- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-9-2006 passed in S.T. No. 30 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG). By the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; and RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentences under each count with a further direction to run sentences concurrently. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
On 13-1-2006 at about 7-8 a.m., dead body of deceased Bhagoli Kanwar was found in Beshram shrubs in the outskirts of the village. Deceased had sustained multiple serious injuries. Police was telephonically informed. When the police came to the village, dehati nalsi (Ex. P/6) and mere intimation (Ex. P/7) were recorded at the instance of Kotwar Durga Prasad (PW/2). Inquest was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem, which revealed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries and death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Many articles including one pocket diary (Article F) were seized from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, the said diary (Article F) was belonging to appellant Tirathram @ Tilakram (A-1). The witnesses had seen that Hemraj (A-2) had also visited the place of occurrence in the morning and he had torned page No. 2 (Ex. P/47) of the said diary. This was informed to Kotwar and the torned page was handed over to Kotwar. The accused persons were taken into custody and their memorandum statements were recorded and various clothes were seized. The seized clothes and articles were sent for their chemical examination to FSL, Raipur, from where a report (Ex. P/56) was received. According to the FSL report, bloodstains were found on almost all the articles including the clothes seized from the accused persons. Specimen handwriting of appellant (A-1) was taken. Diary (Article F) and torned page (Ex. P/46) of the diary were sent for expert examination to the State Examiner of Questioned Document, CG, Raipur and a report (Ex. P/55) was received. According to the hand-writing expert report, the specimen hand-writing and the hand-writing in the diary were matching with each other. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances on which the Sessions Judge convicted Tirathram @ Tilakram (A-1):

(i) Bloodstained clothes were seized on the discovery statement made by the appellant;

(ii) There was a dispute between appellant and deceased regarding a blackberry (Jamun) tree;

(iii) Diary of the appellant was seized near the dead body of deceased;

(iv) Deceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant.

The Sessions Judge did not find the circumstantial evidence sufficient against Hemraj (A-2). Therefore, Hemraj (A-2) was acquitted. However, the appellant Tirathram @ Tilakram was convicted as above. Hence, this appeal.

(2.)Mr. Ashok Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the above circumstances were not fully established. The circumstances were not of conclusive nature and tendency; it was not proved that the pocket diary (Article F) was belonging to the appellant and it was also not proved that the hand-writing in the diary was of the appellant, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained.
(3.)On the other hand, Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.