I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appellant herein, namely, Bapdhan Bordoloi, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 30.01.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2005, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under:

2. The accused-appellant, Bapdhan Bordoloi, and Sakta Bordoloi (since deceased) were cousins, their houses being located adjacent to each other with no boundary fencing between the two houses. On 14.04.2005, at about 10 pm, both the cousins had their meals together and, on that day, Sakta's wife, Dipali Bordoloi (PW1), their eldest son, Bhakta Bordoloi, aged about 10 years, and other family members were present at the house of Sakta. Having had their dinner, when the family members of Sakta were present in their courtyard, the accused, suddenly, came there with a heavy split bamboo and gave a blow with the same on the head of Sakta, Sakta fell down on the ground and he was carried, by his wife and mother-in-law, to a bed inside their house and, then, PW1 went to the local pharmacy, but the pharmacy was closed. After some time, the injured started vomiting and also passing stool and lost his sense. On the following day, in the morning, neighbours of the injured took him to the civil hospital, but the injured succumbed to his injuries; but before the injured died, PW1 lodged a written Ejahar (Ext.4) with Morigaon Police Station alleging to the effect, inter alia, that taking advantage of the family dispute, the accused aforementioned assaulted her husband causing grievous injuries and the injured had been admitted to civil hospital, Morigaon, in critical condition. Based on this Ejahar, Morigaon Police Station Case No. 54 of 2005, under Section 325 IPC, was registered against the present accused-appellant. Since the injured, as indicated hereinbefore, died, inquest was held over his dead body, post mortem examination was performed thereon and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC.

3. To a charge framed against him, at the trial, under Section 302 IPC, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses. This was followed by examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied that he had committed the offence, which he was alleged to have been committed, his case being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.

5. Having, however, concluded that the accused had been proved to be guilty of the offence, which he was charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. BK Bhagawati, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. K.M. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that PW1 and PW2 were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence of assault on, and killing of, Sakta Bordoloi.

8. Let us, first, consider the evidence of PW1. According to her evidence, accused Bapudhan, is the cousin of her husband, the accused being son of the paternal uncle of deceased Sakta, their houses being adjacent to each other with no boundary fencing between the two houses. On the first day of Bohag Bihu, i.e., on 14.01.2005, the accused took his meal at the house of Sakta and after taking meal, when PW1, along with her husband, her eldest son, aged about 10 years, and other members of her family came to the courtyard, the accused left for his ho