C.R. Sarma, J.;— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia Sessions Case No. 81/054. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 3 months for his conviction u/s. 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the convict i.e. the present appellant has come up with this appeal. We have heard Mr. M.K. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.02.2004 a function was organized in the house of Sri Pradip Boraik, who is the father in law of the appellant and the deceased and his son in law i.e. the appellant were invited to attend the said function organized in connection with celebration of the birth day of grand daughter of the deceased. After departure of all other guest the appellant and the deceased stayed back in the father in law’s house. When the deceased and the other members of the family were sitting in the Veranda the appellant who was in his room called the deceased and accordingly the deceased attended the appellant. Thereafter hearing the cry raised by the deceased her mother i.e. PW-4 rush to the room and found that the deceased was lying with a cut injury on her neck. The said mother in law saw the appellant holding a dao in his hand. After committing the said crime the appellant fled away the house of his father in law. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital wherein she succumb to her injuries. The father of the deceased (PW-1) as informant lodged an FIR (Ext. 4) with the police. On receipt of the FIR police registered a case u/s. 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. Subsequently on 29.02.2004, the accused appellant surrendered before the police station with a dao. Accordingly the said dao was seized vide seizure list Ext. 2 and the accused was arrested. 4) with the police. On receipt of the FIR police registered a case u/s. 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. Subsequently on 29.02.2004, the accused appellant surrendered before the police station with a dao. Accordingly the said dao was seized vide seizure list Ext. 2 and the accused was arrested. The investigating officer, during investigation, visited the place of occurrence, requisitioned the service of the Executive Magistrate for conducting inquest in respect of the dead body, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, prepared sketch map and recorded the statement of the witnesses. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet u/s. 302 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge u/s. 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the medical officer (PW-8) who performed the post mortem examination, the investigating officer (PW-11) at the close of the examination of prosecution witnesses the accused person was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. He denied allegation brought against him and declined to adduce his evidence. In his statement given u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant aditted that on 18.02.2004 a feast was organized at the house of his father in law PW-1 and that he along with the deceased had attended the same. However, he denied to have killed his wife. Admitting the death of his wife and the fact that she had sustained cut injury on her neck, the appellant, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that as he was suffering from Tuberculosis he felt uncomfortable after seeing the blood stained body of his wife and as such he left the place. Regarding allegation that he had surrendered before the police with a dao on 29.02.04, the appellant in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the said date he went to the police station carrying a dao with him to lodge an FIR in connection with the murder of his wife. Regarding allegation that he had surrendered before the police with a dao on 29.02.04, the appellant in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the said date he went to the police station carrying a dao with him to lodge an FIR in connection with the murder of his wife. The learned Trial Judge considering the entire evidence on record relying on the evidence of PW-4 who was an eye witness to the occurrence and the circumstances that the appellant along with the deceased had attended the function organized in his father in law’s house, that the appellant was present in the place of occurrence till his wife was assaulted, that the PW-4 saw the accused holding a dao standing near the accused, that the appellant absconded after the incident, that he had surrendered before the police with a dao after 10 days, that the appellant did not take any steps to apprehend the culprit, came to the finding that none but the appellant caused the death of the deceased by inflected cut blow on her neck and thus committed the offence u/s. 302 IPC. Mr. M.K. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that none of the witnesses saw the appellant inflicting the cut injury on her neck and that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW-4 that she had seen the deceased holding the dao near the dead body of the deceased. In view of the above submission the learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the prosecution fail to prove the case against the appellant by adducing sufficient cogent and reliable evidence and as such the conviction and the sentence recorded against him cannot stand in the eye of law. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor taking this court through the evidence more particularly the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the father in law of the appellant and the statement of the accused person made u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has submitted that the PW-4 after hearing the alarm raised by the deceased rush to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying on the ground in injured condition and the appellant holding a dao near the deceased. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-4 that she saw the deceased holding a dao and leaving the place thereafter has been duly corroborated by the PW-1. The learned Addl. It is submitted that the evidence of PW-4 that she saw the deceased holding a dao and leaving the place thereafter has been duly corroborated by the PW-1. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also contended that the admission made by the appellant that he had seen his wife lying in injured condition in a pool of blood and the fact that he had surrendered before the police with a dao sufficiently fortified the prosecution version. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the explanation given by the appellant that feeling uncomfortable after seeing the injured body of his wife he had left the place, is not acceptable inasmuch as no husband, unless involved with the offence would leave his injured wife without taking any step to provide her medical treatment and apprehending the actual culprit. It is submitted that the fact that the appellant had appeared before the police station with a dao supports the evidence of PW-1 and 4 that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully perusing the evidence on record we find that on the fateful date of occurrence both the appellant and deceased attended the function organized in the house of his father in law and they had stayed back for the night halt. As revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, evidence rendered by the p4rosecution witnesses and the statement made by the appellant u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the deceased sustained injury on her neck in the night of occurrence in her parents house. The medical officer (PW-8) who performed autopsy of the dead body found the following injury :- (1) One incised wound measuring 10 cm x 3 cm on upper part of the lateral side of the neck which had incised the third cervical vertebrae and spinal cord. No other external wound was noticed. The said witness opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries aforesaid. According to the medical officer the injury was ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and that the injury was homicidal in nature. The said evidence given by the medical officer remained uncontroverted. The said witness opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries aforesaid. According to the medical officer the injury was ante mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and that the injury was homicidal in nature. The said evidence given by the medical officer remained uncontroverted. In view of the above it has been clearly established that the deceased died due to the incise injury sustained by her on her neck and the said injury was caused by a sharp cutting heavy weapon. In the light of the it has been established that the death of the deceased was an act of the culpable homicide. Now the question is as to whether the appellant had committed the said culpable homicide. Admittedly both the appellant and the deceased attended the function organized in the house of the PW-1 and they stayed back in his (PW-1) house for the night halt. From the evidence of PW-1 it is found that he after hearing a cry rush to the place of incident and found his daughter i.e. the deceased lying with cut wound on her neck, he saw the appellant leaving the place of occurrence after committing the offence. Cross-examination of this witness was declined by the defence. Therefore his evidence that he has seen the appellant leaving the place after committing the crime remained un-demolished. PW-4, who is the mother in law of the appellant, in tune of the evidence of her husband i.e. PW-1 stated that at about mid night the appellant had called his wife i.e. the deceased to his room and immediately after she had gone to her husband, this witness heard her cry. Accordingly following the said cry she rushed to the room and found the deceased lying on the ground with a cut injury on her neck and the appellant holding a dao in his hand. She stated that though she tried to over power the accused, the later pushed her back and fled the place. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the appellant. She stated that though she tried to over power the accused, the later pushed her back and fled the place. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the appellant. Carefully perusing the evidence of the said two witnesses i.e. PW- 1 and PW-4, who were the parents in law of the appellant, we find that both of them categorically stated that the accused was found near the injured body of the deceased and the appellant had left the place immediately after the incident. PW-4 clearly stated that she had seen the appellant holding a dao near the dead body and he left the place after pushing her back. The said evidence of the PW-1 and PW-4 remained unchallenged. We find no reason to believe that the said parents in law had any reason or grudge to falsely implicate their son in law leaving the real culprit. Therefore, we find sufficient force in their evidence to believe that the appellant had coused the injury sustained by the deceased. The explanation given by the appellant u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. that he feeling uncomfortable after seeing the injured body of his wife had left the place is quite absurd. It is not believable that the husband would leave his injured wife in such a precarious situation without taking any step to provide her medical help and also to apprehend the real culprit. This conduct on the part of the appellant goes against him. That apart it has also been aditted by the appellant that he had appeared before the police with a dao in his hand. Of course he stated that he went to police station to lodge an FIR. It is found that the appellant appeared in the police station on 29.02.2004 i.e. after about 11 days. It is not believable that a husband, who saw the injured body of his wife on the date of occurrence would lodge an FIR after 11 days that too by holding a dao in his hand. Therefore, the prosecution version that the appellant had appeared before the police with the incriminating weapon is acceptable. It is not believable that a husband, who saw the injured body of his wife on the date of occurrence would lodge an FIR after 11 days that too by holding a dao in his hand. Therefore, the prosecution version that the appellant had appeared before the police with the incriminating weapon is acceptable. The circumstantial evidence surfaced from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid, that both the appellant and deceased stayed back in the house of his father in law on the relevant night, that the appellant had seen the injured body of the deceased, that the appellant was present in the place of occurrence till the deceased sustained fatal injury, that the appellant was seen (by PW-4) holding a dao and standing near the deceased, that the appellant left the place of occurrence after pushing the PW-4, that the appellant absconded from the scene for over 11 days. That the appellant surrendered before the police with a dao after 11 days, that the appellant immediately after seeing his injured wife did not take any steps to provide medical help and apprehend the culprit, if any clearly lead to the conclusion that the appellant had caused the fatal injury to his wife. The above events of circumstantial evidence form a complete chain conclusively leading to the conclusion that non except the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. Under the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the evidence surfaced from the prosecution witnesses the plea of innocence taken by the appellant is inconsistence. From the evidence on record it has been established that the appellant had called his wife and immediately after she sustained the injury which lead to her death. As the deceased sustained the injury in presence of the appellant, under the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act it was the burden of the appellant to explain under what circumstances she had sustained the injury aforesaid but the appellant failed to discharge his said burden. This failure goes against the appellant and this failure on the part of the appellant support the prosecution version that it was none but the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. This failure goes against the appellant and this failure on the part of the appellant support the prosecution version that it was none but the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. In view of the above discussed evidence, considering the entire aspect of the matter we are of the unhesitating opinion that the prosecution could successfully prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that the said act was done by the appellant due to any provocation caused to him or in a heat of passion in connection with any quarrel. The nature of the injury sustained on the vital part of the body (neck) on which the injury was inflicted clearly indicate that the appellant had inflicted the said injury with an intention to cause death of the victim, in fact the deceased died due to the cut injury inflicted on her neck. The said act committed by the appellant does not fall under any of the exceptions provided by sections 300 IPC. Therefore, the culpable homicide committed by the appellant was a murder in the eye of law. In the light of the above, in our considered opinion the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC. Accordingly we find no merit in this appeal requiring any interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal fails. Before we part with this record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae and we direct that an amount of Rs. 3,500/- be paid to Mr. Bank, learned Amicus Curiae by the State Legal Services Authority as his remuneration. Return the LCR forthwith. _____________