ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.

1. Sole appellant Md. Nasim Raza Rahmani @ Munna has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life vide judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2010 and order of sentence dated 14.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge-II, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 29/2010.

2. Azima Khatoon wife of deceased Md. Motiur Rahman of Village-Ramkhetari, PS-Rajnagar, Distt-Madhubani filed a written report on 15.07.2009 disclosing therein that on the same day at about 2:00 PM her husband was taking meal in his room, their son Md. Nasim Raza Rahmani @ Munna aged about 30 years came from Rajnagar and no sooner than he arrived, began to abuse his father. He came inside the room, bolted it from inside and began to assault whereupon, her husband shouted for help. Hearing cry, her daughter, Roohi Khatoon rushed but seen the door locked came outside the house and raised alarm disclosing that her brother is assaulting her father after closing the room whereupon, the persons of the locality assembled. Anyhow, persuaded to open the door. After opening the door by Md. Nasim Raza Rahmani @ Munna, all of them have gone inside the room and found her husband Md. Motiur Rahman in an injured condition lying over a bed in a pool of blood. Her son was armed with Khanti. She had seen her husband having injury over his head. Blood was oozing out. His both hands were also injured. He was groaning. All the persons lifted him to Rajnagar hospital wherefrom, he was referred to DMCH where, her husband has been taken to. Anyhow, with the help of the neighbours, she succeeded in apprehending her son, Md. Nasim Raza Rahmani @ Munna. On arrival of the police, written report along with accused has been produced.

3. After registration of Rajnagar PS Case No. 116/2009, investigation commenced and during course thereof, on account of death of injured, Md. Motiur Rahman, Section 302 IPC was added where under, after concluding investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted, facilitating the trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of the instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has also been pleaded that his sister, Roohi Khatoon has been affectionate towards a person which was opposed by him as well as his father and the said person taking advantageous position, on account of absence of the appellant, tried to develop physical relationship which was opposed at the end of his father and in the aforesaid background, his father was assaulted. Subsequently thereof, on the false pretext maneuvering the situation by his sister, got the appellant/accused involved in this case with false and frivolous allegation. In support thereof, also examined DWs.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 8 PWs out of whom PW-1, Roohi Khatoon , PW2, Md. Afroj Alam @ Pappu, PW-3, Md. Nazim, PW-4, Ansarul Haque, PW-5, Md. Nayeem, PW-6, Azima Khatoon, PW-7, Satya Narayan Singh, and PW-8, Dr. Rama Nand Chaudhary as well as had also exhibited Ext-1 series, signature of respective witnesses over written report, Ext-2, written report, Ext-3, Formal FIR, Ext-4, endorsement over written report, Ext-5, Seizure list relating to seizure of blood stained Khanti, Ext-6, inquest report, Ext-7, Postmortem report.

6. Defence had also examined five DWs who are DW-1, Praveen Khatoon, DW-2, Hamida Khatoon, DW-3, Afroj Ansari, DW-4, Abdul Wahid and DW-5, Nuri Khatoon.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of argument has submitted that due to poverty, appellant was not at all in a position to engage a counsel nor the learned lower court had cared to provide legal assistance in accordance with Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. and on account thereof, though the appellant cross-examined the witnesses compelled circumstances but, being ignorant of law, niceties of th