JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI, J.

This is yet an another appeal, which makes the Court confront a wholly unpleasant situation, where the error of the learned trial Court may force the hands of the Court to allow this appeal, which has arisen out of the judgment, dated 23.12.1992, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1992, by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, whereunder the appellant, Vyash Mishra, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by the order, dated 02.01.1993, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may in brief, be described as under:

(i) The deceased, Sheo Charan Bin, was husband of Tetari Devi (PW 1) and, on 30.01.1991, at about 10:00 PM, while Tetari Devi (PW 1) was serving dinner to the said deceased at their house, accused Vyash Mishra, who, being a friend of the said deceased, was a frequent visitor to the house of the said deceased, came there and asked the deceased to come with him for strolling to the Railway Station. Having finished the dinner, the said deceased went with accused Vyash Mishra for a stroll.

(ii) After a little while, PW 1 heard cries of her husband, Sheo Charan Bin, coming from the direction of the saw-mill of one Pathakji, whereupon she rushed to Pathakji’s saw-mill and saw her husband lying injured, on the ground, writhing in pain.

(iii) On being asked by his wife, Tetari Devi, her husband told her that Vyash Mishra (i.e., the accused herein) had stabbed him and fled away.

(iv) Witnessing her husband lying in seriously injured condition, as PW 1 began to yell, her co-villagers arrived there and, with their help, PW 1 carried her injured husband, on a tractor, to Gopalganj Sadar Hospital, where her husband died.

(v) Before his death, while the injured was lying under treatment, his statement (Exhibit-2) was recorded by Dr. Girish Nath Singh (PW 2).

(vi) The reason for stabbing the husband of PW 1, in the manner indicated hereinbefore, was, according to PW 1, due to hot exchange of words, which had taken place between her husband and the accused on the issue of some transaction of money.

(vii) On the following day, i.e., on 01.02.1991, at 03.30 A.M., a fardbeyan, in writing, was lodged at Kuchaikote Police Station by Tetari Devi and, having registered the said fardbeyan as First Information Report, Kuchaikote Police Station Case No. 09 of 1991 was registered, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against accused Vyash Mishra.

3. During investigation, inquest was held over Sheo Charan Bin’s dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Vyash Mishra.

4. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 10 (ten) witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

6. Having, however, arrived at the finding that accused Vyash Mishra had been proved guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly. Following his conviction, sentence has been passed against the convicted person as mentioned above.

7. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, accused Vyash Mishra, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, an