JOKHAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.186/2011 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as described below:-

(2.) According to the prosecution story, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that the appellant was receiving treatment from deceased Jabarsai Gond and it is said that the appellant, having not been benefited from the treatment and the deceased repeatedly playing witchcraft without any effect on appellant's illness, the appellant axed the deceased. FIR in Ex.P/1 was lodged by Ramjit (PW/1). The dead body was sent for postmortem and in the postmortem, conducted by Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW/6), the dead body was found having sustained compressed lacerated wounds on the face and head. The cause of death was stated to be excessive bleeding as a result of injuries and was opined to be homicidal in nature. On the basis of FIR (Ex.P/1), the appellant being suspect, was arrested, taken into custody and it is the case of the prosecution that at the instance of the appellant, an axe was recovered from his house. The said axe, in FSL report, was found to be stained with blood. With that much of incriminating material, the police filed charge sheet and prosecution was launched against the appellant on the allegation of commission of murder of Jabarsai Gond, which led to trial culminating in impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(3.) The short and pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant is founded on the so called last seen evidence of Ramjit (PW/1), motive and recovery of an axe said to be stained with blood. Elaborating his submission, he argued that as far as the last seen evidence is concerned, the same is not at all reliable, because the last seen witness PW/1 had lodged report in which he did not make any such statement of having seen the deceased going along with the appellant. Even in diary statement, this fact was not stated, as has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness. Therefore, the last seen evidence is a complete improvement. The axe allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant, though, said to be stained with blood, there is no serologist report that it was human blood and further that the axe which was recovered from the spot was not even sent for FSL examination, therefore, the prosecution case, it is argued, could not travel beyond a suspicion so as to translate into truth to bring home guilt.