This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sivsagar in Sessions Case No. 8(S-S)/2006.

2. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprison#31;ment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Adhikari, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.04.2005 at about 4 P.M., at line No. 8 of Borchilla Tea Estate, Sri Sunu Lakra (hereinafter called the appellant) caused the death of Smti. Mangri Munda, wife of Sri Jagan Munda (P W-1) by inflicting dao blows on her, on the road. Accordingly the said husband of the deceased, lodged an FIR (ext.4) with the Officer in-charge, Haluwating Police Station. Police registered the same as FIR and launched investigation into the matter.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, apprehended the appellant and arrested him, seized a dao, prepared inquest report (ext.6), seized blood stained cloth from the body of the deceased vide ext. No. 7, and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination.

The seized dao and the clothes were sent through the DSP, Head Quarters for forensic examination. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet, under section 302 IPC.

The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty.

In order to prove their case prosecution examined, as many as, 8 witnesses including the medical officer, who performed the autopsy, the Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati (PW-5), who chemically examined the seized dao and the clothes, the medical officer (PW-6), who performed the autopsy, the Judicial Magistrate (PW-7), who recorded the statement of Sri Bijoy Orang, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer (PW-8).

PW-1 is the husband of the deceased who lodged the FIR. PW-2, 3 and 4 are the independent witnesses.

7. At the close of the evidence, for the prosecution, the accused person was exami#31;ned under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce evidence.

Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

8. Mr. R.K. Adhikari, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses saw the appellant, committing the alleged crime and that there is no direct, reliable and cogent evidence in support of the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and set at liberty.

9. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. referring to the seizure of the Dao, the blood stained clothes and the evidence of the scientific officer of FSL (PW-5), submitted that the seized dao and the clothes contained human blood and that the blood group in the said seized articles were found to be Group 'A' blood. It is also submitted, by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, that the said circumstantial evidence sufficiently indicate that none other than the appellant, from whose possession the dao was seized caused the death of the deceased.

10. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and considering the evidence, on record, we find that except the above circumstantial evidence, surfac