Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By the judgment dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.178/2017, the appellant Jeeva herein has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the above judgment. Brief facts relevant and germane for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
(2.) P.W.1 Smt. Rameela wife of the accused-appellant Jeeva lodged a written report at the General Hospital, Dungarpur on 09.03.2017 at 9:00 a.m. In the report, it was alleged that on 08.03.2017, in the evening at about 7 p.m. Smt. Rameela (P.W.1) alongwith her daughter Reena were sitting outside in the courtyard of their house. Her husband Jeeva often used to quarrel with them in an inebriated state. Being perturbed by this conduct of the accused, the informant used to reside in a separate house in Indra Colony with her two sons Vinod, Mithun and her married daughter Reena. Her husband used to reside separately in the nearby vicinity. On 08.03.2017, he (Jeeva) came to the informant's house at around 7:00 p.m., armed with an axe and launched an assault on Vinod. He hit Vinod on the back of his head with the axe. The first informant Smt. Rameela (P.W.1) and her daughter Reena tried to save Vinod but they could not succeed. After hitting Vinod with the axe, the accused ran after the first informant Rameela and Reena with the intention to kill them, upon which, they ran helter-skelter and somehow saved their lives. Jeeva struck blows by the axe on the head and other body parts of Vinod, causing a number of injuries, after which he ran away from the place of incident. Devi Lal, Suresh and Bhera came to the spot and took Vinod to the General Hospital, Dungarpur, from where he was referred to the Udaipur Hospital. While Vinod was being taken to the Udaipur Hospital, he succumbed to his injuries.
(3.) On the basis of this report, an FIR No.47/2017 (Ex.P/2) came to be registered at the Police Station Dovera, District Dungarpur for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was commenced and usual procedure viz., seizure of the blood stained articles from the place of incident, postmortem of the dead body of Vinod, seizure of his clothes etc. was undertaken. The accused-appellant was arrested and after effecting recoveries of a blood stained axe and the appellant's own blood stained clothes, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge sheet against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, who framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and sought trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him under the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge heard and considered the submissions of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. Shri J.V.S.Deora, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that there is no evidence whatsoever on record of the case to connect the appellant with the crime. The two star prosecution eye-witnesses viz., the first informant Rameela (P.W.1) and Reena (P.W.2), did not support the prosecution case in its entirety and were declared hostile. The trial judge placed reliance on the circumstantial evidence in form of the blood stained recovery and the FSL report for convicting and sentencing the appellant. As per Shri Deora, the FIR is inconsequential as the first informant turned hostile. The process of effecting recoveries is tainted. According to him, even if for a moment, it is to be believed that blood stained recoveries were effected at the instance of the accused and the blood group matched with that of the deceased then also, the FSL report can only be used for seeking corroboration of substantive evidence. His contention is that there is no substantive evidence whatsoever on record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the offence and hence, the blood stained recoveries coupled with the FSL report by themselves are not sufficient to affirm the guilt of the accused. On these grounds, Shri Deora sought reversal of the impugned judgment and craved acquittal of the accused-appellant. ;