JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 28.9.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Ad-hoc), Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 113(T)/2004, has been challenged by the convicted person, as appellant, by filing this appeal from the Central Jail, Dibrugarh. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant, namely, Shri Anil Orang @ Babu under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentenced him to surfer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 3 (three) months. We have heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 31.03.2004, the appellant had killed his father, Shri Lajho Urang (hereinafter called as the deceased) assaulting him with rod. The deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries. The Medical Superintendent of Doom Dooma India Division, Hindustan Lever Limited, Doom Dooma, Assam (PW-1), in whose hospital, the deceased was admitted, lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) with the Officer-in-Charge, Doom Dooma Police Station. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case, on 3.4.2004, being Doom Dooma PS. Case No. 78/2004 under Section 302 IPC. 3. At the close of investigation, police submitted the charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and forwarded him to the Court to stand trial. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed and accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined, as many as, 14 (fourteen) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW 14), who performed the post mortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer (PW-12) who investigated the case. After examination of all the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. The appellant took the plea of innocence. 5. Ms. After examination of all the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. The appellant took the plea of innocence. 5. Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no substantive evidence against the appellant and that the learned trial Judge committed error by recording the impugned conviction and sentence. It is also submitted that there is nothing, on record, to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased and that the conviction and sentence is not maintainable. 6. Controverting the said argument, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased (i.e. father of the appellant) lived together and that the deceased died, due to injuries sustained by him, at the hands of the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant, as indicated above. 7. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the leaned counsel, appearing for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence on record. 8. Dr. Jayanta Prassad Sarmah, who lodged FIR with the police, deposing as PW 1, has exhibited the same as Ext. No. 1. From the evidence of PW- 1 it is found that he did not see the occurrence. According to this witness, the deceased was brought to the hospital, in injured, condition, for treatment and he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 9. The step son of the deceased (Shri Monoj Lajhoo), who deposed as PW 2 stated that the appellant had told him that he, had killed his father. According to this witness, he along with his elder sister, took the deceased to the hospital. This witness also deposed that the deceased had sustained injuries in his abdomen, head and that his leg got broken. He further stated that the appellant told him that he had assaulted his father i.e. the deceased with a rod. According to this witness, he along with his elder sister, took the deceased to the hospital. This witness also deposed that the deceased had sustained injuries in his abdomen, head and that his leg got broken. He further stated that the appellant told him that he had assaulted his father i.e. the deceased with a rod. Though this witness was duly cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence regarding extra-judicial confession claimed to be made by the appellant. There is nothing, on record, to show that this witness, who was the stepbrother of the appellant, had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant leaving the real culprit to escape. 10. Smti. Surbali Orang, daughter of the deceased, deposing as PW 3, stated that the accused was her brother and that both the deceased and the appellant lived together. According to this witness, on being informed about the incident, she rushed to the house of her father and found him, lying in the courtyard with injuries on his head. She stated, that both her father and the accused-appellant were found in the injured condition, that the appellant was also shifted to the hospital for treatment and that her father died in the hospital. 11. Smti Santi Goala, deposing as P W 4, stated that PW 3 had informed her that her father was assaulted by the accused and that both the accused and the deceased were taken to the hospital wherein the deceased died. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that she had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. She heard the same from others. Hence, the evidence of this witness, being hearsay evidence, cannot be accepted as substantive evidence against the appellant. 12. Shri Joy Singh Bhandari, deposing as PW 5, stated that he was informed by his mother that the appellant and his father had quarreled. On being so informed, he rushed to the house of the appellant wherein he found the deceased in injured condition. According to this witness, the deceased asking for help had requested to take him to the hospital. He further stated that the appellant also told him that he had assaulted his father. According to this witness, he took the deceased to the hospital, wherein he died after two days. According to this witness, the deceased asking for help had requested to take him to the hospital. He further stated that the appellant also told him that he had assaulted his father. According to this witness, he took the deceased to the hospital, wherein he died after two days. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that the appellant had made extrajudicial confession before this witness. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction regarding the said extrajudicial confession could be elicited. Even no suggestion was put to PW -5 denying his evidence negating confessional statement. Therefore, his evidence regarding extra-judicial confession remained un-demolished. 13. Shri Pradip Goala (PW-6) did not state anything about the incriminating against the appellant. 14. Shri Jiten Orang, who deposed as PW-7, stated that he found the deceased, lying in injured condition in his courtyard. He stated that he came to know from the people, who had assembled there that the appellant had assaulted his father. According to this witness, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 15. Smti Santi Orang, who deposed as PW-8, was the sister of the appellant. She stated that she saw the appellant going out from his house after assaulting his father i.e. the deceased. In her cross-examination also, this witness clearly stated that she had seen the appellant going out of his house, after causing death of his father. However, she contradicted her said evidence by saying again that she did see the occurrence with her own eyes. In view of the said self contradictory statement, given by PW- 8, her evidence that she had seen the accused assaulting his father is not believable. 16. Shri Bhagyadhar Tanti (PW-9) was a witness to the inquest report (Ext. 3), prepared by the Magistrate (P W 13). He exhibited the inquest report as Ext. 3 and his signature thereon, as Ext. 3(1). He stated that the deceased had sustained injuries on his right eye, left hand and left leg and that the deceased's son i.e. the appellant had killed the deceased. This witness did not state that he had seen the accused assaulting his father. So, his evidence regarding involvement of the appellant is based on hearsay. 17. Shri Lowa @ Dowa Orang (PW 10) stated that he heard that the appellant had killed the deceased by assaulting him. This witness did not state that he had seen the accused assaulting his father. So, his evidence regarding involvement of the appellant is based on hearsay. 17. Shri Lowa @ Dowa Orang (PW 10) stated that he heard that the appellant had killed the deceased by assaulting him. This witness does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. He heard the same from others. 18. PW 11, Shri Benediet Minz was also a witness to the inquest report and he exhibited his signature on the inquest report as Ext. 3(2). 19. PW -12 (Shri Kamal Konwar) was the Investigating Officer. He stated that he visited the place of occurrence and arrested the accused-appellant. He also stated that the appellant had produced an iron pipe measuring about 4 feet in length and that he had seized the same vide Ext. 2. The I.O. exhibited the said iron pipe as material Ext. No. 1. He further stated that he submitted charge sheet (Ext. No. 5). 20. Shri Mohenlal Sureka. Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Doom Dooma deposing, as PW 13, stated that he conducted the inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased and he prepared the inquest report, has exhibited as Ext. 3 and his signature therein as Ext. 3(1). 21. Dr. Hemanta Kr. Mahanta, Professor and Head of Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh deposed as PW-14. He performed the postmortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries, on the dead body of the deceased. (i) lacerated wound size – 1.2 c.m. x 0.5 cm x bone deep on left forehead. (ii) Contusion of the lower half of the left thigh. There is tranversed fracture of the left femer of the lower 1/3rd with extensive haemorrhage in the thigh muscles. (iii) Cranium and spinal canal. Sculp - Lacerated wound (stitch) 7 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on right frontal and temporal area 10 cm above the eye brow and 2 cm. from midline. Skull - Depressed fracture 4 cm & 1.5 cm of right frontal bone under neath the scalp fracture. Membrane - Sub dural haemorrhage present on the right side. Brain - Contusion of the right frontal area size 6 cm x 3 cm. Thorax and Abdomen - All organs are healthy. from midline. Skull - Depressed fracture 4 cm & 1.5 cm of right frontal bone under neath the scalp fracture. Membrane - Sub dural haemorrhage present on the right side. Brain - Contusion of the right frontal area size 6 cm x 3 cm. Thorax and Abdomen - All organs are healthy. The said medical officer opined that the deceased died due to coma, resulting from the head injuries and that all the injuries were ante mortem caused by blunt force and homicidal in nature. From the above discussion, it is found that the deceased died due to injuries inflicted on his head. 22. Now, the question is who had caused the injuries aforesaid. From the evidence on record, more particularly, from the evidence of PW 3, it has been found that the accused and the deceased were living together in the same house. There is nothing, on record, to show that any other person had access to their house at the time of occurrence. Therefore, as the deceased and the appellant were living in the said house, to the exclusion of others, under the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was within the knowledge of the appellant as to how the deceased had sustained the said injuries. In view of the above, the burden shifts to the appellant to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased and also his innocence. But the appellant failed to discharge this burden. 23. Both PW-2 and PW-5 stated that the appellant had disclosed to them that he had assaulted his father. From the evidence of P W 2 it is found that the appellant had told him that he had assaulted his father with a rod. The Investigating Officer seized an iron pipe on being produced by the accused person. The medical evidence aforesaid, reveals that the fatal injury was inflicted with a blunt weapon. The seized iron pipe is also a blunt weapon. The seizure of iron pipe, coupled with the evidence of PW 2 and PW-5 forcefully indicates that the appellant had caused the injuries, leading to the death of the deceased with the seized iron pipe, as seized by the I.O. It has already been noticed that P W 2 and PW -5 have no reason or grudge to falsely implicate the appellant. Their said evidence rendered by PW Nos. Their said evidence rendered by PW Nos. 2 and 5 remained un-demolished. Therefore, we find no reason not to accept the evidence of PW 2 and PW- 5 regarding extra-judicial confession. In view of the above, we have no difficulty in relying on the evidence of P W Nos. 2 and 5 and accept the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant. 24. The above circumstantial evidence, that both the appellant and the deceased were living in the same house, to the exclusion of others, that no body had entered the place of occurrence, that the I.O. had seized the iron pipe, on being produced by the accused after his arrest, that the deceased sustained injuries on the various parts of his body including his head, that the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon, that the seized iron pipe is also a blunt weapon, lead sufficient corroboration, in favour of the evidence of PW Nos. 2 and 5, regarding the extrajudicial confession. The above events of circumstantial evidence form a complete chain, irresistibly leading to the conclusion that none, except the appellant, had caused death of the deceased, 25. In view of the above discussion, we find that the prosecution could prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting the injuries, on his head and other parts of the body. It has been found that two fatal blows were given on the head, apart from inflicting injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased. There is no difficulty in understanding that blows given on head to the extent of bone deep injury on the forehead and scalp resulting contusion of the brain part are likely to cause dead. Considering the number, nature and gravity of the injuries, more particularly, the two blows, given on the head, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant caused the injuries with an intention to kill the deceased or with the knowledge that injuries, caused by him, more particularly, on the head, were likely to cause the death of the injured. 26. There is nothing, on record, to show that the injuries were caused due to provocation, or in a heat of passion out of quarrel or in exercise of right of private defence. 26. There is nothing, on record, to show that the injuries were caused due to provocation, or in a heat of passion out of quarrel or in exercise of right of private defence. The circumstances, in which the injuries were caused, do not fall under any of the exceptions, prescribed by Section 300 IPC. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant committed murder of the deceased i.e. the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Additional Sessions committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. The appeal fails. 27. Return the Lower Court records. We acknowledge, with appreciation, the assistance rendered by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel, as amicus curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae, as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authorities. Appeal dismissed.