JUDGMENT :

[R. Phukan, J.]

1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This appeal is preferred from jail by Shri Lahap Taiju, who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa, in Khonsa Sessions Case No.21/2019, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, with default stipulation.

3. It is to be noted here that the appellant has preferred this appeal from jail, and as no Advocate was engaged by him, Mr. T. Son, learned Advocate, Gauhati High Court Bar Association, Itanagar Permanent Bench, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

4. The factual background leading to filing of this appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“The appellant -Shri Lahap Taiju is an inhabitant of Old Changlang village, under Changlang Police Station. On 10.09.2005, one Shri Haptu Taiju, younger brother of Shri Lahap Taiju, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Changlang Police Station to the effect that on 09.09.2005, at about 6 to 7 PM his elder brother-Shri Lahap Taiju had killed his daughter, namely Inchu Taiju, aged about 6(six) years, at his own residence situated at Old Changlang Village, with his dao without any reason. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge Changlang Police Station has registered a case, being Changlang P.S Case No. 28/2005, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and endorsed S.I.-Mr. W. S. Tutsa to investigate the same. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for Post Mortem Examination and collected the report. He also arrested the accused person and forwarded him to the Court and seized the weapon of offence preparing seizure list. Upon completion of investigation he laid charge-sheet against Shri Lahap Taiju to stand trial in the court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is produced before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, and after hearing the learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below has framed charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and on being read and explained over the same to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has examined as many as eight witnesses, including the Medical Officer (M.O.) and the I.O. and after closing the prosecution witnesses, examined the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And thereafter, hearing arguments of the learned Advocates on both sides, the learned Court below has convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being highly aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal from jail”.

5. Mr. T. Son, learned Amicus Curiae submits that, though, there are some defects in investigation and also in trial, yet, according to him the prosecution side has succeeded in bringing home the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr. Son, has pointed out that though, the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is recorded by the Magistrate, but, the Magistrate, who had recorded the same is not examined. It is further pointed out that though the I.O. had seized the weapon of offence, i.e. the dao stained with blood, yet he did not send the same for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory. Mr. Son further submits that the offence is undoubtedly serious in nature, but, there is no direct evidence and as such the question of enhancement of the punishment does not arise. Mr. son also submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot since the commission of the offence, for more than sixteen years and under the aforesai