JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (APP for short) for the State.

2. The notice issued to the complainant/informant (respondent no. 2) by registered post with acknowledgement due, was received by one Maya Tamang on 18.06.2020. Hence, notice by usual process was issued by this Court. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang had submitted a report dated 17.11.2021, to the effect that the wife of the complainant, namely, Smt. Gopi Maya Lama had informed that the complainant/ informant had died on 10.09.2019. Accordingly, by virtue of order dated 02.12.2021, it was provided that in the meantime if the victim or any other private person on their own volition comes forward before the Court with a pleader for participating in the proceeding, grant of permission to such person would be considered as per law. However, the Court had observed that the case was otherwise ready for hearing.

3. The appellant, namely, Ram Chetry, who is currently lodged in District Jail, Tezu has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.10.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirap, Khonsa in connection with Khonsa Sessions Case No. 26/2019, arising from Jairampur P.S. Case No. 27/2014, by which the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default clause of undergoing a further simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months.

4. The prosecution case was set rolling by one Rup Bahadur Lama, with the lodging of an FIR dated 01.10.2014, before the Jairampur P.S., alleging that on 30.09.2014, at around 1930 hours, the appellant had a quarrel with Mundalal Murah (deceased), who was one of their labour, and that in the morning of 01.10.2014, at 0600 am., Mundalal Murah was found on the roadside of Kharsang Jairampur Road in seriously injured condition. On being asked by witnesses, the victim had informed that he was assaulted with a dao by the appellant. The injured labour was evacuated to CHC, Jairampur, but he succumbed to his injury on 01.10.2014 at about 0900 hours. Accordingly, the police had registered Jairampur P.S. Case No. 27/2014, and the Officer-In-Charge took up the investigation.

5. Inquest was conducted on 01.10.2014 and witnessed by three persons, who had put their respective signature on the inquest report. During inquest, a local daowas found beside the dead body, which was recovered by a boy, named Chingku. As the witnesses disclosed it to be the weapon of offence, used by the appellant, the same was seized vide MR No. 21/14 dated 01.10.2014 at 1210 hours. Accordingly, the I.O. had examined the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet no. 47/2014 dated 20.12.2014 was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

6. After compliance of the initial formalities, the trial had commenced in the Court of Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu. But, after creation of Court of Sessions Judge at Tirap District, Khonsa, the case was transferred to the said Court for trial. The learned Sessions Court had framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and on being read over, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to stand trial.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, viz., (1) Chingku Ghatwal (PW-1), (2) Rup Bahadur Lama (PW-2), (3) Binod Murah (PW-3), (4) Jaggu Tamang (PW-4), (5) Kenya Lungphi (PW-5), (6) Lal Bahadur Rai (PW-6), (7) Wangnyak Hakun (PW-7), (8) Kumar Rai @ Sina Rai (PW-8), (9) Jagmaya Lama (PW-9), (10) Auity Maya @ Kanchi (PW-10), (11) Shom Bahadur Tamang (PW-11), (12) Dr. Tangko Kodai (PW-12), and (13) Tomai Wangpan (PW-13) in support of the charge. The following were exhibited by the prosecution, viz., (i) FIR (Ext.1), (ii) Seizure Me