JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in S.T. No. 52/10 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 7 years, fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with default stipulations. In the present case, name of the deceased is Santosh Kumar Netam who was running a small grocery shop at Village - Aamgaon, Police Station-Sihawa, Distt. Dhamtari. As per the prosecution case, the accused/appellant had taken some grocery items worth Rs. 60-70 on credit from the shop of the deceased and when the deceased asked for his money the appellant refused to give the same and there was some hot talk between them. It is alleged that in between 29.1.2010 and 1.2.2010 the accused/appellant committed murder of the deceased by causing several injuries on his head by pickaxe and then buried his dead body in the field on one Diwan Singh. When the deceased Santosh Kumar did not return, a missing report was lodged by his father PW-1 Vishwanath and the villagers had extensively search Santosh Kumar. On 1.2.2010 in the village meeting PW-2 Chhabilal informed the villagers that on 29.1.2010 when he was going to the house of one Ratiram, near the field of Ramadhin he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road having ducked the rope. When the villagers went to the field of Ramadhin, they noticed mark of rope on the polls of both sides, during search of the nearby area they noticed blood on the field and fresh soil dug out. When the said soil was removed the dead body of the deceased was found with head wrapped in a polythene. Merg intimation Ex. P/1 was recorded on 1.2.2010 at the instance of PW-1 Vishwanath, father of the deceased. On that date itself FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown person. Inquest over the dead body was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 2.2.2010 vide Ex. P/15 by Dr. Merg intimation Ex. P/1 was recorded on 1.2.2010 at the instance of PW-1 Vishwanath, father of the deceased. On that date itself FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against unknown person. Inquest over the dead body was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 2.2.2010 vide Ex. P/15 by Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-15) who noticed several injuries on the body including fracture of left and right temporal bone, congestion of lungs, windpipe, liver, kidney, membrane of intestines, tongue protruded and in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature. During investigation memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex. P/6) was recorded on 6.2.2010 wherein he has stated that on 29.1.2010 he committed murder of the deceased by causing injuries with pickaxe and strangulating him with gamchha of the deceased and the said weapon as also his clothes have been concealed in his house. Pursuant to his memorandum, seizure of pickaxe and clothes of the appellant stained with blood like spots was made vide Ex. P/7. The seized weapon was sent to the doctor for examination and vide query report Ex. P/16 it has been opined by Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-15) that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the said weapon seized by the police from the possession of the appellant. The seized articles were also sent for chemical examination to FSL, however, there is no FSL report on record. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly charges were framed against the accused/appellant. 2. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 4. 3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident, the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the nature of circumstantial evidence is not as such, which can be made basis for his conviction. He further submits that merely on the basis of memorandum of the appellant Ex. P/6, he cannot be convicted because on the seized articles i.e. pickaxe and clothes of the appellant presence of blood has not been confirmed by the prosecution in absence of any FSL report. 5. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that though there is no direct evidence against the appellant but the circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution is good enough to connect him with murder of the deceased. He further argues that PW-2 Chhabilal has categorically stated that on 29.1.2010 when he was going to the house of one Ratiram, near the field of Ramadhin he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road after ducking the same but when the villagers went to the field of Ramadhin, they did not find any rope but only the mark of rope on the polls of both sides and in the course of search, they found blood on the field and recovered the dead body of Santosh Kumar which was buried in the field. On the same day itself PW-8 Deviram, who was working in his field, heard the sound of falling of bicycle. He further submits that memorandum and seizure witnesses (PW-3 Mohan Singh & PW-12 Ramsunder Gond) have fully supported the prosecution case. Based on the memorandum of the appellant, seizure (Ex. P/7) of pickaxe and clothes of the appellant worn at the time of commission of the offence was made. According to Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-15) the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the weapon so seized from the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how the bloodstained pickaxe and his clothes were seized from his house. According to Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-15) the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the weapon so seized from the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how the bloodstained pickaxe and his clothes were seized from his house. State counsel further submits that even if the FSL report is not there, considering the chain of circumstantial evidence it is apparent that it is the appellant who committed murder of the deceased on account of there being some dispute relating to money transaction. 6. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. PW-1 Vishwanath Netam, father of the deceased, has stated that the deceased was running a grocery shop in the house of one Chandrakumar, normally the deceased used to return home by 8-9 p.m., however, on the date of incident he did not return, on which he enquired about him and on the second day reported the matter to the police regarding missing of his son on 31.1.2010. He has stated that on the second day, a village meeting was called where PW-2 Chhabilal informed the villagers that in the evening on 29.1.2010 when he was going towards the village, he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road having ducked the rope. When the villagers went there, they found the wooden poll broken, there was blood spread on the field of Diwan Singh and fresh soil covered with garbage. After removing the same, they exhumed the dead body of Santosh Kumar. He has stated that he lodged the merge intimation Ex. P/1 and FIR (Ex. P/2). 8. PW-2 Chhabilal has stated that on 29.1.2010 when he was going to the house of one Ratiram, near the field of Ramadhin he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road having ducked the rope. While returning through the same road, he did not find that rope there. When a meeting was held in the village regarding missing of Santosh Kumar, he informed the villagers about tying of the rope across the road. While returning through the same road, he did not find that rope there. When a meeting was held in the village regarding missing of Santosh Kumar, he informed the villagers about tying of the rope across the road. After that when the villagers went to the field of Ramadhin, they noticed mark of rope on the polls of both sides, one of the polls was uprooted and broken and during search of the nearby area they noticed blood on the field and fresh soil dug out. When the said soil was removed the dead body of the deceased was found with head wrapped in a polythene. Bicycle of the deceased was found in the well and its front wheel was missing. In cross-examination, he remained consistent and the defence could not elicit anything to discredit his evidence. 9. PW-3 Mohan Singh Mandavi is a witness of village meeting, memorandum of the appellant Ex. P/6 and seizure Ex. P/7 made in pursuance thereof. He has duly supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Manoj Kumar Netam, brother of the deceased, has made almost similar statement as has been made by PW-1 and has described as to the manner in which the deceased went missing and then his dead body was found on 1.2.2010. PW-6 Chandrakumar Markam, a witness in whose house the deceased was running a grocery shop, has stated that body of the deceased was found in buried condition with injury on his head and a gamchha wrapped around his neck. PW-8 Deviram Netam has stated that he had gone to guard his field along with younger brother Bhagiram and near the field of Manoj, son of Ramadhim he heard the sound of falling of bicycle. On the second day he came to know about missing of the deceased and then his dead body was found buried in the field of Diwan Singh. PW-9 Lal Singh Thakur has stated that missing report of the deceased was lodged by his father PW-1 Vishwanath Netam, the deceased was searched by the villagers and then his dead body was found in buried condition. He has stated that head of the deceased was wrapped in a polythene, there was injury on the head and a gamchha wrapped around the neck. He has stated that head of the deceased was wrapped in a polythene, there was injury on the head and a gamchha wrapped around the neck. PW-10 Harakhram Gandharv, village Kotwar, has also made almost similar statement as has been made by the other villagers regarding missing of the deceased and finding of his dead body in buried condition. PW-12 Ramsunder Gond, another witness of memorandum of the appellant Ex. P/6 and seizure Ex. P/7, has duly supported the prosecution case. He is also a witness to inquest Ex. P/11. PW-13 Ramesh Kumar Thakur is a witness of inquest Ex. P/11, spot map Ex. P/3, seizure Ex. P/4 and P/12 whereby bicycle of the deceased and plain and bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence were seized. PW-14 J.S. Dhruv prepared the spot map Ex. P/14. PW-17 R.S. Mishra, investigating officer, has duly supported the prosecution case. 10. PW-15 Dr. A.K. Netam, conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased vide Ex. P/15 on 2.2.2010 and noticed following symptoms and injuries on the person of the deceased: "smell was coming out from body, blood like stain present over head, face, chest and both forearm and palm, eye was closed, tongue was protruded, watery blood discharge from both ears and nostrils, pink colour cross checked gamchha tightly present around neck, cross knot present at back of neck, dark brown colour contusion present over chest and right thigh, abdomen was distended and peeling of skin start at abdomen, contusion present at right temporal region of head sized 10 c.m. x 5 c.m., lacerated wound present over right forehead sized 5 x 1 c.m. bone deep, lacerated wound present behind left ear sized 8 x 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. depth, rigor mortis was present at upper limb. He also noticed congestion of lungs, windpipe, liver, kidney and membrane of intestines." In his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature. On examination of the weapon of offence pickaxe seized by the police from the appellant, vide/query report Ex. P/16 he opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. 11. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 29.1.2010 it is the accused/appellant who committed murder of the deceased as the accused/appellant had taken some grocery items worth Rs. P/16 he opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. 11. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 29.1.2010 it is the accused/appellant who committed murder of the deceased as the accused/appellant had taken some grocery items worth Rs. 60-70/- on credit from the shop of the deceased and on demand of that amount being made by the deceased, he had refused to give the same and for that reason there was some hot talk between them. In his memorandum (Ex. P/6) the accused/appellant has stated that on 29.1.2010 he committed murder of the deceased by causing injuries with pickaxe and strangulating him with gamchha and based on his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence pickaxe and clothes of the appellant stained with blood like spots were seized vide Ex. P/7. The witnesses to memorandum and seizure i.e. PW-3 Mohan Singh Mandavi and PW-12 Ramsunder Gond have duly supported the prosecution case. Though the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and there is no such report on record, but on examination of the pickaxe Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-15) has opined vide query report Ex. P/16 that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the said weapon. This doctor has also conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, noticed several injuries on the dead body as mentioned above and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by strangulation and that the death was homicidal in nature. This apart, the accused/appellant has failed to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to how the pickaxe and his clothes stained with blood like spots were found from his possession. 12. PW-1 Vishwanath Netam, father of the deceased, has stated that deceased was running a grocery shop and used to return home by 8-9 pm, however, on the date of incident when he did not return, he enquired about him and on the second day reported the matter to the police regarding missing of his son. According to PW-2 Chhabilal, the important witness in this case, when he was going to the house of one Ratiram, near the field of Ramadhin he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road having ducked the rope. According to PW-2 Chhabilal, the important witness in this case, when he was going to the house of one Ratiram, near the field of Ramadhin he noticed a rope tied on both ends with the polls across the road, however, he crossed the road having ducked the rope. He informed about the said fact to the villagers in the meeting held on the second day of missing of the deceased and when the villagers went to the field of Ramadhin, they noticed mark of rope on the polls of both sides, one poll was uprooted and broken and during search of the nearby area they found blood spread on the field of Diwan Singh and fresh soil covered with garbage. When the said soil was removed the dead body of the deceased was found with head wrapped in a polythene. Statement of this witness gets corroboration from the statement of PW-8 Devi Singh who at the relevant while working in his field adjacent to the field of Ramadhin had also heard the sound of falling of bicycle. 13. All these circumstances, if taken cumulatively, lead to an irresistible inference that it is the accused/appellant who committed murder of the deceased and thereafter, in order to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence with intention to screen himself from the legal punishment, buried the dead body in the field. 14. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused/appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by it and thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the appellant guilty under Sections 302and 201 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence warrant no interference and the same are hereby affirmed. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. As the accused/appellant is already in jail, no further order regarding his surrender etc. is required. Appeal Dismissed