P.K. Saikia, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Session Case No. 55/08 convicting the accused/appellant offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default RI for another six months for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this present appeal has been filed alleging several infirmities in the judgment impugned.

2. Brief facts, as stated during trial and which are necessary for disposal of present appeal, are that one Shri Lakhiram Gorh (PW1) lodged an FIR with O/C, Lahoal Police Station on 21.02.08 alleging that at about 2.30 pm same day, the accused Kanuwar Gorh @ Bhutia killed his father-in-law Ramnath Gorh in his own house by inflicting 'dao' blows on his body.

3. On the receipt of the FIR (Ext. 5), above, police registered a case under Section 302 IPC, started investigating the same and during the course of investigation held inquest on the dead body, sent it to hospital for postmortem examination and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial.

4. The Magistrate before the charge-sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Sessions since offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On the receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to file of the learned Additional Session Judge, Dibrugarh for disposal in accordance with law.

5. On the receipt of the case on transfer and on hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses including the informant, doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body as well as the learned Magistrate who recorded the confession of the accused person.

6. The accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he surrendered before the police soon after the incident in question and also led the police to place of occurrence and helped it in recovering a 'dao' from inside the bamboo groove which police seized on the strength of seizure list Ext 3.

7. The accused, however, claims that on the afternoon in question, he somehow lost control over himself for some time and he could not say how he conducted himself during such period and, as such, he claims that he is innocent. He, however, did not adduce any evidence to fortify the aforesaid plea. On the conclusion of trial and on hearing of the parties, learned trial court convicted the accused person of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to the punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present proceeding.

8. Opening up of argument on behalf of the accused appellant, the learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the judgment, impugned in the present appeal, is liable to be set aside since prosecution could not establish the charge, brought against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. In that connection, it has been contended that the prosecution case is basically based on confessional statement made by the accused persons before the Magistrate during the course of investigation. It is also sought to be premised on circumstantial evidence as well. Unfortunately, none of the aforesaid factors accomplished the goal, assigned.

10. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the confessional statement becomes untenable in law for reasons more than one. They are:

a). The accused/appellant was not given sufficient time for reflection to ponder over the warnings and to decide whether he would make a conf