JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, while Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 69/2016 arising out of Lala P.S. Case No. 145/2013, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-2, who is the son of the deceased submitted an FIR before the Bilaipur Police Out Post, Lala Police Station on 30.07.2013, stating that the appellant had waylaid his father in front of the appellant’s house and had started hacking his father with a sharp dao. Hearing his screams, a lot of people arrived at the place of occurrence. The complainant thereafter took his father to Silchar Medical College and Hospital where his father died, while under treatment. Consequent to the FIR, Lala P.S. Case No. 145/2013 was registered under Section 341/302 IPC. Charge-sheet was filed wherein a prima facie case was found against the appellant under Section 341/302 IPC. The learned Trial Court framed 2 (two) charges against the appellant under Section 341/302 IPC.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and the trial of the appellant started in the Sessions Court, Hailakandi. During the trial, 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses were examined. Examination of the accused was done under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the appellant denied all the evidence adduced against him. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 IPC, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2019. After giving the appellant five hours time for hearing on the sentence, the learned Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits at the outset that there are 3 (three) eye-witnesses to the crime, who have been examined by the Trial Court. The three eye-witnesses are PW-2, who is the son of the deceased, PW-3, who is the wife of the deceased and PW-7, who is an independent eye-witness. He submits that evidence of PW-9, who is a Doctor, who examined the dead body of the deceased is to the effect that the death of the deceased was caused due to hemorrhagic shock, following injuries which were recorded in the Post Mortem Report exhibited as Ext.3 and that the same had been caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon. He submits that in view of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, he has got nothing more to comment in this case.

6. Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, submits that the fact that the complainant’s father had been killed on being hit numerous times by a dao by the appellant and which has been corroborated by the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 IPC has been proved. She also submits that the evidence of the Doctor clearly shows that death had occurred due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, caused by a dao. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order should not be interfered with.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The evidence of PW-2, who is the son of the deceased, clearly shows that the appellant had given the deceased consecutive dao blows on his head, right shoulder and face. Hearing his cry, neighbouring people had gathered in the place of occurrence. PW-2 had personally seen the occurrence and PW-2 in his cross-examination has also stated that he tried to save his father, but could not do so. That a scuffle had taken place between the appellant and