N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.9.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 136(NL)/03 by which the appellant was convicted of the charge of murder of his father punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of another 6(six) months. On 12.12.2002, an ejahar was lodged by the wife of the deceased, Ribonath Saikia stating that her husband had come to Dhalpur on 10.12.2002 at around 7.00pm. However, thereafter, even after making a search he could not be found. It is reported in the said ejahar that at around 10 am on 12.12.2002, some unknown miscreants had killed him by stabbing with a dagger and felled him in the road side ditch along PWD road near Pisola river. After receipt of the aforesaid ejahar at 4.00pm of the same day, a case was registered and an investigation by the police was set into motion.

2. After the aforesaid investigation was initiated, the police went to the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased Rubinath Saikia was found lying on the road side ditch. Inquest was held over the dead body which was later sent for post mortem examination.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that acting on a tip-off, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant on 12.12.2002 from a hotel where he was working and was interrogated. During interrogation, the appellant confessed to his guilt and on the basis of his disclosure, the police recovered and seized the weapon of offence in presence of witnesses, which was a small dagger fitted with a wooden handle measuring about 1 foot. On the basis of the confessional statement made before the police, the Investigating Officer committed the appellant on 13.12.2002 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and made a prayer for recording his confessional statement. Accordingly, the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the same day at around 1 pm. Thereafter, the appellant made his confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. at around 4 pm on the same day.

4. The learned Trial Court after considering the confessional statement and other evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charge of murder punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. has been proved against the appellant.

5. In course of the trial, the learned Trial Court framed two issues to be decided:-

i) Whether the accused committed the offence of killing his father Rebo Saikia?

ii) Whether the death of Rebo Saikia is a culpable homicide amounting to murder?

6. As regards the first point, the learned Trial Court held that there is no direct witness account except the confession of the appellant and the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant.

7. The learned Trial Court observed that the appellant while being examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. had not disputed the incident and had admitted that he made a confession before the Magistrate.

8. The learned Trial Court had found the aforesaid confessional statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C. to be true and reliable. The learned Trial Court referring to the evidence of PW-7, Ajoy Kumar Barua, who was the Magistrate before whom the aforesaid confessional statement was made on 13.12.2002, observed that the Magistrate gave due warning and caution about the consequence of the confession to the appellant when he was produced before him at 1 pm. It was stated that the appellant expressed his willingness to confess to his guilt. Accordingly, the appellant was placed under custody of his office in his office chamber for reflection for about 3 hours. Again, at 4 pm when the appellant was asked by the Magistrate whether he wanted to confess to his guilt, the appellant insisted on confessing. The Magist