Saha, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the sole appellant, Hriday Lal Kaipeng, against the judgment and order, dated 6-8-2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in ST 48 (ST/A) 2006 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further one year R.I. Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 18/19-3-2006, at about 1.00 a.m., the victim Nerdhan Lien Kaipeng came to his elder brother's house with bleeding injuries. Having seen him, the informant, Rampak Kaipeng (P.W. 1), the elder brother of the victim, enquired how he had sustained the bleeding injuries. Then, the victim stated that the accused appellant Hriday Lal Kaipeng and one Lalshu Mukta Kaipeng had injured him in the house of one Surjya Lien Kaipeng (P.W. 2) with a broken bottle. Subsequently, the victim succumbed to the injuries.

3. Thereafter, P.W. 1, Rampak Kaipeng lodged a complaint written by one Dhanman Lal Kaipeng (P.W. 4) before the Officer In-charge, Taidu police station.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, Taidu PS. case No. 3/06 was registered under Section 302, read with Section 34, IPC, as a cognizable offence was disclosed thereof. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

5. Upon receipt of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and ultimately, the charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 302 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. For better appreciation, the charge framed against the accused appellant is reproduced hereunder :

That you on 18-3-06 at about 23 hours at Dhanlekha Kaipang para (in the house of Surjya Lian Kaipang) under P.S. - Taidu, Sub-Division-Amarpur, committed murder by causing the death of Nerdhan Lian Kaipang by a wine's bottle, and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the official witnesses and also produced some documents including post-mortem report which were exhibited. The prosecution also proved some articles which were marked as Ext. M.O. 1 and M.O. 2.

7. The defence case, so far from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and also on the examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., is of total denial. The appellant neither produced any witness nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of his case.

8. The trial Court heard the parties and mainly relying upon the deposition of Sri Surjya Lien Kaipeng (P.W. 2), Trinath Kaipeng (P.W. 5) and Dr. Digbijay Krishna Debbarma (P.W. 12), who has done autopsy, convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel of the parties, it would be proper on our part to first deal with the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 5 and 12 and thereafter, we will deal with the evidence of other related witnesses.

10. P.W. 2, Sri Surjya Lien Kaipeng alias Surjya, an eye-witness, in whose house the incident took place, in his deposition stated that on the date of incident, Nirdhan Lal Kaipeng (victim), Lalshu mukta Kaipeng, Hriday Lal Kaipeng (accused appellant), Trinath Kaipeng (P.W. 5), Dipti Kumar Kaipeng, Jurkahao Kaipeng came to their house after purchasing meat. After completion of cooking meat, they consumed alcohol (country liquor) and meat. After consuming alcohol, the accused appellant Hridaya Lal had dealt a blow on the head of the victim causing serious bleeding injuries to him. He also stated that the accused appellant gave blows