JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

This jail appeal is preferred by accused/appellant-Shri Sanku Roy from District Jail, Hailakandi challenging the judgment and order, dated 10.08.2018, passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions (T-1) Case No.14/2018, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Hailakandi Police Station Case No. 606/2017.

2. It is to be mentioned here that by the impugned judgment and order, the accused/appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer ‘imprisonment till the end of his natural life’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only), in default to suffer further imprisonment for another 2(two) months.

3. The factual background, under which Hailakandi Police Station Case No. 606/2017, u/s 302 IPC came to be registered, is adumbrated herein below:-

“The accused/appellant was staying in a rented house belonging to one Dhiraj Bhowmik, at Ward No.5 of Hailakandi Town, along with his wife-Mita Roy and son-Sahil Roy, aged about 8(eight) years. On the intervening night of 29.09.2017, while Durga Puja was being celebrated in that locality, the accused killed his wife and his son, by means of an iron rod. And, thereafter, keeping the rented house under lock and key, he surrendered at Hailakandi Police Station, and reported the incident to police.”

4. Thereafter, one Mannalal Sarkar, brother of deceased, Mita Roy lodged one ejahar with the O.C., Hailakandi Police on 29.09.2017, upon which the O.C. Hailakandi Police registered above noted case, u/s 302 IPC and endorsed S.I. Sahabuddin Barbhuiya to investigate the case. The investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet against the accused Sanku Roy, in the Court, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The ld. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, after hearing both sides, framed charge against the accused/appellant u/s 302 IPC, and on being read and explained over, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side then examined as many as 11 witnesses, to bring home the charge against the accused. After closing the prosecution evidence, the ld. Sessions Judge has examined the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C and, thereafter, hearing arguments of both sides, convicted him u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/appellant preferred this appeal from Jail.

7. We have heard Ms. Susmita Kanungoe, the ld. Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, and also heard Ms. Barnali Bhuyan, ld. Addl. P.P., Assam.

8. The ld. Amicus Curiae, taking us through the evidence on the record, submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Ms. Kanungoe in her usual fairness further submitted that the circumstances, so brought on record by the prosecution side through its witnesses; shows that the accused is responsible for death of his wife and son. It is further submitted that though some contradictions are here and there in the version of the prosecution witnesses, the same are not on material point. It is further submitted that the relationship between the accused appellant and his deceased wife appears to be not very cordial and, perhaps, out of anger, he had killed his wife, but, it could be ascertained as to why he had killed his little son, from the evidence on the record. Alternately, the ld. Amicus Curiae also submitted that as there was quarrel between the accused and his deceased wife, and as such, this case would come under the exception of section 300 Indian Penal Code and therefore, it is contended to modify the sentence, so handed down, by the ld. Sessions Judge, Hailakandi.

9. Per contra, the ld. Addl. P.P. has vehemently opposed the submission of the ld. Amicus Curiae and submitted that the injuries sustained by both the deceased were on the vital part of their body, and the same were caused by an iron rod whi