JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiaein CRL.A.(J) No.76/2017 and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. These two appeals, namely, CRL.A.(J) No.76/2017 and Crl.A.330/2017 have been preferred by the same person, one Smt. Heoti Mahan, one through the jail authorities which is represented by the Amicus-Curiae and another through the engaged counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia, who is not present today.

3. Since these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar on 30.05.2017 in Sessions Case No.164(S-C) of 2014 arising out of G.R. Case No.335/2014 and Mr. B. Prasad has been appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the convict appellant Smt. Heoti Mahan, we are of the view that we can proceed with these matters even if earlier engaged counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia and Mr. B. Buragohain are not present today.

4. In these appeals, the appellant, Smt. Heoti Mahan was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and also was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, in default of which to undergo further sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) month.

5. The aforesaid legal process resulting in the conviction was initiated after a F.I.R. was lodged on 23.05.2014 by one Dambaru Mohan Phukan, Gaonburha of the village stating that at about 7.30 a.m. on that day, Smt. Heoti Mahan, wife of Sri Bhola Mohan, a resident of Moudumuni village under Sepon Police Out Post hacked her brother-in-law (husband’s younger brother) Ghana Mahan to death with a dao in her house.

6. Accordingly, a police case was registered being Moranhat P.S. Case No.64/2014 under Section 302 of the IPC and consequently, a thorough investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer and upon completion of the investigation, the appellant was committed for trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sivasagar and on committal, charge was framed against the appellant that on 23.05.2014 at about 7:30 A.M. she had committed murder by causing the death of Ghana Mohan thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

7. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the same and accordingly, trial commenced.

8. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses. Defence did not adduce any evidence and the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

9. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidences on record, held that the charge against the appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted her under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as mentioned above.

10. Before we proceed to examine the contentions advanced in challenging this conviction of the appellant, we will first briefly refer to the evidences that have been brought on record.

11. The first witness (PW1) examined by the prosecution was Sri Dambaru Mohan Phukan, the Gaonburha and the informant who narrated about the incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. and also stated that on that day when he was returning home after tethering cattle and collecting crops, the accused having a dao in his hand arrived and told him that she had come after killing a person and when he asked as to who she had killed, she replied that she had hacked Ghana to death. On being asked the reason, she replied that Ghana quarreled with her. Thereafter, PW1 called Dina Nath Phukan who was working nearby and told him that the accused had come and reported about the said crime and thereafter, Dina Nath Phukan went to the house of Ghana Mohan, the deceased. PW1 also stated that the house of appellant is located near the house of the deceased. There, he called some persons and went to the house of accused-appellant along with them. There they found Ghana Maha