Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.08.2012, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 106(DH) 2008 convicting the appellant, namely, Sri Bagadhar Gogoi of offence U/s. 302/201 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default R.I. for another 1 (one) year for offence U/s. 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default, R.I. for another 6 (Six) months for offence U/s. 201 IPC while acquitting the other accused persons, namely, Sara Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi of offences aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant, namely, Sri Bagadhar Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge.

2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bharali, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused person. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

3. The facts, projected by the prosecution in the F.I.R. dated 19.01.2006 and in subsequent trial, in brief, are that on the basis of G.D. Entry dated 18.01.2006, Silapathar Police disinterred the body of one Dipali Gogoi from a place, close to the house of the accused person. In due course, an inquest on the dead body of such person was done by Learned Executive Magistrate and thereafter, the body of such a woman was sent to Dhemaji Civil Hospital for performing post mortem examination thereon.

4. In the meantime, on 19.01.2006, O/C, Silapathar Police Station received a formal F.I.R. from one Tikiri Chutia, mother of the deceased, wherein it was alleged that on 10.01.2006, the accused person killed Dipali Gogoi and buried her body in a pit in the field nearby his house.

5. On receipt of the said F.I.R., O/c. Silapathar Police Station registered a case vide Silapathar P.S. Case No. 15/2006 U/s. 302/201 IPC and ordered one Sri Prasenjit Das, S.I. of police (P.W. 9) to investigate the case. Being so entrusted with the investigation of the case, the IO Sri Das visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses, and arrested the accused person.

6. As the investigation progressed from stage to stage, the IO collected the post mortem examination report, did other needful and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet U/s. 302/201/34 IPC against Bagadhar Gogoi, Saru Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial for offences aforesaid.

7. Learned Magistrate, before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence U/s. 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji on receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to frame charges U/s. 302/201/34 IPC against accused persons and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to them, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the informant and Investigating Officer (IO). Statements of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Accused persons pleaded that they were innocent. However, on being required, accused Sri Bagadhar Gogoi examined one witness in support of his claim that he is innocent and no way involved in the crime in question.

9. On conclusion of the trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court while acquitting Saru Suntu Gogoi and Smti. Malati Gogoi of offences, they were charged with, was pleased to convict the appellant Sri Bagadhar Gogoi of offence U/s. 302/201 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the pr