Credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by immediate apprehension and extra-judicial confession affirms conviction for murder.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Sonasher Baghel on the night of July 31, 2022.

The prosecution alleged that a long-standing land dispute existed between the appellant and his brother, PW-03, whom the deceased supported.

On the night of the incident, PW-01 (an eyewitness) saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a tangiya (axe) on a cemented platform outside their house.

Upon raising an alarm, the appellant fled but was chased and apprehended by PW-06 and PW-08, to whom he allegedly made an extra-judicial confession.

The police recovered the weapon and blood-stained clothes following a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that PW-01 was an interested witness, the light was insufficient for identification, and the FSL report was inconclusive regarding blood groups.

1. Whether the death of the deceased, Sonasher Baghel, was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the appellant is the author of the crime and committed the murder of the deceased?

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, regarding the punishment for murder.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to validate the recovery of the weapon and clothes pursuant to the accused's disclosure.

Section 8 of the Evidence Act regarding the relevancy of the accused's conduct (fleeing the scene).

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which the appeal was considered.

Section 313 Cr.P.C. for assessing the evidentiary value of the accused’s statement.

The Court affirmed the homicidal nature of the death based on the testimony of PW-09 (Dr. Pradeep Baghel) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P/14), which detailed multiple incised wounds on vital parts (head and face) caused by a sharp-edged weapon, leading to coma and shock.

Regarding the authorship of the crime, the Court found the testimony of PW-01 (eyewitness) natural and unshaken, despite her relationship with the deceased.

This was corroborated by the "res gestae" conduct of the appellant fleeing the scene and being immediately apprehended by PW-06 and PW-08.

The Court dismissed the defense's challenge to the recovery of the weapon, noting that the Investigating Officer (PW-11) proved the due execution of the memorandum and seizure.

Furthermore, the FSL report (Ex.P/22) confirmed human blood on the appellant's clothes, for which the appellant offered no explanation during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.

The motive of a land dispute was held to be satisfactorily proved, providing the necessary backdrop for the intentional assault.

The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence, noting that the chain of circumstances—including eyewitness testimony, immediate apprehension, extra-judicial confession, and forensic evidence—was complete and unbroken.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar, were affirmed.