JUDGMENT :

A.D.Choudhury, J

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Assam.

1. The present appeal is preferred from Jail through the Superintendent of District Jail Golaghat, by the accused appellant Sri Raju Murah, who was convicted on 01.03.2017 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default S. I. for 2 (two) months under Section 302 of IPC in connection with Sessions Case No. 206/2014 (GR Case No. 2021/2013) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat. Being an appeal from jail, this Court had appointed Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae in the matter to represent the case of the appellant.

2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Raju Karmakar before the Officer in Charge, Khumtai Police Out Post, inter alia, alleging that his son Mintu Karmakar went out of his house in the evening on 31.10.2013 and he did not return home on that night and in the morning he came to know that around 11:00 PM on the previous night, the accused/appellant Raju Murah killed his son Mintu Karmakar by assaulting him brutally and putting the dead body in a gunny bag and kept the dead body concealed under his bed. He further came to learn that one Sri Babu Karmakar and Sri Buslu Murah were present at the place of occurrence.

3. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, laid charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC against the present accused/appellant.

4. On the basis of such charge-sheet the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat framed charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant on 08.01.2015. Since, the appellant had pleaded not guilty, the matter went up for trial.

5. During the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses to bring home the charge framed against the appellant and exhibited 10 (ten) documents, including Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report and the confessional statement made by the accused/appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is noted that the prosecution has examined 10 (ten) witnesses, however, marking of the witnesses do not disclose deposition of any PW-2 and PW-3. This Court has also perused the record and judgment of the learned Court below and it is found that there is no deposition of any PW-2 and PW-3 and after marking of the PW-1, next marking of witness starts from PW-4 to PW-12.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, had passed the judgment and sentence, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The same is under challenge. The appellant was convicted primarily on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

7. The prosecution witness:-

Before any determination by this Court in this appeal, let this Court examine the prosecution witnesses:-

I. PW-1, Raju Karmakar who is the father of deceased Mintu Karmakar and the informant. He deposed that prior to the Kali Puja festival in the year 2013, one evening, his son Mintu Karmakar went out of their house along with accused Raju Murah. Both of them went towards the daily market at Khumtai Tea Estate. However, Mintu did not return that night. At about 04:00 AM on the following day, his nephew Babul Karmakar informed him that there had been a quarrel between accused/appellant and Mintu at accused/appellant’s home regarding a mobile phone and Babul was present there. He further deposed that when Babul came to inform the aforesaid matter to him, Babul’s shirt was stained with blood. Babul stated before him that in course of quarrel, when Raju assaulted Mintu with his hands, Mintu fell down over bricks and when Babul went to lift Mintu, his shirt got stained with blood.

Having learnt this, he went to Raju’s house and found Raju’s brother Bhendeala, and Bhendeala informed him that Raju had gone to a nearby house