This appeal is directed against the judg#31;ment and order, dated, 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, (FTC), Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No.49 (T) of 2008.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302IPC, and accordingly sentenced him to suffer im#31;prisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, undergo simple imprisonment for another period of three months, for his con#31;viction under Section 302. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal.

3. We have heard Mr R.K. Adhikary, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, as re#31;vealed at the trial, is that, on 12.1.2008 at about 2 p.m., the appellant, being armed with a dao, inflicted several blows on Honu Jalen (hereinafter called as 'the deceased’), as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

5. The occurrence took place in presence of Sri Busur Chick (P W 2) and Shri Arun Gorik (PW 3). Sri Bindu Men (PW 5), the elder brother of the deceased lodged the FIR with the police, on the same day, which was registered as Doomdooma PS Case No. 16/ 2008 under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of the said FIR (Ext.4), police launched in#31;vestigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person, re#31;corded the statement of the witnesses, pre#31;pared inquest report(Ext.2), forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and recovered and seized & dao from the bed of the accused, on being shown by the latter. Police also prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. At the close of the in#31;vestigation, police submitted the charge-sheet (Ext.6) against the accused appellant.

6. The offence being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia commit#31;ted the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused to which, he pleaded 'not guilty'.

7. In order to prove their case, prosecu#31;tion examined as many as nine witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 1), who performed the postmortem examination, the Circle Officer (PW 8), who conducted the inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer (PW 9). At the close of the evidence for the pros#31;ecution, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the al#31;legations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the appellant com#31;mitted the murder of the deceased and ac#31;cordingly convicted and sentenced him as in#31;dicated above.

8. Mr Adhikary, learned Legal Aid Coun#31;sel, appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record, has submit#31;ted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such, the conviction and the sentence ac#31;corded against the appellant are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has been revealed from the evidence of PW 5, that the appel#31;lant was an insane person and as such, in view of Section 84 IPC, the conviction and sen#31;tence is not maintainable.

9. Resisting the said argument, advanced by learned defence counsel, Mr K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient evidence more particularly, the evidence of eye wit#31;nesses i.e. PWs 2 and 3 in support of the prosecution version and that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence, given by the said eye witnesses. It is submitted that consider#31;ing th