This appeal from jail, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 05.01.2007, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cachar, Silchar, in Ses­sions Case No.85/2001, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short TPC')-By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, convicted the accused person, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows :-

On 15.06.2001, at about 8.00 p.m., Smti Sabitri Bagti (PW.2), while sleeping with her daughter, Smti. Maya Bagti (PW.3), in her house, situated near the house of Ananta Bagti (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), heard cries coming from the house of the deceased and she, along with her said daughter, went out and saw the accused sitting near the dead body of his father i.e. the deceased, after kill­ing the latter with a dao. Sri Jyoti Bagti (PW. 1), who is the nephew of the deceased, on his return from market, came to know from his mother (PW.2) that the accused had killed his father. PW. 1 also found the dead body of the deceased, lying in the courtyard and saw the appellant at the place of occurrence. Af­ter coming to know about the occurrence, PW. 1 informed the members of their society and the Managcr(Sahab) of the Tea Garden, who informed police regarding the occur­rence. A formal FIR was also lodged with the police by P W. 1. On receipt of the FIR, po­lice registered a case, launched investigation into the matter. During the course of investi­gation, police visited the place of occurrence and seized a dao from the possession of the accused, in presence of the witnesses. The accused was arrested and the dead body of the deceased was forwarded for post mortem examination, after preparation of the inquest report. At the close of investigation, police laid charge sheet, against the accused per­son, for the offence under Section 302IPC.

3. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC and explained the same to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of their case, the prosecu­tion examined as many as 10 witnesses, in­cluding the Medical Officer and the Investi­gating Police Officer.

5. After the examination of the prosecu­tion witnesses, the accused person was ex­amined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused person admitted the al­legations brought against him and stated that, after taking liquor, he picked up a quarrel with his father, and out of anger, he dealt dao blow on the head of the deceased.

6. Considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the circumstantial evidence that the accused was found sitting near the dead body of his father, with a dao in his hand and the admission, made by the accused per­son, in his statement, made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge convicted the accused person, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him, as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the ac­cused-convict, as appellant, has come up with this appeal,

7. We have heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Assam.

8- Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record and the im­pugned judgment and order, has submitted that the accused person, at the time of the alleged offence, was suffering from 'schizo­phrenia' and, as such, he being mentally un­sound, was entitled for the benefit, extended by Section 84 IPC. The learned Amicus Cu­riae, has further submitted that, as there is no eye w