JUDGMENT :

R.V. More, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant-accused as well as Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP for the respondents.

2. The appellant (original accused No. 2), by impugned judgment and order dated 21-03-2018, passed in Session Case No. 107/2015 came to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of six months.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 03-06-2015 at about 11:30 P.M, one Riket Mawlong was murdered at Sohdadek village by his sister, Smti. Tiret Mawlong, that is, present appellant accused No. 2 and her husband, Shri. Kornik Kharthangmaw of Sohdadek village with lethal weapons. The victim was murdered during a fight after a hot altercation on inheritance of property issues at the residence of present appellant accused No. 2.

4. The FIR was registered at the instance to Pw-1, Shri. Aiji Mawlong on 04-06-2015 by PW-8 Sub-Inspector H. Thabah. The appellant accused No. 2 and the accused No. 1, that is, the deceased husband of accused No. 2, were arrested on 05-06-2015 and the investigation was started by Pw-9, Sub Inspector M.K. Marak. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 31-07-2015 against the appellant-accused No. 2 and her deceased husband accused No. 1 under Section 302/34 IPC.

5. Subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet, the original accused No. 1, Shri. Kornik Kharthangmaw expired due to accident. Therefore, charge was framed only against the appellant (original accused No. 2) on 06-05-2016 for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC to which the appellant (original accused No. 2) pleaded guilty. The learned Sessions Judge apparently has not accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant accused and thereafter, decided to proceed with the trial.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the Doctor who carried out the postmortem and the Investigation Officer. There were no eye witnesses to the incident in question and therefore, prosecution case depended only on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the present appellant accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the following circumstances:

(i) The dead body of the deceased was found in the compound of the house of the accused.

(ii) Recovery of the weapons, namely, one Khasi dao and one iron rod from the possession of the appellant accused.

(iii) Extra judicial confession of present accused appellant to PW-2.

7. The Sessions Court as stated above, after appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges under Section 302 against the present appellant accused stands proved and accordingly convicted the appellant accused and sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of six months.

8. Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned legal aid counsel on behalf of the appellant accused submitted that in the trial court, the appellant accused was not in a position to engage a lawyer and therefore was given State defence lawyer. He further submitted that the appellant accused is a rustic and uneducated lady and despite the fact that she was given State defense lawyer, the Sessions Court did not allow cross examination of Pw-5 and Pw-6. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Court failed to record the statement of the present appellant accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He submits that recording of the statement under 313 Cr.P.C. being mandatory, great prejudice is caused to the appellant accused, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Sessions Court.

9. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State is not in a position to dispute the