1. Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant from jail against an order dated 30.05.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 82/2009, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for an offence of murder and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. The fact in the instant case, in brief, is that on 29.09.2008, the father of the accused, Filip Barla, lodged an FIR with the Tengakhat Police Station, Dibrugarh, to the effect that on the same day, at about 3-30 P.M., the accused person killed his three month old daughter with a spade and, on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Tengakhat Police Station Case No. 98/2008, under Section 302 IPC, was registered. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on compliance of the provisions of Section 207 CrPC and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused person under Section 302 IPC and the charge was explained to the accused person to which he pleaded guilty. However, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial after framing formal charge.

4. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, whereas defence examined none. The plea of the defence was not of total denial, but it can be seen that it was to the extent of admission of the occurrence. However, the accused offered an explanation that he had no idea as to what had happened to him on the aforesaid day of occurrence as because he had a quarrel with his wife and he was very angry at the relevant point of time.

5. The learned trial Court, after completion of the trial, held the accused person guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for another three months. The accused person, who is behind the bar, preferred the present appeal through the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

6. Arguing the case on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Choudhury, learned Amicus curiae has submitted that the benefit of Section 84 IPC may be extended to the accused person in view of the conduct of the appellant who had killed his own minor daughter without having any reason for committing such heinous crime. Referring to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, i.e. the parents of the accused person, it has been urged by Mr. Choudhury that they had referred to the demeanour of the accused, who sometimes remained subdued but again used to become normal. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and the facts and circumstances, the defence has tried to impress upon the Court that the case comes under Exception of Section 84 of the IPC and the conviction of the accused person, under Section 302 IPC, is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned Amicus curiae further submits that though there appears to be two eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, PW3 and PW4, the evidence of PW4 is not specific as regards the involvement of the accused-appellant with the alleged offence inasmuch as, in her cross-examination, she had stated that she could not ascertain as to who hacked the girl in the said incident as there was a scuffle between the husband (accused-appellant) and his wife. It has also been urged that had the accused-appellant been a normal person, then he could not have committed such a heinous crime and the accused-appellant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, categorically stated that he was not aware as to what had happened to the child as he was very much angry at that point of time.

7. Ms. Jahan, learned Additi