Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2017 passed by learned F.T.C. No. 2, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 2016 (G.R. No. 466/2016) arising out of Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:—

2.1. The informant Aszadi Khatoon gave written complaint on 10.03.2016 before Kishanpur Police Station, wherein she has stated that on 09.03.2016 she along with her husband Md. Tasrif (deceased) was coming from Tharbitta Station market to her house at Pirganj after buying household articles. At about 03:30 p.m. when she reached near the bridge to the west of the Kosi Dam, all of a sudden accused Md. Naseem appeared from the bamboo grove and stabbed her husband in front of her on the abdomen by a knife and fled away towards the same bamboo grove. She alleged that her husband fell down on the road and started crying for help. Then, two boys from her village came there and took her husband on their motorcycle to Kishanpur Hospital from where her husband was referred to Supaul Sadar Hospital. Her husband died in the ambulance while being taken to Darbhanga for better treatment. She has further stated that her husband had come to her village from Rajasthan four days before. She has further alleged that, after stabbing her husband, the accused went to her maika (maternal home) and misbehaved with her younger sister Sarbari Begum and also tried to kill her but somehow her sister’s life was saved when she started shouting.

2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer commenced the investigation and, during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the evidence and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 149 of 2016 (G.R. No. 466/2016).

2.3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against which the appellant/convict has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sameer Ranjan and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that, in the present case, the prosecution has projected PW-7 (informant) as an eye-witness whereas PW-1 to PW-5 are hearsay witnesses. It is further submitted that the Trial Court did not give reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the informant (PW-7) as well as the Investigating Officer (PW-8), as a result of which prejudice has been caused to the appellant. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, simply relying upon the confession made by the appellant while giving his further statement under Section 313 of the Code, has convicted the appellant. Therefore, solely relying upon the statement given by the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Code, he has been convicted which is not permissible in the eye of law. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside and the present appeal be allowed. It is also pointed out from the record that the appellant is in custody since March, 2016.

5. Learned counsel f