JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. This present appeal is against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.115/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 302 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for three months 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Purnima Sarthi had lodged a report on 23.07.2017 that when she along with her husband-deceased were sleeping at their house, at 11 PM, she saw that her husband was being assaulted by her mother-in-law Bhagwanti Bai on his head and having seen the assault, she fled away from the place of occurrence. Due to assault, her husband fell unconscious. Thereafter, she went to her relative-Ravindra and Gajadhar, Uncle-inlaw and thereafter, injured husband was taken to the hospital at Lakhanpur and after that, he was referred to District Hospital at Ambikapur. The injured was then admitted to the Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and eventually, he was referred to hospital at Raipur. On the report of the complainant, offence under Section 307 of the IPC was registered and from the spot, soil, clothes and gaiti were seized. During the course of treatment, Ajay Sarthi died on 02.08.2017 and therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered. According to the postmortem report, the death was caused due to the injury caused on the head and was homicidal in nature. As the appellant was absconding, on enquiry, the police caught hold her from the house of one Ramapati Pandey and on her memorandum, the clothes wearing at the time of commission of offence were seized vide Ex.P-13. After recording the statement of witnesses, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and after evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellant is based on presumption as statement of the alleged eye-witness would show that she has completely disowned that she has seen the incident. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellant is based on presumption as statement of the alleged eye-witness would show that she has completely disowned that she has seen the incident. He further submitted that other witnesses examined by the prosecution would show that they are hearsay witnesses and the seizure witnesses in this case have also not supported the case of the prosecution, which is alleged that bloodstained clothes were seized from the accused. He would further submit that the alleged clothes were seized, but the statement of the doctor would show that when it was given, the seal were opened, therefore, there has been interpolation of the evidence, for which, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. He would also submit that it is a case of no evidence, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that as far as statement of eye-witness Purnima (PW-2) is concerned, she has seen happening of the incident, which is followed by the recovery of weapon i.e. gaiti used in the commission of offence. It is stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory report on record would show that the clothes of the accused and the weapon-gaiti were stained with human blood, therefore, those incriminating facts have not been explained by the appellant, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced her as aforesaid and no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. According to the prosecution, initially, after the deceased was assaulted, he was taken to different hospitals and eventually, he was admitted at Raipur hospital, wherein he died. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P-6, wherein the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :- 1. Contused lacerated wound with stitching present on left parietotemporal region 5 cm long anteroposterially and it has laring 6 stitches on open bone deep. Skull showed depressed fracture on left temporal and parietal Bone 6 x 3 cm AP and 1 cm depressed in wound. Contused lacerated wound with stitching present on left parietotemporal region 5 cm long anteroposterially and it has laring 6 stitches on open bone deep. Skull showed depressed fracture on left temporal and parietal Bone 6 x 3 cm AP and 1 cm depressed in wound. Meringes lacerated fracture extend from depressed left parito to parietal eminence for 6 cm length & fracture of left middle cranial fossa & left cranial fossa. Subarachnoid haemorrhage present massibely all over. Contusion present on left side base of brain against fracture. Contusion also present on left temporoparietal lobe 4 x 2 x 1 cm AP 2. C.C.W with stitching present on the just front to left tragus 4 cm x 4 stitches bone deep with blackish yellowish echymosis. 3. C.C.W with stitching present on left side chin at body of mandible part, fracture of body of mandible echymosis extends up to 2nd cervical vertebrae. Loosening of cervical vertebrae b/n 1st x 2nd vertebrae. C.C.W. with 4 cm large 4 stitches anteroposterioly. 4. C.C.W. with stitching present on left eyebrow lateral aspect 3 cm transvers bone deep fracture of left anterior cranial fossa. All injuries were showed blackish yellowish echymosis. 8. According to the postmortem report, death was due to head injury and its complications and injuries were said to be caused by hard and blunt object, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The duration of injuries were between 10 to 14 days prior to death. Dr. Shivnarayan Majhi, PW-4 has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-6 and according to the doctor, the death was homicidal in nature. 9. Another aspect of this case, which comes for consideration as to whether injuries were caused by the appellant herein. The eye-witness Purnima, PW-2, who is the wife of the deceased stated that on the date of incident, while she was sleeping along with her family, her mother-inlaw came drunk and assaulted on the head of her husband with the help of weapon-gaiti. As a result of which, her husband sustained injuries and thereafter, he was taken to different hospitals, ultimately he died at Raipur hospital. FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-4. In the crossexamination, she states that at the time of incident, the entire room, wherein the incident happened, was dark and nothing was visible. As a result of which, her husband sustained injuries and thereafter, he was taken to different hospitals, ultimately he died at Raipur hospital. FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-4. In the crossexamination, she states that at the time of incident, the entire room, wherein the incident happened, was dark and nothing was visible. She has further stated that the children were sleeping along with her and her husband was sleeping in another room. She further states that on the date of incident, her mother-in-law was not at home. She also states that on the date of incident, the main door of the house was left open. Suggestion was given to her that quarrel used to take place between herself and mother of the deceased, which was denied. She further categorically admits the fact that she has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. She has further admitted that the deceased has sustained injuries due to fall of door. She has further stated that when her husband was taken to the hospital, his mother did not accompany, as such, that act of accused enraged and provoked her to lodge report against her mother-in-law. 10. The statement of Ravi Kumar Sarthi, PW-1, to whom, the incident was disclosed would show that he is a hearsay witness as he had not seen the incident and came to know of incident only when Purnima, wife of the deceased, told him about the incident. 11. Gajadhar, PW-6, has stated that on the date of incident, he heard cries of the daughter-in-law i.e. wife of the deceased and stated that the appellant-Bhagwanti has assaulted her husband by way of gaiti on his head. In the cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that the complainant-wife of the deceased was living separately for 8-10 years and he has not seen the incident, therefore, this witness is also a hearsay witness. 12. Likewise the statement of Rajban Barwa, (PW-7) would show that she has also not seen the incident and he is a hearsay witness. He only disclosed the fact that after the death took place, the police came and arrested the appellant and the appellant-accused was hiding herself in the house of one Ramapati Pandey. The assault was only narrated by Purnima, PW-2, wife of the deceased and nobody had seen the incident. He only disclosed the fact that after the death took place, the police came and arrested the appellant and the appellant-accused was hiding herself in the house of one Ramapati Pandey. The assault was only narrated by Purnima, PW-2, wife of the deceased and nobody had seen the incident. The wife of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the assault, in her deposition before the Court had completely disowned the fact that she has seen the occurrence for various reasons of dash and invisibility and the deceased was sleeping at another room and because of anger, she narrated name of her mother-in-law makes the available evidence to be weak. Therefore, in such circumstances, the statement of other hearsay witnesses would also become doubtful to believe. Consequently, the evidence, which come on record, would lead to form an opinion that no eye-witness has deposed in categorical terms that the fatal assault was made by mother of deceased. 13. Now, other facts hinges upon the recovery. The weapon-gaiti along with soil stained with blood were recovered from the spot on 25.07.2017. According to the prosecution, on the memorandum of the accused, the bloodstained clothes were recovered from the accused on 07.08.2017. Rajban Barwa, PW-7, seizure witness as also Vinesh Khalkho, PW-14, witness to memorandum statement have not supported the case of the seizure. Seizure has been proved vide Ex.P-14. A perusal of the seizure memo would show that after such seizure was made, it was sealed before the presence of witnesses. The statement of Dr. O. P. Prasad, PW-9 would show that on 13.09.2017, the police had brought soil, clothes, gaiti etc. in a sealed condition and after the examination, those articles were again sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. In the crossexamination of this witness, he states that the said clothes, which were brought before him, was not in a sealed condition. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report proved vide Ex.C-1, wherein soil was marked as “A & B”, cloth was marked as “C” gaiti was marked as “D”, Nighty was marked as “E” and Petticoat was marked as “F” and human blood was found on Article “A, C, D & E”, but, if the seal on those articles itself was broken, the very authenticity of the presence of blood becomes doubtful. Even otherwise, blood group of the blood found on those articles was not proved, which matches with the blood of the deceased. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the same blood group that of deceased was found present in the clothes and the weapon, which alleged to have been seized from the accused. 15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant and lacuna of gap has remained to be connected to bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, in these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellant. 16. In view of foregoing, we are inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.115/2017 is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial Court forthwith with a copy to the Secretary, Legal Aid, High Court to arrest the delay.