C.R. Sarma, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sivsagar in Sessions Case No. 8(S-S)/2006. 2. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Adhikari, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.04.2005 at about 4 P.M., at line No. 8 of Borchilla Tea Estate, Sri Sunu Lakra (hereinafter called the appellant) caused the death of Smti. Mangri Munda, wife of Sri Jagan Munda (P W-1) by inflicting dao blows on her, on the road. Accordingly the said husband of the deceased, lodged an FIR (ext.4) with the Officer in-charge, Haluwating Police Station. Police registered the same as FIR and launched investigation into the matter. 6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, apprehended the appellant and arrested him, seized a dao, prepared inquest report (ext.6), seized blood stained cloth from the body of the deceased vide ext. No. 7, and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination. The seized dao and the clothes were sent through the DSP, Head Quarters for forensic examination. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet, under section 302 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove their case prosecution examined, as many as, 8 witnesses including the medical officer, who performed the autopsy, the Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati (PW-5), who chemically examined the seized dao and the clothes, the medical officer (PW-6), who performed the autopsy, the Judicial Magistrate (PW-7), who recorded the statement of Sri Bijoy Orang, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer (PW-8). PW-1 is the husband of the deceased who lodged the FIR. PW-1 is the husband of the deceased who lodged the FIR. PW-2, 3 and 4 are the independent witnesses. 7. At the close of the evidence, for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce evidence. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 8. Mr. R.K. Adhikari, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses saw the appellant, committing the alleged crime and that there is no direct, reliable and cogent evidence in support of the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and set at liberty. 9. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. referring to the seizure of the Dao, the blood stained clothes and the evidence of the scientific officer of FSL (PW-5), submitted that the seized dao and the clothes contained human blood and that the blood group in the said seized articles were found to be Group 'A' blood. It is also submitted, by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, that the said circumstantial evidence sufficiently indicate that none other than the appellant, from whose possession the dao was seized caused the death of the deceased. 10. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and considering the evidence, on record, we find that except the above circumstantial evidence, surfaced from the seizure of the dao and the clothe, and the evidence given by the chemical examiner i.e. PW-5, there is no other direct evidence against the appellant. None of the prosecution witnesses saw the appellant committing the alleged crime. 11. The investigating officer, deposing as PW-8, stated that the seized dao and the piece of cloth were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, through the DSP, Head Quarter, for examination. The Investigating Officer further stated that he had seized the dao from the possession of the appellant vide ext. No. 5 and the blood stained cloth, used by the deceased, vide ext. No. 7. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is found that, after making the said seizure, he had sent the said seized articles for forensic examination. No. 5 and the blood stained cloth, used by the deceased, vide ext. No. 7. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is found that, after making the said seizure, he had sent the said seized articles for forensic examination. The Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory stated that he had received 2 sealed paper box from the DSP HQ Sivsagar and after opening the said boxes he found one dao which he marked as Sero 96/05 and one piece of cloth suspected to be containing blood stain. He marked the said piece of cloth as Sero 97/05. He opined that the chemical examination, made in respect of the said articles, gave positive test of human blood group 'A' and that he sent the report through the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. He has exhibited his report as ext. No. 1. The DSP, HQ, through whom the seized articles were sent to the chemical examination has not been examined in this case. Therefore, there is no substantive evidence to believe that the items examined by the chemical examiner were the seized items. The evidence of the chemical examiner and his report (ext. No. 1) indicates that he received one piece cotton cloth, suspected to be containing stain of blood. His said evidence as well as the ext. No. 1 do not indicate that he had examined the dao and the cloth seized from the appellant as well as the deceased. According to the investigating officer the cloth seized from the appellant and the deceased were sent for examination. Therefore, it is not clear whether the chemical examiner had examined the said dao seized from the appellant and the cloth seized from the deceased. Therefore, finding of Group 'A' blood in the seized weapon as well as the cloth examined by the examiner do not conclusively lead to the findings that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased with the seized dao. There is no evidence to show that the blood group of the deceased was 'A. Therefore, finding of group 'A' blood in the seized dao as well as in the cloth examined by the chemical examiner do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased with the said dao. There is no evidence to show that the blood group of the deceased was 'A. Therefore, finding of group 'A' blood in the seized dao as well as in the cloth examined by the chemical examiner do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased with the said dao. In view of the above, we do not find it safe to conclude that the appellant had committed the alleged crime. 12. Considering entire aspect of the matter, we are, inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, beyond all reasonable doubt. In our considered opinion in view of the attending facts and circumstances and the evidence, on record, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, we find sufficient merit in this appeal, requiring interference. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Before we part with this record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. R. K. Adhikari, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to Mr. R. K. Adhikari, learned Amicus Curiae, by the State Legal Services Authority as her remuneration. Return the L.C.R. _____________