ORDER : 1. By way of present SLP, the petitioner (original-accused) Nokhelal Sahu challenges the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2023, whereby the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court i.e. the Ld. Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon was upheld. The Ld. Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and awarded him sentence of life imprisonment with Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default an additional six months Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nokhelal Sahu was residing at village Jarahi, District Rajnandgaon with his grandmother Jhunabai and he used to pick up quarrels with his grandmother for the demand of money to consume liquor. On 28.06.2021, around 5-6 PM, other grandson, Arvind Sahu visited his grandmother with biscuits, and saw that the accused Nokhelal Sahu was demanding money for alcohol and when his grandmother refused to give money, the accused abused her and threatened to kill her. He grabbed her hair, strangled her with one hand and repeatedly slammed her head against the wall. Due to repeatedly slamming of her head against the wall, Jhunabai fell down and became unconscious. Arvind Sahu made a phone call to his father Daniram Sahu and informed about the incident. The accused Nokhelal Sahu then fled away from the spot. The neighbours rushed to the spot, i.e., the house of Jhunabai when they checked the physical condition of Jhunabai they found that she was unconscious. One of the neighbours Chiman Sahu called an ambulance by dialling 112. Jhunabai was then taken to District Hospital Rajnandgaon by the neighbours namely Purnima Sahu, Chiman Sahu and Arvind Sahu. When she was admitted for treatment. The information was sent to Basantpur Police Station and in turn it was forwarded to the S.H.O. of Somni Police Station. On receipt of the information, the First Information Report was lodged against Nokhelal Sahu for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC. On lodgement of the report, the investigation was set in motion. One Shivendra Singh Rajput, Police Inspector attached to Somni Police Station took charge of the investigation. On 30.06.2021, Jhunabai died, and information was forwarded to the Basantpur Police Station. Accordingly, the offence against accused was altered to Section 302 of IPC. On lodgement of the report, the investigation was set in motion. One Shivendra Singh Rajput, Police Inspector attached to Somni Police Station took charge of the investigation. On 30.06.2021, Jhunabai died, and information was forwarded to the Basantpur Police Station. Accordingly, the offence against accused was altered to Section 302 of IPC. Meantime, the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector H. P. Devta. Mr. Devta then by completing the formalities of investigation namely, recording the statement of witnesses, drawing the necessary punchnama (s) etc. filed chargesheet, before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. The accused was put to trial. The defence of the accused was of denial. On the appreciation of the evidence, the Ld. Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the conviction and sentence was recorded against the accused. In the appeal filed before the High Court, the High Court could not find any error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and accordingly, affirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt before this Court to submit that there is no evidence against the accused and both the courts namely the Trial Court and the High Court only on the basis of the conjectures and surmises held the accused guilty. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel, though the prosecution claimed witness Arvind Sahu as an eye-witness, his testimony and particularly the cross-examination clearly show that when Arvind Sahu reached the spot Jhunabai was lying in an unconscious condition, as such he was not an eye-witness to the incident. 4. Thus, the Ld. Counsel, prayed for allowing the Special Leave Petition and to quash and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. 5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the material placed on record. It is true that the prosecution, though claimed Arvind Sahu to be an eye-witness, in his cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the accused slamming the head of Jhunabai against the wall and when he reached the house of Jhunabai, she was lying unconscious. 6. It is true that the prosecution, though claimed Arvind Sahu to be an eye-witness, in his cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the accused slamming the head of Jhunabai against the wall and when he reached the house of Jhunabai, she was lying unconscious. 6. In our opinion, though there is no direct evidence in the present case, the other evidences in the form of circumstantial evidence, dying declaration and medical evidence clearly established the case of prosecution. The version of witnesses proves the following facts : 1. The accused Nokhelal Sahu was residing with his grandmother Jhunabai; 2. The accused used to pick up frequent quarrels with his grandmother Jhunabai for demand of money to buy liquor; 3. While the witness Arvind Sahu reached on the spot, Jhunabai was lying in unconscious condition and accused Nokhelal Sahu fled away from the spot; 4. By calling an ambulance, Jhunabai was immediately shifted to District Hospital. 7. Now we may refer to the important evidence supporting the case of the prosecution namely the testimony of PW-11 Doctor Sweta Komarya. As stated above, the neighbours gathered on the spot and called the ambulance and Jhunabai was shifted to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Dr. Sweta Komarya (PW-11) attached to District Hospital Rajnandgaon found following injuries on the person of Jhunabai and she issued the injuries certificate Ex. P-10. The injuries mentioned in the said Ex. P-10 are as follows: i. Bruises over chin 5x4 cm approx by blunt and hard object. ii. Swelling over chin 3x3 cm approx by blunt and hard object. iii. Abrasion 1x0.5 cm approx over chin by rough surface. iv. Bruise 4x3 cm approx around left eyes by blunt and hard object. v. Bruise 2x2 cm approx around right eyes by blunt and hard object. 8. On the death of Jhunabai, an autopsy was conducted and the autopsy surgeon Dr. Madhulika Manoj (PW-8) who has issued the post-mortem report referred to the external injuries in her testimony as follows: 1. Abrasion over left forehead (1 cm above left eyebrow) - 1 x 1cm. 2. Right eye periorbital ecchymosis seen. 3. Abrasion over right side of nose (1x0.5cm). 4. 3 contusions over chin (lacerated towards left (a) 2x1 cm-(b) 1x lcm (c) 1.5 x1cm 5. Contusion over left shoulder tip 3x2.5 cm. 6. Abrasion over left forehead (1 cm above left eyebrow) - 1 x 1cm. 2. Right eye periorbital ecchymosis seen. 3. Abrasion over right side of nose (1x0.5cm). 4. 3 contusions over chin (lacerated towards left (a) 2x1 cm-(b) 1x lcm (c) 1.5 x1cm 5. Contusion over left shoulder tip 3x2.5 cm. 6. There was a blue colour mark at two places on the left side in the upper part of the chest (a) 2x2 cm (b) 2.5 x 2 cm. 7. A blue mark on the right side of the chest 3x2 cm. 9. She further referred to the internal injuries, which are as follows: “5. During the postmortem examination, I found internal examination of the body of the deceased in the following cases: 1 -Skull, Cranial and Vertebrae (a) Linear fracture was found in the temporoparietal region on the right side, Under scalp contusion was found which was 10x8 cm. (b) Seal-subdual hemorrhage. 100 ml of blood was collected in temporooccipital part, subarachnoid hemorrhage was also found. (c) Blood was collected on the right side of the brain, whose size was 1x1 cm. (d) Blood was collected on both sides in upper part of rib, there was no fracture in rib, there was no injury in lung, larynx and windpipe.(e) There were no injuries in heart and pericardium (f) There was no injury in membrane, intestinal membrane. No other injuries were found in the rest of the internal examination.” 10. The cause of death as stated by PW-8 Dr. Madhulika Manoj is due to the external injuries no.(s) 1-7 and internal injury on her body and she further states that this injury was caused by hard and blunt object. In her testimony before the court, she further states that the cause of death of deceased is due to serious injury on her head and may be of homicidal nature. 11. Thus, the prosecution clearly established its case that the death of deceased Jhunabai is Homicidal one and the authorship of the crime by the accused is established by the dying declaration. Jhunabai was brought to the District Hospital on 29.06.2021 at 12:00 PM and Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, Rajnandgaon was called upon to record the dying declaration. Thus, the prosecution clearly established its case that the death of deceased Jhunabai is Homicidal one and the authorship of the crime by the accused is established by the dying declaration. Jhunabai was brought to the District Hospital on 29.06.2021 at 12:00 PM and Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, Rajnandgaon was called upon to record the dying declaration. In her dying declaration, Jhunabai clearly states that when she was alone in her house at the time of incident, her grandson Nokhelal Sahu son of Pokhak beat her and tried to strangle her due to which her health was deteriorated. She further stated that her grandson i.e. accused Nokhelal Sahu often used to beat her. The dying declaration of Jhunabai, in our opinion is trustworthy, reliable and free from any doubt. 12. The detailed reference is made to the testimony of PW-6 Komal Singh Dhurwe i.e. the tehsildar who recorded the dying declaration in the judgment of the High Court (para 14). The High Court also recorded that as the accused was residing with his grandmother and on the day of the incident he was alone in the house along with his grandmother, as such a burden lay upon on the accused to provide an explanation for the unnatural death of Jhunabai, as proved under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The High Court found that there was no plausible and convincing explanation provided by the accused so as to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 13. Thus, considering these aspects, the High Court could not find any error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and ultimately the same was confirmed by the High Court. 14. We see no reason to take a different view than the view adopted by the High Court in its well-reasoned Judgment. As such the Special Leave Petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.