JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019 passed in Session Trial No. 21/2019, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1 month. 2. As per the case of prosecution on 06.03.2019 a report was lodged at Police Station-Jashpur by Kartik Ram (PW-3), on the basis of information received from Shivcharan Ram, Sandeep Ram and Sankar Ram that the Suganti Bai (since deceased) along with her husband Durga Prasad had gone to graze goats towards Kumbhighat Hill on 5.03.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. but, deceased did not return till late night. So when they went to search for them, Suganti Bai was found dead on the road, she had injuries on her neck; back; and right arm by way of axe which caused profuse bleeding. They stated that the appellant accused Durga Prasad suspecting the fidelity of his wife, as such, he has killed his wife. After such report, inquest was prepared and during inquest, map was also prepared and subsequently post-mortem was conducted wherein the death was found to be homicidal in nature. The appellant/accused was apprehended and on his memorandum, the concealed axe near the incident along with the broken handle was recovered. Another axe was also recovered on the basis of memorandum of accused. On a query being made, the Doctor confirmed that the injury could have been caused by such weapon i.e. axe and since the axe was stained with blood it was sent to F.S.L. along with plain soil, clothes of deceased for examination. According to the FSL report, human blood was found in all items i.e. blood stained weapon recovered at the instance of accused and the clothes of deceased and the blood group on weapon matched with that of deceased. On the basis of medical evidence, FSL report apart from the evidence of last seen theory along with the other evidence, the charge sheet was filed. On the basis of medical evidence, FSL report apart from the evidence of last seen theory along with the other evidence, the charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, the appellant denied his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and the learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the facts and evidence convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellant as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that there is no full proof evidence to convict the accused and it is only on presumption the appellant has been convicted. He would further submit that on the basis of last seen, statement of father of the deceased Mathura Ram (PW-7) and the recovery of the weapon, the accused has been convicted but the statement of PW-7, the father of the deceased, would show that he has not seen the accused and deceased together before the incident. He would also submit that the weapon was found in open space, therefore, the recovery of weapon cannot also be relied upon and on that basis if the conviction has been made, the same is bad in law, which needs to be corrected by acquittal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State went through the statements of the witnesses, Ravi Prakash Ram (PW-5) and Kaleshwar Ram (PW-6) before whom seizure of incriminating articles was made and would submit that as per the witnesses, at the instance of the accused, the axe was recovered from a nearby place of incident. He further submits that witness Mathura Ram (PW-7) father of the deceased also affirmed the fact that his daughter (deceased) and the appellant accused (husband) together went to graze the goats. He contends that according to the FSL report, the weapon recovered at the instance of accused, presence of human blood was affirmed which matched with the blood group of deceased, which could not be explained properly by the accused ,Therefore, the conviction is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. As per the prosecution, when the dead body of Suganti Bai was found accordingly, Merg was registered by Ex.P-5. In the Merg at first instance doubt was created on this appellant. 6. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 7. As per the prosecution, when the dead body of Suganti Bai was found accordingly, Merg was registered by Ex.P-5. In the Merg at first instance doubt was created on this appellant. The evidence also shows that the appellant used to doubt the character of his wife, therefore, the assault was made. The written report, which is marked as Ex.P-6, by one Kartik Ram, purports that the deceased Suganti Bai along with her husband/the appellant went to graze goats on 05.03.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. but, at evening only the husband came back. Therefore, after some time they started search for Suganti Bai. During such search, they found her dead body with the fatal blows. When the dead body was found, the crime detail form was prepared on 06.03.2019, which is marked as Ex.P-8. The same is proved by Kartik Ram (PW-3) and a perusal of it would show that the dead body was found along with certain articles of the deceased which were scattered nearby at the place of incident. The inquest Ex.P-10 prepared on 06.03.2019 would show that where the dead body was found lying, one axe was also found under the neck of the deceased. This is proved by Parmeshwar (PW-4) and the crime detail & inquest report Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-10 and Site Map (Najari Naksha) Ex.P-4 would show that the dead body of the deceased was found lying along with few scattered items of the deceased nearby including one weapon i.e. axe under the body of deceased. 8. Subsequently, the appellant was apprehended and a memorandum was made by accused by Ex.P-11. On his memorandum, another axe was recovered by Ex.P-12. The memorandum witnesses are PW-5 (Raviprakash Ram) and PW-6 (Kaleshwar Ram). Statement of PW-5 (Raviprakash Ram) would show that the accused disclosed the fact that he has concealed the axe nearby the place of incident and similar statement is also made by PW-6 (Kaleshwar Ram) that the axe used for the offence was concealed at nearby the place of the incident. Subsequently, on the basis of memorandum, from concealed place, seizure was made by Ex.P-12. Apart from the said recovery, another axe, which was pressed under the neck of the deceased was also recovered by Ex.P-14. The witnesses PW-5 (Raviprakash Ram) and PW-6 (Kaleshwar Ram) have also proved such recovery. Subsequently, on the basis of memorandum, from concealed place, seizure was made by Ex.P-12. Apart from the said recovery, another axe, which was pressed under the neck of the deceased was also recovered by Ex.P-14. The witnesses PW-5 (Raviprakash Ram) and PW-6 (Kaleshwar Ram) have also proved such recovery. In this case, there were 2 recoveries of the Axe, which are shown to be made, one by Ex.P-12, which was recovered at the instance of the accused from a concealed spot nearby the place of incident and other one by Ex.P- 14, which was pressed under the body of the deceased. The statements of Raviprakash Ram (PW-5) and Kaleshwar Ram (PW-6) appear to be reasonable and logical that the recovery of axe of Ex.P12 was made at the instance of the accused which was concealed near the crime scene is corroborated by the fact of Inquest Report Ex.P-10 and the Crime Detail Form Ex.P-8, which do not show the presence of said axe near the dead body. Therefore, the recovery of the axe which was alleged to be used in the crime by the accused was recovered, has been proved by the prosecution that it was recovered from the concealed place near the place of incident. 9. PW-1 Dr. (Ku.) S. Nag conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and submitted the postmortem report vide Ex.P/1. The doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: (a) Right ear cut through about (5 x cm lengthy). (b) Incised wound about 8 x 3 x 5 cm deep right temporal region (just back of right ear). (c) Incised would over just below of mandible right side size about (6 x 3 x 3 cm) deep. (d) Incised wound about 4 x 3 cm just back of neck region (Deep wound). (e) One incised/below wound 5 x 3 x 2 cm about seen in right side of mid temporal region. (f) Right temporal bone fracture seen/feel (compressed fracture). (g) Some small multiple scratches seen in (Lt) cubital region (elbow region). (h) Minor injury seen in inguinal region (scratches seen in right thigh region. (i) Scalp echymosis seen in right parietal region. (j) Extrdural hemorrhage seen in frontal region. (k) Uterus-empty. 10. According to the doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock for the injury to the body. The injury was said to be homicidal in nature. (h) Minor injury seen in inguinal region (scratches seen in right thigh region. (i) Scalp echymosis seen in right parietal region. (j) Extrdural hemorrhage seen in frontal region. (k) Uterus-empty. 10. According to the doctor, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock for the injury to the body. The injury was said to be homicidal in nature. The weapon recovered i.e. axe at the instance of the accused was sent for query and according to the doctor, the said injury could have been caused by the such weapon. On a suggestion being made to the doctor that the said axe was not in a sealed condition, it is denied by the doctor. This statement is further supported by Jebiyar Tigga (PW-10) that the weapon was examined by the doctor, who brought the same to him. 11. The memorandum and recovery of the weapon was made at the instance of the accused by Tekram Sarathi (PW-11) which is further supported by PW-5 and PW-6 and their statements remain un-rebutted. The fact that the recovery was made from a concealed place and as per the statement of Atish Minj (PW-12), who is also constable, the articles which were in sealed packet were sent for F.S.L. Apart from the recovery of the axe, the soil from the spot with blood as also the clothes of the deceased were recovered, which is proved by Ex.P-15. The garments of deceased including the Saree, Blouse, one Peti Coat and one Sal were found having blood of deceased Suganti Bai. The same was sent to F.S.L. vide Ex.P-23. The F.S.L. report would show that the axe which was recovered from the spot was pressed under the body of the deceased and was marked as ‘G’ and the axe which was recovered at the instance of the accused was marked as ‘H’ and the blouse of the deceased marked as ‘C’ which contain the human blood, were having the same blood group of ‘B’, whereas, the human blood was also affirmed on the “Saree, Blouse, Petti Coat and Sal” except the group as it. 12. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ganga Bai vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 15 SCC 645 , held that the appellant should have explained how the clothes and articles seized from them contained human blood and in a statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. on a question being made with respect to FSL, the appellant did not have any explanation of the presence of human bloodstains on the weapon which was recovered on his disclosure and explanation on it, was only denial. 13. In the instant case, the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused and the recovered clothes of the deceased were having the same blood group of ‘B’. There is no plausible explanation given by the accused, as to how, the same blood group came to be present on the weapons used by the accused which matches with blood group of deceased. 14. The Arrest Memo Ex.P-13 would show that when the arrest was made, the accused Appellant did not have any injury of like nature, whereby blood may have come over the weapon recovered at the instance of accused. After arrest of appellant, the subsequent recovery of the weapon vide Ex.P-12 was made on 07.03.2019, which shows that the weapon which was having same blood group of the deceased would have a nexus to the crime. The statement of PW-7, the father of the deceased, who was in his house on that day stated that his daughter and son-in-law had gone to graze the goats on the date of incident, however, the accused appellant came back but daughter did not came. As such, this absence of his daughter was disclosed to the villagers. Certain suggestion though was made to him that he has not seen as to which direction both of them had gone but in a daily routine of household activities when such statement is made that daughter and the son-in-law had gone to graze the goats together, it would be a normal circumstance and human behaviour to depose such fact. The statement of (Mathura Ram) PW-7 states that when the accused came back has made extra judicial confession before his daughter Muskan that he has killed his wife, but, Muskan has not been examined. The statement of (Mathura Ram) PW-7 states that when the accused came back has made extra judicial confession before his daughter Muskan that he has killed his wife, but, Muskan has not been examined. The conduct of the appellant, further becomes doubtful when his past antecedents inasmuch as the statement of Tekram Sarathi (PW-11) would show that he was involved in ‘6’ major criminal cases and all are relating to major offences including Sections 376, 392, 384, 302 and Arms Act, which are proved as Ex.P-29, Ex.P-30, Ex.P-31, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-33 and Ex.P-34. 15. Taking into consideration such facts discussed above, we are of the view that no interference is called for by this Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019 passed in Session Trial No. 21/2019, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) is just and proper and there is no illegality or irregularity at all. 16. In the result, the appeal sans merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.