MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

We have heard learned Amicus Curiae, Dr. B. N. Gogoi and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. H. Sarma, who have also taken us through the evidence and materials brought on record.

2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-11-2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No.35/2012. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-with default stipulation.

3. The sad story of this case is that an old man of around 80 years lost his life in the hand of his son. As per prosecution case, on 12-12-2002, there was some altercation between the appellant and the deceased, who happened to be his foster father. The wife of the deceased tried to intervene, but could not succeed and on the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found with injury, in the well.

4. PW 1, who happened to be the VDP Secretary, having come to know about the occurrence lodged the FIR(Ext. 1), on the basis of which, police registered Thelamara P.S. Case No. 46/2002 under Sections 302/326 IPC and commenced investigation. During investigation, the dead body was recovered from the well, in the campus of the accused/victim, inquest report was prepared by the investigating officer and post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Kulendra Nath Deka (PW 2).

5. Dr. Kulendra Nath Deka, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the victim, found the following injuries:

“Injuries

1. Incised wound over right temporal part of skull 2” x 1” x 1” in size. Bone deep.

2. Incised wound over the right parietal lobe. 4”x 2” x 1” in size. Bone deep.

3. Lacerated wound over the left elbow measuring 2” x 1” x 1”. Blood clot seen.

4. Abrasion present on face left side and arms left side.

There is fracture of right parietal and temporal bone. Right temporal and right parietal lobes are ruptured.”

In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to head injury sustained by the victim. It was also opined by the doctor that the injury found on the body of the victim could not be self inflicted or by accident, making a clear indication that the death was homicidal.

6. On conclusion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the present appellant u/s 302 IPC and eventually he stood trial.

7. In course of trial, charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty. Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charge. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

8. PW 1, who lodged the FIR, was not an eye witness. According to PW 1, he came to know from Jonaki Keot (PW 3), that there was quarrel and fight between the victim and the accused and the accused assaulted the victim. PW 3, wife of the victim and foster mother of the appellant, deposed, that there was altercation between the accused and her husband, but she was not aware about the reason for such altercation. She further deposed that as a result of such assault, her husband died. From the cross-examination of this witness it appears, that she did not have the opportunity to see the actual assault, inasmuch as, before the assault took place, she left the house. PW 4 & PW 5 came later and they also did not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. PW 4 was, however, declared hostile. PW 6 also came later and stated to have noticed injuries on the body of the victim. According to him, he was witness to the inquest report. According to PW 7, who happens to be the witness to the seizure list, police seized a stick and a hurricane lamp vide Ext. -3, on being shown by the accused. But during cross-examination, he stated, that he was not sure whether the stick, which was shown to him during trial, was the stick seized vide Ext. 3. PW 8 was a hearsay witness. PW 9 testified, that on the