B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. Having been convicted for the offence of murder and criminal trespass the convict is challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.2004, passed by the learned Add1. Sessions Judge (ad hoc) Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 51 (K) of 2004. By the impugned judgment the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in short) and he has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and 1 (one) year rigorous imprisonment with fine and default sentence for the respective offences. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Although the accused was also charged under Section 354 IPC but the accused has been acquitted from the said charge. We have heard Shri B.K. Singh, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Shri D. Das, learned Add1. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and evidence proffered by the prosecution during the trial. While cross-examining prosecution witnesses and also giving statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly 'Cr PC') the accused neither put forward any defence alibi nor any evidence in defence was tendered.

2. Before venturing into the appreciation of evidence and the arguments of both the sides it would be proper to give a bird's eye view upon the prosecution story, which runs as follows :-

2.1 The offence took place at about 6 a.m. on 22.4.2003. The deceased Keshab Kumar Verma was owning a 3 (three) storey building at G.S. Road, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati. Except his residential accommodation, the deceased had let-out the entire building to various tenants for commercial purposes. The deceased was living in the second floor with his family. The accused/appellant was practising in 'unani' medicines. His chamber was also in the second floor. The residence of the deceased and the chamber of the appellant were intervened by the shop of PW 8.

2.2 There appears to be some dispute in between the deceased and the appellant for non-payment of rent and threat of eviction of the appellant from the tenanted premise. The murder was committed in the tenanted chamber of the appellant. After committing the offence the appellant bolted the door from outside and then entered the residential accommodation of the deceased and misbehaved with the daughter and wife of the deceased and also threatened them for physical assault. However, the appellant was pushed out of the room. Thereafter, the wife and daughter of the deceased went in search of their husband/father. With the help of house guard (PW 3) it was discovered that the deceased was hammered to death and the dead body was lying inside the chamber of the accused. Then the door was broken and the deceased was taken to a nearby private hospital, with a hope that the deceased had some life. However, the doctors declared the injured as dead.

3. The written FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased almost within an hour, suspecting that her husband was murdered by the appellant. The FIR was registered as Paltan Bazar Case No. 132 of 2003 under Sections 448, 323, 307, 302, 34 IPC. During the course of investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded; inquest upon the dead body was held; statements of some of the witnesses were obtained under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; necropsy upon the dead body was conducted. The accused surrendered in the Court on 7.5.2003, after rejection of his application for anticipatory bail. During interrogation the accused led the investigating officer for recovery of the hammer, which was alleged to have been used in the offence of murder. It was followed by giving a confessional statement by the accused before a Judicial Magistrate on 15.5.2003. The investigating officer had also seized few other items from the scene of the crime. After conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted and the accused was put to trial for the offences, indicated earlier in this judgment.