C.R. Sarma J.

1. The judgment and order, dated 17.09.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 189 (S-S)/2003, is in challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid the learned trial Judge, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, suffer another period of rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convict, as Appellant, has preferred this appeal from jail.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows:

The present case involves the killing of Sri Ghana Kanta Dihingia (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by his son i.e. the Appellant-convict. On 24.08.2003, at about 8 a.m., when the Appellant was working in his paddy field by means of a hoe, the deceased appeared there in the field and requested him not to plough about one katha of land, but this request was turned down by the Appellant. Consequently, an altercation, between the deceased and the Appellant, took place and the deceased had inflicted a slap on the Appellant. On being so slapped, the Appellant also, who was working with a hoe, assaulted the deceased with the said hoe by inflicting one blow on the back of the head and another on the chest, just below the arm of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased had fallen down. The deceased was carried home, in injured condition, by PW.1 i.e. the younger brother of the Appellant and PW.2, who were also working near the place of occurrence and after about one and a half hour, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The accused was handed over to the police by PW.1 and information about the occurrence was lodged, on the same day. Police, after receipt of the FIR, registered a case, being Demow P.S. Case No. 47/2003, under Section 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter.

3. During the investigation, police prepared the inquest report, forwarded the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination, arrested the accused, seized the incriminating weapon (hoe) and recorded the statement of the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. The offence, under Section 302 IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused, to which, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW.5), who conducted the autopsy of the dead body and the Investigating Police Officer (PW.9).

6. At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined, by the learned trial Judge, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C"). The accused denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defense evidence. His plea was a total denial one.

7. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused, as indicated above.

Being aggrieved, the convict, who has been suffering the sentence, as Appellant, has preferred this appeal, from jail.

8. We have heard Mrs. A. Devi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant as an amicus curie and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

9. The learned amicus curie, has submitted that there are sufficient discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly in the evidence of the