JUDGMENT :

P.J. Saikia, J

Heard Ms. P.D. Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC challenging the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 149/2014, convicting the appellant under Sections 302/326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 3 (three) months. For the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 (three) years and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00, i/d SI for 3 (three) months.

3. The prosecution case against the appellant depicts a horrific story. On 04.05.2014, past midnight, the appellant attacked his wife (the deceased) and his two minor daughters, namely, Smti. Anu Hassa (PW-3) and Smti. Tanu Hassa (PW-4) with a sharp weapon. The appellant had chopped off the head of his wife with a dao. He also caused cut injuries to PW-3 and to PW-4. Thereafter, the appellant picked up the head of his wife and straight way went to the Police Station at Tengakhat. The appellant confessed before Police that he had killed his wife.

4. Shri Yakub Hassa, a fellow villager, lodged the FIR at about 8.30 AM on 04.05.2014 itself. There he has written that at about 1.30 AM on that day, the appellant had decapitated his wife and also wounded his two daughters with a dao.

5. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination. The report of the Doctor goes like this:

“Injuries:-

1. Chop wound over neck at C4 and C5 level, horizontal, completely separating the head from the rest of the body;

2. Chop wound of size 8x4 cm x bone deep over left cheek cutting through the maxilla and upper portion of left ear;

3. Chop wound of size 8 x 2 cm x bone deep over fronto parietal scalp, mild line, in saggital plane, cutting through the outer table of frontal and both parietal bones;

4. Chop wound of size 6 x 2 cm x bone deep over right parietal scalp, 2cm right to injury No. 3;

5. Chop wound of size 7 x 3 cm at mid of left palm, cutting the underlying bones;

6. Chop wound of size 7 x 3 cm, muscle deep over anterior aspect of right shoulder;

7. Chop wound of size 2 x 1.5 cm, over right palm at base of thumb cutting the underlying bone;

8. Incised wound of size 6 x 2 cm over right breast.

9. Chop wound of size 12 x 3 cm x bone deep over lateral surface of right leg, 2 cm below knee;

10. Chop wound of size 3 x 1.5 cm x bone deep over lateral aspect of the right leg, 1 cm above lateral malleolous.”

6. During the period of investigation, the PW-3 and PW-4 were also examined by Doctors. PW-3 was examined by Dr. Dhrubajyoti Deka (PW-11). His report goes like this:

“Approximately 5 cm x 3 cm wound over left forearm deep to muscle/tendon along with extensor tendon injury left middle finger.

Weapon used- Sharp weapon.

Age of injury-Approximately 5 hours.

Nature of injury- Grievous.

After proper investigation two units of blood were transfused. Orthopedic consultation was taken. Planned for secondary repair of tendons.”

7. PW-4 was examined by Dr. Sushanta Barua (PW-12). His report goes like this:

“On examination there was lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm size over the anterolateral aspect of left leg distally around 5 cm above lateral malleolus. The tendons were cut with bone exposed. Tenderness over the left distal leg. Range of motion was restricted. Laceration of size 6 cm x 2 cm over the dorsum of right foot and soft tissues and tendons exposed.

Nature of injury- Grievous caused by sharp weapon.

Diagnosis was fracture of both bone left leg open, with extensor tendon injury.”

8. Finally, on conclusion of the investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

9. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 3