony of Investigating Officer, Inspector O.P. Kujur (P.W.-12) is full of discrepancies, hence, is unbelievable. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident alleged in this cas