A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-6-2005 and sentence dated 30-6-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in S.T. (WT/ A) No. 04 of 2004, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

2. Facts, leading to filing of this appeal, may be stated, in brief, as follows:

Shri Sanatan Ch. Dutta (P.W. 1) lodged an 'Ejahar' before the Officer-in-Charge, Bishalgarh Police Station on 30-5-2002 at 10-30 a.m., stating inter alia therein that at about 8.00 a.m. on the same day Shri Sanjoy alias Sanjit Naha attacked his son Uttam Dutta and struck blows by knife and as a result of which Uttam sustained grievous injuries on his person. Initially the injured was shifted to Bishramganj P.H.C. and thereafter, he was evacuated to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala for medical treatment. It was further stated in the 'Ejahar' that his son Uttam was struggling with life in the hospital.

3. On the basis of 'Ejahar' filed by the father of the victim, the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh Police Station registered a case under Section 326 of IPC and launched investigation. However, unfortunately, on the way to G.B. Hospital, injured Uttam Dutta succumbed to his injuries. Accordingly, Section 302 of IPC was added in the case.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared hand-sketch map with separate index; seized some blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence; exam-ined and recorded the statements of witnesses available in the place of occurrence under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the report of the post-mortem examination of the deceased, finding sufficient materials against the accused Appellant, submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC.

5. During consideration of charge, the learned Sessions Court finding sufficient materials, framed formal charge against the accused under Section 302 of IPC and on reading over and explaining the charge to the accused-Appellant as aforesaid, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused-Appellant, adduced testimony of as many as 26 prosecution witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused Appellant.

7. On completion of recording of the prosecution evidences, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused-Appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-Appellant in his statement made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure took the stand of total denial.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, on completion of the trial and after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, convicted the accused-Appellant as aforesaid giving rise to this appeal.

9. We have heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned amicus curiae for the accused-Appellant and Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional public prosecutor for the Respondent-State.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and as such the findings and the order of sentence are liable to be set aside and quashed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradiction and embellishment, which cannot be relied on to convict the accused-Appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant further pointed out that due to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused-Appellant, most of the eye-witnesses who deposed in the learned Court, being relatives of the deceased, falsely implicated the accused-Appellant for the alleged commission of offence.

11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Pros