In cases of homicide, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the victim's death, and the accused's defense must be credible and supported by evidence.

( 1 ) FOR committing murder of Sadhan Ruidas appellant Anil Ruidas was convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan under S. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant seeks to assail the said order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is as under : sadhan (the deceased), his elder brother Abala and younger brother Jatiram (P. W. 9) used to live with their families in the same homestead but in separate mess at village Chotobahar Kuli, P. S. Kalna, Dist. Burdwan. Appellant Anil, native of village Baruipara, P. S. Kalna is the son-in-law of Jatiram (PW 9), younger brother of the deceased and at the material time he was living with his wife in the house of Jatiram whose wife was then dead.

( 3 ) ON the night Of 10-7-1983 between 10. 00 P. M. and 11. 00 P. M. Sadhan (the deceased), his wife, sons and daughter were sitting in the verandah of their room. Anil had an altercation with his father-in-law Jatiram in his room within the same compound. He used abusive and filthy language to which Sadhan objected saying that being a son-in-law he should not abuse his father-in-law in such a way. At this Anil stabbed Sadhan on his abdomen causing a serious bleeding injury. Sadhan fell down on the courtyard with a cry. , Anil fled away. He was chased by Mantu (PW 1) and Nantu (PW 3), sons of Sadhan, but could not be apprehended.

( 4 ) SADHAN was immediately removed to Badla Primary Health Centre where he succumbed to his injury on the same night at 2. 05a. M.

( 5 ) SHORTLY after the occurrence, a complaint was written by Dipak Banerjee (PW 5) as per instructions of Sandhya Ruidas (PW 2 ). The written complaint was sent to the Kalna Police station through Chowkidar Rahindra Nath Santra. It was received at the police station on 11-7-83 at 8. . 05 A. M. A formal First Information Report was drawn up on the basis of the written complaint and a case under S. 326, Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. After receipt of the death report, police added S. 304, Indian Penal Code. PW 10 S. I. Probhas Chandra Dey took up investigation. He could not apprehend the appellant in spite of repeated attempts and the appellant ultimately surrendered in court on 29-8-83. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet which in usual course ended in committal of the case to the court of Session.

( 6 ) IN defence, the appellant pleaded innocence. The defence case was that both the appellant and the deceased were intoxicated and when the deceased attacked the appellant with a knife a scuffle ensued between them and during the scuffle the dagger which was in the hand of the deceased accidentally struck him on the abdomen causing the fatal injury.

( 7 ) THERE is overwhelming evidence to show that the deceased died of stab injury on the night between 10-7-83 and 11-7-85 at Badla Primary Health Centre where he was taken for treatment shortly after he received the stab injury at the hands of an assailant in the courtyard of his house at Chotabharkuli. PWs. 1,2 and 3 who witnessed the occurrence have deposed that Sadhan was stabbed with a knife in the abdomen in the courtyard and he fell down with a serious injury. He was removed by these witnesses and PW 5 Dipak Banerjee to the local Badla Primary Health Centre where he succumbed to his injury at 2. 05 A. M. PW 7 Dr. N. C. Paul, the then Medical Officer of Kalna Sub-Divisional Hospital who held the autopsy on the dead body of Sadhan Ruidas found the following injury : incised wound upper part left side of abdomen 3' X 2' with portrusion of small intestine. Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above noted injury which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Clearly, therefore, it was a case of homicide.

( 8 ) THE next question - and the crucial one - for our consideration is whether appellant Anil Ruidas caused the death