Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. The legality of the judgment and order dated 19.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2009 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one year. Both Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P. appearing for the State of Assam, are heard at length.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of the ejahar, from Sri Sibdhan Tanti, Tipujan Tea Estate, Bokakhat alleging that the appellant killed Bishikeswar Tanti by inflicting dao blow upon him, the Officer-in-Charge of Bokakhat Police Station registered a regular case being Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 99 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. After investigation of the case, the I.O., charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 302 IPC to face the trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat whereafter framed the charge under Section 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and exhibited the post-mortem report, the inquest report, dead body challan, sketch map of the place of occurrence to bring home the charge against the appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whose case is that of total denial. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge upon which he convicted the appellant are found at para 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment, which are reproduced below-

18. From the aforesaid evidence on record, we find that PW-1, Smti. Longamoni Tanti, PW-2, Sri Sitaram Mura and PW-3 Sri Dukheswar Tanti are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they saw the occurrence. At the time of incident, PW-2 was gossiping with the deceased, PW-3 was tying cattle in the cowshed belonging to the deceased and PW-1 was standing near her cowshed. They saw when accused Sanjib Tanti came and talked with the deceased in respect of the BPL card and when the deceased told him that he has received the BPL cards in the name of 3 persons of Karbi-Anglong, then the accused dealt fatal dao blow on the head of the deceased. The Doctor (PW-4) corroborated the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 by her post mortem report, Ext-1. PW-5 Sibadhan Tanti, PW-6 Mondhar Tanti, PW-7 Kalyani Hazarika and PW-8 Asha Tanti did not see the incident. But, immediately after the occurrence, they arrived at the spot. As per evidence of PW-5, he found the injured Bishikeswar Tanti was writhing on his court-yard. Then he took him from there and laid upon the bed. PW-7 found the injured on the bad when she arrived at the spot. PW-8, the daughter of the injured found the injured lying near the cowshed.

19. The accused inflicted cut injury when the injured was sitting on the back side of the house in front of the door and gossiping with PW-2, Sitaram Mura. Just near the said place, there is their cowshed. From the evidence of PW-1, it is found that at the time of incident, she was near the cowshed and at that time, PW-3 Dukheswar Tanti was in the cowshed and was tying cattle belonging to the deceased. Therefore, the court-yard and cowshed are adjacent to each other.

20. From the aforesaid evidence, I find that the accused Sanjib Tanti came with a dao in his hand and talked with Bishikeswar Tanti regarding the BPL card. When the deceased could not provide the BPL card to the accused Sanjib Tanti, then the accused gave fatal dao blow on his head. All the witnesses saw the cut injury on the head of the deceased. PW-4, Dr. Rekha Baruah gave opinion that the head injury is sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course of nature. The Doctor (PW-4) found sharp incised wound in the left side of the parietal bone of siz