C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.1.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 110/2004. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 2 (two) months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. We have heard Mr. Sanjoy Kr. Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.5.2003 at about 11-30 p.m. when Sri Mantu Chetia, hereinafter called the deceased, was returning home with Mr. Jitu Tapan Konwar, (PW-1) and Mr. Ramen Phukan, (PW-3). Sri Bhabani Gogoi i.e. the appellant intercepted the deceased on the road, and hacked him to death with a dao. Though the deceased was shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital.

Sri Pabitra Phukan, the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR with the police on 15.05.2003. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Section 341/302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter.

3. During investigation police visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Ext-5) to the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses and arrested the appellant. Police also seized a meat dao vide Ext. 3(4) on being shown by the appellant.

4. At the close of the investigation police filed charge-sheet under Section 341/302 IPC.

The offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 341 and 302 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. The appellant claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the medical officer (PW-4), who conducted the autopsy and the Investigating Police Officer (PW-10). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person i.e. the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him. No defence evidence has been adduced on his behalf.

Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant and that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW-3, who claimed to be an eye witness. In view of the above, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s. 302 IPC.

The learned Addl. P.P., supporting the impugned conviction and sentence submitted that there is enough substantive evidence, including the evidence of the eye witness (PW-3), against the appellant and that the learned Trial Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, requiring no interference by this Court, in this appeal.

For appreciating the counter arguments, advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it, appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence, on record.

6. It appears from the FIR that the deceased, at the time of occurrence, was returning home along with PW-1 and PW-2. Therefore, as claimed by the prosecution, both PW-1 and PW-3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Sri Jitu Tapan Konwar (PW-1) declined to support the prosecution version regarding involvement of the appellant. In his evidence, given as PW-1, this witness stated that, when he returning home, along with Sri Ramen phukan, (PW-3), after attending the Santi Biya (a f