JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned amicus curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. The present jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 36/2012, by which the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.09.2011, the appellant who is a person with impaired speech and hearing, assaulted his elder brother Chandu Roy with a chopper (dao) hitting him on the neck and thereby causing his death. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on 04.09.2011. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR lodged, a police case being Silchar Police Case No. 1471/2011 under Section 302 of IPC [Indian Penal Code, 1860] was registered. Investigation was then launched and on completion of the investigation, the charges were framed and on committal and on charges being denied by the appellant, trial commenced. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses in support of their case. One Court witness was examined relating to the issue as to whether the petitioner could understand the proceedings of the Court during the stage of examination of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]. The learned Trial Court after considering the material evidence on record held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and accordingly, convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life as mentioned above.

4. In view of the submission advanced that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, we will proceed to examine the evidences on record.

5. PW-1, Parimol Roy, is the sole projected eye-witness, who stated that the occurrence took place on 04.09.2011 on the said day at around 2 p.m. He stated that the deceased Chandu Roy called him to his house to cut his hair. On reaching there, he found Chandu Roy cutting bamboo and the accused was standing there. The accused was unable to speak. He then by gesture asked the PW-1 to cut the hair of Chandu Roy and that he will cut the bamboo. While he was in the process of cutting his hair and went to fetch his razor blade about 5/6 feet away, to complete the hair cut, he saw the accused giving a dao blow on the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, he raised the hue and cry. Then the accused person also tried to give him blow with the dao. Out of fear he ran away from the place of occurrence. He stated that upon hearing the hue and cry raised by the PW-1, people gathered there and after that he again came back at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the police came to the place of occurrence and recovered the blood stained dao from the bamboo bush and seized the same to which he put his signature as a seizure witness. He stated that after about 25 days of occurrence his statement was recorded before the Magistrate which was also proved before the Court.

In the cross-examination he stated that he had no idea if there was any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, but he found that there was a cordial relation between them and he did not hear about any quarrel between them. He also stated that the deceased and appellant resided separately and he also stated that he did not know whether there was any partition in respect of land was made in between the deceased and the appellant. He also stated that he was related to the appellant as well as to the deceased. He also stated that nobody had informed him that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder. He denied the suggestion that he along with one Chandu Roy had tried to evict the appellant from his residential house by ass