Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.—The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Benipur, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2014, arising out of Ghanshyampur P.S. case No. 328 of 2013, G.R. No. 1336/16, whereby and whereunder the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional six months imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant recorded by S.I. of Ghamshyampur police Station on 20.12.2013 at 12.10 a.m. is that today itself informant went to Ghamshyampur to sell milk and at around 11.00 a.m., her younger son Ganesh Chaupal, aged about 10 years, came to Ghanshyampur and told that his father (Shivat Chaupal) was attacked by elder brother Rudal Chaupal, son of Shivat Chaupal, who has torn the head and cut the mouth with a dabia (sharp edged weapon) due to which the father got unconscious and blood started oozing in the courtyard of the house located in village Vudaiv, Navtolia. After hearing this, when the informant was on her way to home, the villagers were carrying the victim on a cot for treatment and then she also took him along and reached the Primary Health Centre, Ghanshyampur for treatment where the doctor immediately referred him by ambulance to D.M.C.H., Darbhanga for proper treatment but he died on the way in Ghanshyampur in front of the Block. The reason for the incident is that there was a love affair between her elder son Rudal Chaupal’s wife Phooltodni Devi and her younger son Jagarnath Chaupal and when her elder son came to know the incidence, there was an altercation took place between the father and son and with an intention to kill her husband, he killed her husband after making him seriously injured. The informant further stated that today’s morning, informant’s son Rudal Chaupal had gone to his in-laws house at Ghanshyampur and after being instigated, he killed her husband.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Ghanshyampur P.S. case No. 328 of 2013 was registered under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating officer carried out the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. On the basis of charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant on which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, in order to substantiate the charges against the accused person, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Ganga Prasad Yadav, P.W.2 Badri Chaupal, P.W. 3 Chinai Chaupal, P.W.4 Jasiya Devi, P.W.5 Dr. Prafful Kumar Das (doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination), P.W.6 Rampari Devi, (informant), P.W.7 Suresh Chandra Mishra (I.O.) and P.W. 8 Ganesh Chaupal. In support of the case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence. The defence has neither produced any witness nor any document was exhibited on their behalf. The statements of the accused person were recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant in the manner stated above.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that when the matter was called out, the learned counsel for the appellant has not remained present and as the appeal is pending since the year 2016 and the appellant/convict is in custody since 21.12.2013, this Court had no option but to proceed with the matter. We, therefore, asked learned Prince Kumar Mishra to assist the Court and he has been appointed as Amicus C