Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. We have heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants and also Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State of Assam.

2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that one Shri. Sukla Bagti, resident of Durga Kona, Silchar, who is the brother of the accused appellant while sleeping in his house on 6.9.2012 at about 10.30 P.M. hearing a sound of shouting he went outside of his house and found the dead body of the wife of the accused Dilip Bagti (his own brother) lying in the nearby house of Sadhan Bagti and head of the deceased wife was taken away by the accused to the University Police Outpost. As he came to know that the accused has killed his wife, so he lodged an FIR before the I/C. Ghungoor O.P. informing the matter on the very next day. Accordingly, a case was registered as Silchar P.S. case No. 1779/12 under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses and also recovered the weapon of offence "dao" as led and shown by the accused from a nearby pond. After due completion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet under section 302 IPC against the accused person.

3. The learned Court below committed the case to the Court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 307 IPC and since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions. On being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, framed the charge under Section 302 IPC after hearing both sides and when explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses and the defence examined none. The plea of defence is of complete denial. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein also he denied all the allegations. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court held the guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, but no sentence has been awarded in default of payment of fine.

4. The accused who is facing the trial from behind the bar since the day of his arrest has preferred the present appeal on being dissatisfied of the judgment and order of conviction dated 3.3.2014 vide Sessions Case No. 114/13 under Section 302 IPC assailing the fact that the judgment has not been delivered as per proper prospective of law and facts, without having adequate evidence against the accused and liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It is the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered into in view of the fact that there is gross irregularities while appreciating the matters on record in proper perspective. It has been vehemently contended that as there was no eye witness to the occurrence and nobody has seen the accused while carrying the severed head in hand and the police station where the accused alleged to have taken the severed head failed to mention the name of the accused and the G.D. Entry is also silent about the identification of the accused, then how the accused can be attributed for the occurrence. On the next, it is also contended that no motive has been proved on the part of the accused to kill his wife and only on the basis of confession so recorded, the accused cannot be convicted while the accused retracted his confession while giving statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has been pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae that the accused in his reply under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that he has given the statement out of fear of police for which it cannot be stated to be given voluntarily.

6. Further contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is that seizure list cannot be accepted as evidence against the accused as it was not recovered immediately after the occurrence and also in