Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 26/2006 decided on 9-1-2007.

2. The case began with the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) dated 9-12-2005. In his FIR the complainant says that at about 7.30 p.m. the Appellant inflicted cut blows on different parts of the body of his wife with a dao. It seems that the Appellant and his wife had some disputes relating to some household affairs and that is why the injuries were inflicted. While being taken to Katlichera hospital, the wife of the Appellant died as a result of the injuries.

3. The Investigating Officer filed his final report and charged the Appellant of having committed the murder of his wife Smti Rita Singh Chetri at his house. By an order dated 10-5-2006 the Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court, where the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses while the Appellant did not examine any witness at all.

5. PW-1 Jagannath Singh Chetri is the elder brother of the Appellant while PW-2 Chandu Singh is the nephew of the Appellant. Both of them stated that they heard some hue and cry from the Appellant's house and so they rushed over. They saw the wife of the Appellant lying on the ground in a pool of blood and some injuries. The Appellant was standing by her side with a bothi dao in one hand and his child on his lap. When they tried to approach the Appellant, he threatened them with the bothi dao and asked them not to proceed any further otherwise he would injure them.

6. These two witnesses also say that in the meanwhile a complaint was made to the police and after they arrived, they managed to take away the bothi dao from the Appellant.

7. At this stage it may be mentioned that the bothi dao is not a weapon of offence but is used for cutting fish and other domestic purposes.

8. When news of the incident came to be known in the village, a large number of people gathered there, including PW-3 Johar Lal Bin, PW-4 Keshab Singh Chetri, PW-5 Devi Singh Chetri and PW-6 Amir Singh @ Amar Singh. When they entered the witness box, they substantiated the version given by PW-1 and PW-2 that they saw the Appellant beside the injured body of his wife and with a child in his lap.

9. While PW-3 Johar Lal Bin exaggerates the events when says that he saw the Appellant inflicting blows on the body of his wife. This is obviously not correct because the first two persons at the scene of occurrence, that is, PW-1 and PW-2 do not say any such thing. PW-3 Johar Lal Bin also says that even after the arrival of the police the Appellant continued to threaten them and asked them not to proceed towards him. To an extent, this is confirmed by PW-6 Amir Singh who says that the Appellant threatened to kill the baby, if they tried to snatch the bothi dao away from him.

10. However, what is common to the statement of all the witnesses is that the Appellant was beside the injured body of his wife and had a bothi dao with him and a baby on his lap.

11. The post mortem report submitted by PW-7 Dr K.Z. Choudhury shows that there were a large number of wounds inflicted on the body of the Appellant's wife. The wounds are described as follows:

1. One incised wound of size 8.5 cm x 5.2 cm x 6 cm is seen on the medial aspect and front of the right forearm just above the right wrist running obliquely and cutting the right ulna bone.

2. One incised wound of size 1cm x 1 cm x 0.4 cm is seen on the medial aspect of the middle of the right ring finger running transversely.

3. One incised wound of size 1.2cm x 1.1cm x 0.6cm is seen on the medial aspect of the proximal phalanx of the right little finger cutting and dividing to phalanx transversely.

4. One incised wound of size 1cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm is seen on the palm aspect of the left ring finger.

5. One incised wound of size 7.5cm x 3.3cm x 3cm is seen running transversely over the