JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel (Addl. P.P., Assam) assisted by Mr. J. Das, Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in connection with Sessions Case No.150/2016 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of his father and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-, the instant appeal has been preferred from the Jail.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is to the effect that on 14.06.2016, at about 9:00 p.m., the accused/appellant Sri Badan Soren, who was out somewhere and returned home, he struck his father Maikel Soren on the head with a ‘lathi’ (stick) causing grievous injury on his head leading to his death. The accused had also hit his mother with the ‘lathi’ causing injury on her body.

4. On 16.06.2016 the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased viz. Smti. Sita Hembram lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Serfanguri Police Station reporting the incident. However, it appears that immediately after the occurrence, i.e. on 15.06.2016 itself, the appellant had surrendered at the Police Station. On the basis of such input received from the appellant, Serfanguri P.S. GD Entry No.268 dated 15.06.2016 was made. Thereafter, on receipt of the ejahar dated 16.06.2016, SFS P.S. Case No.41/2016 was registered against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation by the police. On completion of investigation, the Police had submitted charge-sheet against the accused/ appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the Police, the learned trial court had framed charge against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused. However, since the accused had pleaded innocence, the matter went up for trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as six witnesses including the informant Smti. Sita Hembram (PW-2), the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination viz., Dr. Nihar Ranjan Biswas (PW-1) and the two I.Os. who had conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet i.e. PWs-5 and 6 respectively. On completion of recording of evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. As a matter of fact, in reply to the question No.7, the accused had not only pleaded innocence but had also taken the plea of alibi by stating that at the time of the occurrence he was not present at home but had gone to Janagaon to watch a football match and stayed in the house of his friend Sakla Mardi after having dinner. The defence side, however, did not adduce any evidence. On completion of trial, the learned court below has held that the charge brought against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC stood established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. By referring to the materials on record, Mr. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that there is evidence to show that the victim had fallen down on the ground after being struck by the appellant. The medical report does not clearly establish as to which of the injuries sustained by the victim was on being struck by the appellant and which was caused due to falling on the floor. Since there is possibility of the deceased sustaining injury due to falling down on the floor, hence, it is doubtful as to whether the victim had died due to injuries caused by the appellant. It is also the submission of Mr. Ahmed that there is evidence to show that the occurrence was preceded