1 2025:CGHC:14283-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1821 of 2024 Vasudev Vishwakarma S/o Jagdish Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years R/o T. V. Tower Road, Manendragarh, P.S. Manendragarh, District Koriya (Now Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur) (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya (Now Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur), Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgement on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 25/03/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the appellant against impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2024 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.04 11:15:53 +0530 2 Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 05 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2019, at about 7:30 PM when the first informant Ramkripal (PW-6) was going to the grocery shop, he saw the abandoned hutment is burning, which was situated on the side of pond belonging to the village Bhola Yadav. When he went there along with Manish Shrivastava and Balender, they felt smell of something burning inside the hutment, and then Manish Shrivastava had informed the police through his mobile phone. When they went near the hutment, they saw a burnt dead body of unknown lady, who was aged about 22-23 years and wore anklet on her leg. The merg intimation/exhibit P-12 was recorded by the police. Inquest/exhibit P-2 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, where a team of two doctors namely Dr. Archna Kumhare/PW-11 and Dr. S.S. Singh conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave postmortem report/exhibit P-23. While conducting the postmortem, the doctors have noticed incised wound (cut throat) on front neck region. Horizontally oblique, about 7.5 x 2.5 cm with trachea, is also cut started from right mastoid region (antemortem wound). Body shows extensive postmortem burn. After conducting the postmortem, the doctors have opined that the mode of death is 3 extensive blood loss due to cut throat neck (incised wound) by hard and sharp object. Manner of death is homicidal in nature. The short postmortem report/exhibit P-24 was also obtained from the doctors who conducted the postmortem, in which also the same cause of death and manner of death are opined. 3. The dead body of the deceased was identified by her father Suresh Singh/PW-3 and brother Mithlesh Singh/PW-2 at hospital by its face, ornaments and stole found near the place of incident and identified the dead body of Rakhi Vishwakarma and the dead body identification panchnama/exhibit P-7 was prepared. Blood-stained and plain soil, valvate stole having blood-like stains and one knife has been seized from the spot vide seizure memo/exhibit P-3. The half-burnt clothes having smell of petrol, plain soil and petrol smell soil have also been seized from the spot vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. From the distance of 200 meters from the place of incident, one matchbox having blood- like stains and about 250 meters away from the place of incident, one plastic bottle having few drops of petrol and blood-like stains were also seized from the spot vide seizure memo/exhibit P-5. Spot map/exhibit P-14 was prepared by the police and exhibit P-10 was prepared by the Patwari. FIR/exhibit P-48 was registered against unknown person for the offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC. 4. During the investigation, the appellant was arrested on 11.01.2019 and his memorandum statement/exhibit P-17 was recorded and based on his memorandum statement, one broken SIM card of Jio company and mobile cover belonging to the deceased was seized vide seizure 4 memo/exhibit P-18. The pleasure scooty vehicle has also been seized from the appellant vide seizure memo/exhibit P-9, in which blood-like stains were there. The appellant was put to test identification parade, which was conducted on 07.02.2019 at Sub-Jail, Manendragarh by the Executive Magistrate and test identification memo/exhibit P-20, P35 and P-36 were prepared and the witnesses have duly identified the appellant. A team of forensic expert have taken out the fingerprint from the knife seized from the spot and the fingerprint of the appellant was also taken and sent it for fingerprint expert’s report from the Police Headquarters (Fingerprint Cell) Raipur. The memo with respect to the sending of the articles for fingerprinting is exhibit P-30. The office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Fingerprint Specialist), Surguja sent a request letter to the Police Inspector, Manendragarh for sending the fingerprint/palm print of the appellant for its report vide memo/exhibit P-31 and the fingerprint/palm print is exhibit P-50 to P-55. After examining the fingerprint found on the knife seized from the spot as well as the fingerprint of the appellant, both were found matched and the report and the report of fingerprint expert is exhibit P-32. The relevant Rojnamchas have also been produced by the police, which are exhibit P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-41. The plastic bottle, matchbox, knife, jacket seized from the appellant and the stole seized from the spot were sent for its query report to the doctor, who sent it for its chemical examination vide query report/exhibit P-25 to P-29. The blood-stained and plain soil, stole, knife, matchbox, jacket were sent for its chemical examination to 5 Regional FSL Ambikapur from where report exhibit P-68 was received and according to the FSL report, human blood was found on the sent articles, except the plain soil and in the knife seized on the spot, matchbox seized from the spot as well as the jacket seized from the spot were found to be stained with ‘O’ group of blood. 5. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC has been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 6. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal. 6 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their evidence cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the offence in question. The seizure of knife from the spot has not been proved by the witnesses. The witnesses have also stated about cordial relations between the appellant and the deceased. The police have tried to connect the appellant with the offence in question by examining the witness PW-4/Rajkokil Prasad from whose shop the appellant is said to have purchased the knife, but he did not prove the same. The prosecution has also failed to prove that before taking the fingerprint from the knife, it has not been touched by any other person and chance print was taken on the spot. There is also no evidence that the palm print taken in the blank papers is of the appellant. In the said palm print document/exhibit P-50 to P-55, there is no signature of the appellant that it was his palm print. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case. The evidence of test identification parade and witnesses are also shaky and the appellant was already shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade and thus the test identification parade loses its efficacy. There are various missing links in the chain of circumstances and in absence of any cogent, clinching and convincing evidence against the appellant, he cannot be convicted for commission of murder of his wife Rakhi Singh and he is entitled for acquittal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the 7 submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the components of circumstantial evidence are closely connected with each other, which pointing towards guilt of the appellant in the offence in question. The deceased was the wife of the appellant. There is evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8, who are the relatives of the deceased have proved that the relation between the deceased and the appellant were not cordial and quarrel was regularly took place between them, which is the motive to commit the crime. PW-4/Rajkokil Prasad proved that 2-3 days prior to the date of incident, the appellant has purchased the knife from his shop. The said knife was seized from the spot, having blood-like stains. The fingerprint found on the said knife is matched with the fingerprint of the appellant, and further, that ‘O’ group of human blood was found on the knife and matchbox seized from the spot as well as jacket of the appellant, which directly connects him with the offence in question. Further, there is evidence of test identification parade which was conducted by the Executive Magistrate and thus there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant that he is the perpetrator of the crime and the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost circumspections. 11. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, it has 8 been proved by the prosecution from the evidence of PW-11/Dr. Archna Kumhare, who along with Dr. S.S. Singh conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and found cut injury on neck, her trachea was cut, which was antemortem in nature and the burn was postmortem. After conducting the postmortem, the doctor has opined the cause of death is extensive blood loss due to cut throat neck (incised wound) by hard and sharp object and the manner of death is homicidal in nature. In her cross-examination, nothing specific has been asked, except about the articles sent for query report. The injuries found on the body of the deceased and the postmortem report is unrebutted in her evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve it. When the doctor, who conducted the postmortem opined that the death of the deceased was due to cut of the throat and the burn injury was postmortem burn and when it was remain unchallenged, it can safely be held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The homicidal death of the deceased is further supported by the evidence of PW-1/Kailash Singh and PW-6/Ramkripal, who stated in their evidence that they saw a dead body burning in the abandoned hutment. Further, PW-15, brother of the deceased has also proved that when he saw the dead body of his sister, her neck was cut off and her whole body was burnt. The dead body of the deceased was identified by PW-2 Mithlesh (brother of the deceased) and PW-3/Suresh Singh (father of the deceased), who duly identified the dead body of the deceased that it was the dead body of Rakhi Singh and thus the learned trial Court has rightly held that the deceased died due to homicidal death and we are also in agreement with the said finding 9 recorded by the learned trial Court. 12. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case by circumstantial evidence. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law with respect to the consideration of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in the case. 13. There is no eyewitness in the present case. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (7) SCC 581 has held in para 10 as under:- “10. The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063), Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from 10 which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 10.1. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10.2. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed that: "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....". 14. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon'ble supreme Court has held in 11 and 12 as under:- 11 "11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- "10. ...It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency ency and they should be such as to S exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many 12 subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in Shailendra 1 AIR 1952 SC 343 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 3 where it was succinctly laid down as under:- "17. It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused." 15. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, the Hon'ble supreme Court has held:- "14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to 13 very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt. 15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27, has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: i.) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii.) those circumstances should be of a definite 14 tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii.) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745, this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, this Court, while examining the distinction between 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'suspicion' has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large differ ence between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from 15 sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dis- passionate judicial scrutiny, based Cupon a co upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so de mand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely prob- able doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense". 16. The Supreme Court in case of Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 has held in paragraph 5 as under: "5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by 16 judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt." 17. In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Supreme Court has held as under: "17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads thus:- "153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: 17 (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a Jegal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: 19..... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground 18 for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." (emphasis added). 18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus: "158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor- General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: 9.......But in a case like this where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 159. It will be seen that this Court while taking 19 into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 160. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal case where this Court observed thus: 30........Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)" 20 18. The first circumstance which connects the appellant with the offence in question is the motive to commit murder of the deceased. The motive has been proved by PW-2/Mithlesh and PW-8/Asha Singh. 19. PW-2/Mithlesh has stated in his evidence that he is the brother of the deceased. On the date of incident, at about 4:30 PM his sister left her daughter to his house and went alone, but could not return back. Her husband suspected her fidelity and used to quarrel with her and whenever quarrel took place between them, she used to come to his house or go to her friend’s house. In cross-examination also, he proved the fact that the relation between them was not cordial and quarrel took place between them regularly. 20. PW-8/Asha Singh, who is the mother of the deceased, has also stated that at about 4-4:30 PM, the deceased left her daughter to her house and went alone and she has not returned back. When she declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, she stated that there was a regular dispute between the appellant and the deceased and even after the birth of their child, they were regularly quarreling with each other. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-8, it comes on record that the relation between them was not cordial and frequent quarrels took place between them, which is the motive to commit murder of the deceased Rakhi Singh. 21. PW-4/Rajkokil Prasad, who is running a hardware shop is the witness from whose shop the appellant purchased the knife 2-3 days back from the date of incident. He stated in his evidence that the appellant 21 had purchased a knife from his shop. When the said knife was physically brought before the Court and shown to this witness, he stated that the appellant had purchased the knife from his shop. Since it was the incident of one year old, he could not definitely say that the same knife had been purchased by the appellant, which was shown to him. The defence could not demolish his evidence in his cross- examination that the appellant had not purchased the said knife from his shop, and thus, it has also been found proved that 2-3 days prior to the date of incident, the appellant had purchased the knife from the shop of PW-4/Rajkokil Prasad. 22. The said knife has been seized from the spot, from which the fingerprint was extracted by the forensic expert. When the appellant was arrested, his fingerprint/palm print were taken and sent both these articles to the Forensic Lab (Fingerprint Cell) for its forensic examination. 23. PW-21/Saket Banjare, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police and conducted the investigation of the case, has stated in his evidence that on 10.01.2019, he seized the knife from the spot, in which blood-like stains were there. On 10.01.2019 (wrongly typed as 10.01.2021) itself, the PW-21 requested the fingerprint expert for lifting the chance print from the knife, and after lifting the chance print, the printout was given to him. On 11.01.2019, for comparison of the fingerprint found in the knife, he has taken the fingerprint of the appellant of his both palms, which is exhibit P-50 to P-55. On 06.02.2019, he sent the chance print to the In-charge Photo Cell Forensic Unit (PHQ), Raipur for preparing 22 its photo through the memo of Superintendent of Police, Koriya, which is exhibit P-65 and on the same day, the photograph of the chance print was handed over to the same police constable by the PHQ. The photograph of chance print and palm print of the appellant were sent to the Handwriting Expert, DCB Branch, SP Office, Ambikapur along with the memo of the Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P-30), from where the reports (exhibit P-32 and P-33) were received. The chance print photo is exhibit P-66 and P-67 and the xerox copy of chance print is exhibit P-70 and P-71. In his cross-examination, lifting of chance print from the knife and obtaining the chance print photograph obtaining the palm print from the appellant, sending both these articles for its comparison to Fingerprint Expert, Forensic Cell, Ambikapur has duly been proved by him. 24. PW-14/Linus Kispotta is the Fingerprint Expert, Surguja Range, Ambikapur has stated in his evidence that on 10.01.2019, he inspected the place of incident and gave the spot inspection report/exhibit P-31. During the spot inspection, he lifted the fingerprint from the steel knife seized from the spot and instructed the Investigating Officer to get it photographed from the PHQ Raipur. On 04.03.2019, a requisition was sent to him for examination of fingerprint on the chance print and palm print of the appellant and after its examination, he found that the chance print article ‘A’ and palm print ‘S-2’ are of the same person i.e. the appellant Vasudev Vishwakarma and he gave his report/exhibit P-32. He sent the said report to PHQ Raipur along with the covering letter/exhibit P-33, which is produced 23 by the prosecution agency before the Court. In his cross-examination, he remained firm in lifting the chance print and examining the chance print as well as the palm print of the appellant and his conclusion. The said scientific evidence is a crucial piece of evidence against the appellant, as the fingerprint cannot be changed. 25. PW-6/Ramkripal is the person who first saw the abandoned hut burning and informed Manish Shrivastava/owner of the brickkiln and Balander Yadav/PW-16. PW-6 is the first informant on whose instance the merg intimation/exhibit P-12 was recorded. PW-16/Balander Yadav has supported the evidence of PW-6 that he informed about the incident of hut burning. Thereafter, Manish Shrivastava has informed the police through mobile phone and then police reached there. PW- 16 is the person, who tried to extinguish the fire and when they could able to extinguish fire, they came to know that a lady is burnt there. After about 1-2 days, he came to know through WhatsApp that the appellant Vasudev has committed murder of his wife. 26. PW-17/Bharat Kaushik who is the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur has proved the test identification parade/exhibit P-19. He stated in his evidence that on 06.02.2019, he received a requisition from the Station House Officer, Manendragarh for conducting the TIP at Sub-Jail, Manendragarh and he conducted the TIP on 07.02.2019 in which the witness Tirath Singh Gond has duly identified the appellant and identification memo/exhibit P-19 was prepared. On the same day, the witness Vinod Kumar Kesharwani has also identified the appellant and the identification memo/exhibit P-35 was prepared. Further, the 24 witness Kokil Prasad/PW-4 has also identified the appellant and identification memo/exhibit P-36 was prepared. He proved these three identification memos and stated that after following the due procedure, he conducted the test identification parade of the appellant and the witnesses have duly identified him. It is alleged in this case that the witness Tirath Prasad is the employee of Petrol Pump from where the appellant has purchased the petrol in the bottle, by which the appellant set the deceased ablaze and the said bottle having petrol drops seized from the spot. The witness Vinod Kumar Kesharwani/PW-26 is the person who is the owner of Beetal Shop, from whose shop the appellant purchased Cigarette and matchbox and the said matchbox was also seized from the spot, in which blood has been found and the said blood was also confirmed in the FSL report. Likewise, the witness, Kokil Prasad/PW-4 is the owner of the hardware shop, from where the appellant had purchased the knife. Although the witnesses of the TIP have not fully supported the prosecution’s case, but the evidence of PW-17 proves the conducting the test identification parade of the appellant, which is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The said TIP/exhibit P-35, P-36 have been proved by PW-22/Dheeraj Khare and PW-23/Santosh Singh, who are the Jail Guards. They proved the manner in which the TIP was conducted in the jail premises. 27. The fingerprint found on the knife seized from the spot and the fingerprint of the appellant is found matched, which is proved through the document/exhibit P-32 and it is found that the chance print of 25 article ‘A’ and the specimen palm print of the appellant was of the same person i.e. of the appellant Vasudev Vishwakarma and it was of his right palm. The defence is not able to demolish this evidence also that it was not the palm print or finger print of the appellant, but someone else finger print is there. Merely on the ground that the signature of the appellant over the palm print/exhibit P-50 to P-55 are not there, the said document cannot be discarded when the witnesses have duly supported the obtaining the palm print of the appellant. It is a clinching piece of evidence, which directly connects the appellant with the offence in question, because the said knife was purchased by the appellant from the shop of PW-4, just two days back from the date of incident, the neck of the deceased was found cut off from the sharp- edged weapon. In the query report given by the doctor/exhibit P-27, it has been opined that the injuries found on the neck is possible by the brought knife and death is also caused by brought knife. In the said knife the fingerprint of the appellant was present and thus it is unerringly proved that it is the appellant and none else has committed the murder of the deceased. 28. Another clinching piece of evidence is the FSL report/exhibit P-68. According to the FSL report, the ‘O’ group of human blood was found in the knife seized from the spot, matchbox seized from the spot as well as the jacket seized from the appellant. It cannot be merely co- incident, but it is a connecting link with the offence. When the knife seized from the spot and the blood found on the jacket of the appellant were found to be stained with same group of human blood, which is 26 very relevant, because it was the subject matter of the offence then the appellant has to explain the presence of same group of blood in his jacket. The circumstances are closely connected with each other having strong link of circumstantial evidence. 29. PW-28/Manish Shrivastava is the person who informed the police through his mobile phone after coming into knowledge of the incident. Nothing significant in his evidence except the fact that he saw the hut burning and a lady inside the hut, who was also burnt and informed the police through his mobile phone and tried to extinguish the fire by pouring the water. 30. From the aforesaid evidence, it came out that the relation between the appellant and deceased was not cordial, the appellant purchased a knife from the shop of PW-4 just 2-3 days prior to the incident, the appellant cut the neck of the deceased by the knife, which he was purchased from the shop of PW-4 and burned the dead body as well as hut in order to conceal the evidence by pouring petrol, which he has purchased from the petrol pump and the empty bottle having few drops of petrol has been seized from the spot. The burn of the deceased was postmortem burn and she died due to cut on her throat. The knife seized from the spot in which fingerprint of the appellant was matched. ‘O’ group of human blood was found on the knife and matchbox seized from the spot as well as the jacket of the appellant, for which there is no explanation from the appellant and the appellant has duly been identified in test identification parade. All this evidence unerringly and undoubtedly proved the involvement of the appellant in 27 commission of murder of his wife. 31. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the complete chain of circumstances against the appellant to hold him guilty for the alleged commission of offence of murder of his wife beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant as has been held by the learned trial Court. 32. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 12.01.2019. He shall undergo the entire sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 33. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 34. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved