1 2026:CGHC:5683-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 443 of 2021 Santkumar Dhidhi S/o Late Namdev Dhidhi, aged about 37 years R/o Satnamipara Village Amsena, P.S. Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02 . 02 .202 6 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the accused, Santkumar Bidhi, resides in the village of Amsena, Police Station Arang, District Raipur, with his wife, Sunita Bidhi, son Vivek Bidhi, and daughter Jharna Bidhi. He is an alcoholic and frequently quarrels with his wife after drinking. He objected to his wife Sunita Bidhi talking on the mobile phone and doubted her character. In connection with this incident, about a year prior to the incident, during Diwali, the accused assaulted his wife Sunita with a stick, causing Sunita to move to her maternal uncle's house in Birgaon, Raipur, where she stayed for about a year. During that time, the accused's son and daughter lived with their grandfather, Santosh, and subsequently began living with the accused. On 26.03.2019, around 8:00 p.m., after dinner, the family and their children had gone to sleep. At that very moment, a fight broke out between the accused, Santosh Dhidhi, and his wife, Sunita. The accused, armed with an axe, was threatening his wife, Sunita, by threatening to slit her throat or slit her throat. His son, Vivek, and daughter, Jharna, were terrified and sleeping in bed. At around 3:00 a.m., the accused threatened his wife, Sunita, by striking her in the stomach and then in the neck with the handle of the axe. Vivek and Jharna were then threatened and chased away by the accused, who then went to their grandmother, Urmila, to tell her about the incident. Later that morning, they along with their elder 3 father, Ubaran, and other villagers went to their home and found their mother, Sunita, lying dead in a pool of blood, with injuries to her neck and head. The incident was reported to the police, who then arrived at the scene. 3. Subsequently, on the information by the accused's son, Vivek Beedhi regarding death of deceased Sunita, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-16) and an unnumbered Merg Intimation (Ex.P-17) were registered at the scene. In this regard, a case regarding untimely and accidental death was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), inquest number 35/2019, at Police Station Arang, which is Ex.P-23. After summoning the witnesses vide notice (Ex.P-1) inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-2. The deceased's body was sent to the Community Health Center, Arang, for an autopsy. The application for the inquest is Ex.P-10, and the postmortem report is Ex.P-13. Blood-soaked soil, plain soil, a blood-soaked bedsheet, a blood-soaked lungi, and pieces of a bangle worn by the deceased were seized from the place of incident in the presence of witnesses, as per the seizure memo (Ex.P-5). In this regard, First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P-22 was registered in Police Station Arang for bearing Crime No. 199/2019, under Section-302, 506 of IPC. 4. During the investigation, memorandum statement of the accused was taken on 27.03.2019 at 14.00 hrs at the spot itself, in which 4 the accused told about hiding the axe used in the incident in the bushes in the garden of his middle brother Santosh and keeping the lungi where he slept, regarding which memorandum is Ex.P-3, after which, on the indication of the accused, in front of witnesses, as per seizure memo Ex.P-4, the iron tangia, which had blood like stains, was seized. Upon being retrieved and presented by the accused, the half-T-shirt, which had blood-like stains in several places, was seized in front of witnesses as per the seizure memo Ex.P-6. A site map of the scene (Ex.P-18) was prepared by the police. The seized items, including the axe, T-shirt, blood-soaked soil, bedsheet, lungi, and pieces of bangles, were sent to the Community Health Center (CHC), Arang, for examination. The applications in this regard are Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26. The doctor recommended FSL testing of these items. Accordingly, the seized items were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, through the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, for examination vide Ex.P-20, the receipt for which is Ex.P-21, and the test report was received as per Ex.P-27. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were taken under Section 161 of the CrPC and after completing the investigation proceedings, the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 302, 506 of the IPC was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, from where the case was transferred to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the CrPC. 5. When the charges were framed against the accused under 5 sections 302 and 506 Part - II of the IPC and read to him, he denied the crime and sought a defense. The accused was tried under section 313 of the CrPC. He pleaded not guilty and has not examined the witness in his defence, stating that he is falsely implicated. 6. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, namely, Penoj Kumar Baghel (PW1), Mukhan Narang (PW2), Smt. Indra Dhidhi (PW3), Kotwar Smt. Janki (PW-4), Ubaran Dhidhi (PW-5), Kumari Jharna (PW-6), Durga Das Bandhe (PW-7), Constable Gulab Singh Chandra (PW-8), Dr. Toshan Lal Todar (PW-9), Dilip Kumar Dhidhi (PW-10), Vivek Dhidhi (PW-11), Patwari Sudhu Ram Puranbe (PW-12), Constable Dev Nishad (PW-13) and Inspector Lekhghar Diwan (PW-14), whereas no evidence has been given on behalf of the accused. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife deceased Smt. Sunita Dhidhi, convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant. 8. Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is contrary to law and facts on record, as the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and convicted the appellant on the basis of 6 assumptions and conjectures; that the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident, and the chain of circumstances is neither complete nor consistent so as to point only towards the guilt of the appellant. He further submits that the alleged motive of domestic discord and suspicion is vague, remote, and insufficient to establish intention to commit murder; the incident allegedly occurred during the night without any independent witness, making the prosecution version improbable. He also submits that the testimony of the child witnesses is unsafe to rely upon in the absence of independent corroboration. He contended that the alleged recovery of the axe and clothes at the instance of the appellant is doubtful, having been made from an open and accessible place, and does not conclusively connect the appellant with the crime. He further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt and acquittal. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court are legal, proper, and based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. He further submits that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the brutal murder of his wife Sunita Bidhi, the 7 consistent and trustworthy testimony of the child witnesses clearly establishes the presence and conduct of the appellant at the time of the incident. He also submits that the motive of domestic cruelty, suspicion on the character of the deceased, and prior acts of assault stands duly proved, moreover the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular version regarding the nature, seat, and timing of injuries. He contended that the recovery of the blood-stained axe and clothes at the instance of the appellant is duly proved through memorandum and seizure witnesses and is further corroborated by forensic evidence. He further contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and unbroken, pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant and excluding all other hypotheses, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of deceased Sunita Dhidhi was homicidal in nature ? 12. Dr. Toshan Lal Todar (PW-9), who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Sunita Dhidhi and has stated that while conducting postmorterm he found an incised wound, approximately 5.5 x 1 x 1 cm on the left anterior chest, just above the medial edge of the left clavicle, this wound was surrounded by 8 an echymosis; on the right anterior part of the upper chest, above the medial edge of the right clavicle, there was another incised wound, measuring approximately 4 x 1.5 x 1 cm. The blood vessels surrounding this would were found to be damaged and blood clots were found nearby; and a lacerated wound measuring approximately 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm was found on the upper right side of the back and opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding caused by injury to the vital blood vessels. The deceased's death was determined to have occurred within approximately 24 hours of the postmortem examination, and the nature of the deceased's death was homicidal. 13. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr.Toshan Lal Todar (PW-9), came to the conclusion that the death of deceased Sunita Dhidhi was homicidal in nature. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering their submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Sunita Dhidhi was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 15. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 9 16. In this regard, the accused's elder brother, Ubaran Dhidhi (PW5), stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused, Sant Kumar, is his younger brother, whose wife is Sunita. His younger brother, Sant Kumar, murdered Sunita. The incident occurred on 27.03.2018. He further stated that at 6:30 a.m., a knock was heard at his door. His wife told him to open it. When he opened the door, he saw his younger brother standing there with an axe in his hand. He then closed the door out of fear. He then called Virmani Banjare and Durga Bandhe, who came to him and told them that his younger brother, Sant Kumar, was wandering around with an axe. A short while later, Sant Kumar returned, and he, Durga Bandhe, and Virmani Banjare helped Sant Kumar sit down. He then called Kotwar Janaki Bai. After Janaki Bai's arrival, they went to Sant Kumar's house and found Sant Kumar's wife, Sunita, lying on the ground in a pool of blood, with injuries to her neck. They then informed the police, who then arrived and prepared a panchnama (inquest report) of the body. 17. Similarly, Smt. Indra Bidhi (PW3) stated in paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief that she knew the accused, Sant Kumar. He is son of her chacha sasur. Their houses and those of the accused, Sant Kumar, are connected. This incident occurred approximately 2-3 months ago, possibly on 23.03.2019. On Tuesday evening, around 7:00-7:30 p.m., she heard children's voices coming from the accused's house, "Don't hit, don't hit." Hearing this, she told her mother-in-law, Urmila Dhidhi, that the 10 accused was again assaulting his wife, Sunita. "Let's go and see." Seeing them, the accused, after taking his children and wife inside, locked the door and resumed the assault. They repeatedly called out to him, but the accused refused. The accused's wife, Sunita, also tried to open the door, but the accused still refused. Upon their repeated requests, the accused opened the door. She and her mother-in-law saw the accused's two children standing in fear, and Sunita breathing heavily. When they asked, the accused shouted, "It's getting late, go home." Sunita, the accused's wife, gestured to them, indicating that the accused was assaulting her and indicated to inform the elder brother of the accused about this and asked to call him. 18. Further this witness Smt. Indra Bidhi (PW3) stated in paragraph 2 that at around 3:00 a.m., her mother-in-law woke up and saw Sant Kumar wandering around in their house. There is a wall between their houses, from which the accused's house is visible. After a while, Sant Kumar knocked on their door, but they did not answer. A short while later, the accused's two children came and called out, "Grandmother," and they opened the door. The children then entered and told her mother-in-law that their father, Sant Kumar, was assaulting their mother, Sunita, and that he had hit his wife with an axe, and that their mother, Sunita, was covered in blood. Further, in paragraphs 3 and 4 she stated that when Sant Kumar arrived at their house, his entire clothes were stained with blood. She asked why his clothes were covered in blood. Sant Kumar 11 told her that he had beaten his wife, Sunita, with an axe, and that she was lying there. At first, they were incredulous. They then went to the accused's house and found Sunita's body lying on the floor of a room, blood splattered around her. They then discovered Sunita had multiple injuries, including a scalpel, on her neck, and on her hands. The village head, Ubaran, Sant Kumar's elder brother, called the police, and they arrived. 19. Among other witnesses, Penoj Kumar Baghel (PW3) stated that he had heard that the accused had killed his wife, so he went to the accused's house and found police officers there. He looked from a distance and saw the accused's wife, Sunita was lying on the floor of her room and was bleeding. He had heard that the accused had killed his wife. Similar statements were made by Bhukhan Narg (PW-2), Mrs. Janaki (PW-4), and Dilip Kumar Dhidhi (PW-10). 20. Vivek Dhidhi (PW-11), the son of the deceased and the accused, stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused present in court is his father. It occurred around Diwali last year. On the date of the incident, he, his mother, his father, and his sister were sleeping at home. His father and mother had a fight that night. His father was arguing with his mother about her having an affair with another man. During the fight, his father was assaulting his mother with his hands and a stick. The fight occurred around 8:00 p.m. They all went to sleep after dinner. The assault occurred 12 between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. His father struck his mother in the neck with an axe. Seeing this, he woke his sister Jharna and went to his grandmother Urmila's house to inform her about the incident. They stayed there because they were afraid. In the morning, villagers arrived at his grandmother's house and informed her that his mother had died. The altercation occurred inside the house, in the room where they slept. The witness further stated that his mother was lying dead on the floor of the room. Her mother had injuries on her neck and abdomen, and was bleeding. His grandfather, Ubaran, informed the police. Many villagers gathered at the scene. Police officers arrived at their home. They questioned him and recorded his statement. 21. Similarly, Kumari Jharna (PW6), daughter of the deceased and the accused, aged about 6 years, has stated in paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief that the accused present in the Court is her father, her mother is not alive. She does not know how many days have passed since her mother died. She does not know how her mother died. When her mother was alive, father, mother, brother Vivek and sister Kanti lived there. She does not know who killed her mother. When she woke up, she saw that her mother had a wound on her neck and she was lying dead in the room. There was blood coming out and ants were flying around. In the morning her elder father and many people came. Police also came. Her father did not drink alcohol. 13 22. The said witness was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution and on putting leading questions, she stated in paragraph 2 that it was true that his father would come home drunk every day, and that this was the reason for the quarrel between his parents. She admitted that in the evening, after dinner, while they were going to sleep his mother and father started fighting. She further admitted that his father came near him with an axe in his hand, threatening to slit his mother's throat. She also admitted that they went to sleep out of fear. The witness further stated that it was false that his father threatened him and Vivek to go to sleep or he would kill them. She voluntarily stated that her father had grabbed her to kill her as well. This witness admitted that her father had hit her mother in the stomach with the handle of an axe. She further admitted that her father had hit her mother on the neck with the axe and had threatened those people and chased them away. She also admitted that they had gone to their grandmother Urmila out of fear. She said voluntarily that her father had sent them. She also admitted that her father had killed her mother with the axe. When she returned home from her grandmother's house in the morning, her mother was lying dead. 23. Investigating Officer Lekhghar Diwan (PW-14) has stated in paragraph 3 that during the inspection of the scene of occurrence, he had seized blood stained soil, blood stained cement, gravel, flooring made of mud and gravel of flooring made near the scene of occurrence, soil and blood stained bed sheet from near the 14 scene of occurrence, which had human blood stains at many places and blood stained lungi, pieces of bangles worn by the deceased, in the presence of witnesses Bhukhan Narang (PW-2) and Durga Das (PW-7), accordingly, seizure of the above items vide Ex.P-5 from the spot is certified. 24. Similarly, in paragraph 4, the investigating officer, Lekhbar Diwan (PW-14), stated that he had recorded the accused's memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in front of witnesses Bhukhan Narang and Durga Das. In this statement, the accused stated that he had hidden the axe in Santosh Dhidhi's garden and would forcibly get it recovered. He also stated that the lungi had been left where he had slept and that he would get it recovered. The accused's memorandum statement in this regard is Ex.P-3. He then, along with the accused and other witnesses, seized an iron axe, stained with blood, hidden in a bush in Santosh Dhidhi's garden. According to the seizure memo, Ex.P-4, he seized it in front of witnesses Bhukhan Narang and Durga Das. The proceedings of the said memorandum Ex.P-3 and seizure memo Ex.P-4 have been fully supported by Mukhan Narang (PW2) and Durga Das Bandhe (PW7). 25. Similarly, in paragraph 5 of the main examination, the investigating officer Lekhdhar Diwan (PW14) has stated that he had taken off a yellow coloured T-shirt from the body of accused Sant Kumar, which had human blood stains at several places, and 15 seized it in the presence of witnesses Mukhan Narang and Durga Das, whose seizure memo is Ex.P-6. The said seizure action has been clearly supported by witness Durga Das Bandhe (PW7). Hence, the above seizure is also proved. 26. The seized items, including the axe, T-shirt, blood-soaked soil, bedsheet, lungi, and pieces of bangles, were sent to the Community Health Center (CHC), Arang, for examination. The applications in this regard are Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26. The doctor recommended FSL testing of these items. Accordingly, the seized items were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, through the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, for examination vide Ex.P-20, the receipt for which is Ex.P-21, and the test report was received as per Ex.P-27. 27. If we peruse the FSL report Ex.P-27, then the cement flooring seized from the scene of occurrence Article-A, cement flooring Article-B, bedsheet Article-C, lungi seized from accused Santkumar Article-D, broken bangle and bracelet of the deceased seized from the scene of occurrence Article-E, axe seized on the pointing out of the accused Article-F and T-shirt of the accused Article-G were sent for chemical test, whose test report Ex.P-27 shows that among the above items Articles-A, C, D, E, F, G are found to be human blood. Hence, the case of prosecution is also getting support from the FSL report. 28. Now, the question would be, whether Section 106 of the Indian 16 Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the Evidence Act) would be applicable or not? 29. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 30. This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person, who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 31. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or 1 AIR 1956 SC 404 17 at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: - “11. … The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried.” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts. 32. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - 2 (2021) 10 SCC 725 18 “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 33. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab3, while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 3 AIR 1956 SC 460 19 It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 34. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 35. Considering the circumstances of the incident, at the time of the incident, the accused, Santkumar, was sleeping in his own home with his wife, Sunita, son, Vivek, and daughter, Jharna. The incident occurred at approximately 3:00 a.m. Prior to the incident, the accused had been arguing with his wife, Sunita, and had threatened and driven his children out of the house. They went to sleep at their grandmother, Urmila's, and returned the next morning to find their mother lying dead on the floor. Similarly, on the night of the incident, the accused was seen wandering around with an axe (a tangia) by his brother, Ubaran Dhidhi (PW-5) and Smt. Indra Dhidhi (PW-3). The incident occurred inside the house 4 AIR 1974 SC 778 20 at night. Therefore, if the accused did not commit the incident, it is his responsibility to explain how it occurred. Therefore, the above circumstantial evidence also proves the accused's guilt. Although, in this case, direct evidence of the accused's son Vivek Dhidhi and daughter Kumari Jharna is available. 36. Among the above witnesses, Vivek Dhidhi (PW-11) is the son of the accused, Kumari Jharna (PW-6) is the daughter of the accused, Ubaran Dhidhi (PW-5) is the brother of the accused and Indra Dhidhi (PW-3) is a relative of the accused. No reason has been found for the above witnesses to give false evidence against the accused or falsely implicate him in the case, due to which there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the above witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of all the above evidence, it is found to be proven that on the date of incident, accused Santkumar Dhidhi had caused the death of his wife Sunita by hitting her with an axe. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law and do not warrant any interference by this Court. 38. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the 21 appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed. The appellant shall continue to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. 39. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 40. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra