1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10/07/2012 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 15/09, by which the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) IPC. Upon such conviction he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for further one month.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 21/11/2008 at about 7-8 p.m. the accused appellant murdered the deceased at Tarapur Grant village by assaulting him with a bamboo stick in the course of scuffle that ensued between the two occasioned by the deceased’s act of stealing the paddy of the accused. Ext. 2 is the FIR that was lodged by PW-2. Police conducted inquest over the dead body and arrested the accused appellant and seized the articles i.e. the bamboo stick and one nylon bag vide Ext. 1 seizure list. Post-mortem was conducted at Silchar Medical College and Hospital. Ext. 3 is the post mortem report submitted by the Medical Officer (PW-5).

3. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC and in due course charge was framed against the accused appellant under the said section. On being read over and explained the charge, the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses and the accused appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court upon raising the following issues for determination, having answered the same in the affirmative vide the impugned judgment of conviction, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal.

“(1) Did the death of the accused occur as a result of beating inflicted upon him ? if so;

(2) Did the accused administer beating to the deceased, thereby causing his death ? if so;

(3) Whether it was with the intention of causing death or with intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death ? if not;

(4) Did the accused inflict beating to the deceased knowing that such act is likely to cause death, although without intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to cause death ? if not

(5) Did the accused cause the death of the victim by a rash or negligent act nor amounting to culpable homicide ?”

5. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel representing the accused appellant submits that the learned Trial Court committed manifest error of law and fact in convicting the accused appellant solely on the basis of the purported extra judicial confession. Referring to the evidence on record, he submits that there being inherent contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be interfered with. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002 (6) SCC 403 (Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam on the other hand submits that almost all the prosecution witnesses having stated about the incident narrated by none other than the accused himself, the judgment of conviction is not required to be interfered with.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire evidence on record.

7. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned judgement of conviction is based on the extra judicial confession. PW-1 in his deposition stated that having come to know about the incident he had gone to the house of the accused appellant where he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the compound. He could see the mark of injury also on the dead body. On being asked, the accused appellant told him that about 3’O clock at night, two persons were seen taking away paddy from his paddy field and on being chased, one of them could be caught, who was the deceased. The accused also told him that he had given a blow to the deceased with a bamboo