JUDGMENT P.K.Saikia,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur (North Lakhimpur) in Session Case No. 57(NL)/2011 convicting the accused, namely, Sri Suresh Baghowar (herein after referred to as the (‘accused person’) of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. R.I for another 6 months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. L. R. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., for the State. 4. The case, projected by the prosecution during investigation and trial, in short, is that one Smti. Mukdali Baghowar, informant in aforesaid case, lodged an FIR with O/C, Boginodi P.S. alleging, amongst other things, that on 28.02.2011 at about 12 pm, while her husband Antony Baghowar was about to take his meal in his house, her son, the accused person herein, planted repeated blows on his person with a meat-dao inflicting grievous injuries which brought about his instantaneous death. 5. On receipt of the FIR so lodged by the informant, Smti. Mukdali Baghowar, O/C, Boginodi PS registered a case vide Boginodi PS Case No. 32/2011, u/s 302 IPC and ordered one Probin Kalita, SI of police to investigate the case. Being so entrusted, Sri Kalita, embarked upon the investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the PO, conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination. 6. As the investigation progressed from stage to stage, the IO had arrested the accused person and did other things needful including the collection of the post mortem examination report and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand his trial. 7. 6. As the investigation progressed from stage to stage, the IO had arrested the accused person and did other things needful including the collection of the post mortem examination report and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand his trial. 7. The learned Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.The Learned Sessions Judge, on receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to frame charge u/s 302 IPC and charge so framed on being read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded guilty to the charge brought against him. 8. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not accept such a plea of guilt and put the accused person on trial. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses including the informant, the IO, the MO who conducted autopsy on the dead body. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. In his statement, recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused again pleaded guilty of the charge brought against him. 9. But he also pleaded that he did so because he got infuriated as he was not provided with sufficient food by his father and out of anger, he had killed his father on the all eventful evening. He, however, on being required, declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 10. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur (North Lakhimpur) was pleased to convict the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 11. Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that there was no eye witness to the incident in question. The only witness who came to the PO just after the incident was PW 1, Smti. Mukdali Baghowar, mother of the accused. It is in her evidence that on the fateful day, the accused chased her with a dao in his hand. Such evidence according to learned Amicus Curiae is not enough to convict the accused of an offence as serious as murder. 12. Mukdali Baghowar, mother of the accused. It is in her evidence that on the fateful day, the accused chased her with a dao in his hand. Such evidence according to learned Amicus Curiae is not enough to convict the accused of an offence as serious as murder. 12. According to him, though PW 5, Sri Philip Horo, PW 7, Sri Raju karmakar, PW8, Sri Jakarias Sora speak about seizure of a dao from the accused on the evening in question, yet, their evidence, more particularly the evidence of PW 5 cannot be relied on since in his cross examination, he is found saying that he did not witness the IO’s seizing the dao from the accused person. 13. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the testimonies of other PWs on the point of seizure of the dao from the accused person cannot be trusted since in spite of such a dao being seized from the accused person soon after the incident, there is nothing on record, particularly in the Exbt 2, to show that such a dao was stained with blood. This only shows the falsity of the evidence all those witnesses qua seizure of a dao, stained with blood, from the accused person soon after the incident aforementioned. 14. Other witnesses, namely PW 3, Sri Eliazar Tiru and PW 4, Sri Thomas Iniwar came to the PO and found the deceased lying dead in his house and therefore such evidence could lend no help to the prosecution case. According to learned Amicus Curiae, when one read all those testimonies together, he would find that the evidence on record projects a strong suspicion that the accused might be the person responsible for killing his father on the evening in question. 15. But it is a settled law that there is a gap between proof and suspicion and unless such a gap is bridged properly, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt as required under the law. Being so, learned Amicus Curiae urges this court to set aside the judgment under challenge and to acquit the accused person of the offence he was charged with and convicted of. 16. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Being so, learned Amicus Curiae urges this court to set aside the judgment under challenge and to acquit the accused person of the offence he was charged with and convicted of. 16. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. PP, submits that there are undeniable and positive evidence on record to show that when she (PW 1 ) had arrived at the PO little after the incident under consideration ,she was chased by her own son with a dao in his hand. There is also evidence in the form of testimonies of PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9 to show that the accused was found sitting at a place, not far away from his house, just after incident in question with a dao in his hand which police seized on the strength of Exbt. 2. 17. Further, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 who arrived at the PO after the incident also found the father of the accused lying dead with too many cut injuries on his body. They also heard that the accused had killed his father. Such evidence, according to learned Addl. PP, is relevant in view of law laid down in Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, when those testimonies are read in their entirety, it would appear clear that the accused had killed his father on the eventful afternoon. 18. She further claims that the accused had admitted to have killed his father at different stage of the trial. Such admissions lend more and more support to the claim of the prosecution that the accused is the author of the crime in question. That being the position, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to suitable punishment. Learned Addl. PP, therefore urges this court to dismiss the present appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 19. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the judgment under challenge as well as the evidence on record. However, before proceeding further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of Antony Baghowar. He is Dr. Phul Konwar Deori. 20. According to him, on 28.02.2011, he was posted at North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. However, before proceeding further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of Antony Baghowar. He is Dr. Phul Konwar Deori. 20. According to him, on 28.02.2011, he was posted at North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. On that day, he conducted autopsy on the body of one Antony Baghowar and found the following: --- “External Rigor mortis present and physical condition is stout. Iahve also found the following wounds on the dead body of the deceased: 1. Cut-wound, on the left parietal region, size- if injuries are – 10 cm long gaping 2 cm and depth- 1 cm. 2. Left neck at carotid triangle. Carotid vessels cut off. (depth 2” inches (3cm x 2cm) angle of mandible cut off (left). 3. Cut injuries on chin—semicircular size is 4 c,x 2 cm. 4. Multiple penetrating injuries on back of various size (depth 1 to 2 inches). 5. Thorax and abdomen are healthy and other organs are congested. In his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased is due to shock as a result of multiple cut injuries, which are ante-mortem. The injuries noted above are sufficient to cause the death of a human being in ordinary course of nature.” 21. The evidence of Doctor clearly reveals that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the injuries, found inflicted upon the deceased were caused by sharp object. 22. So situated let us consider the evidence of PW 1. A perusal of her evidence reveals that she arrived at the PO little after the incident under consideration and saw that her husband lying dead with too many cut injuries on his body. Moments later, her own son chased her with a dao in his hand. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR with police. 23. PW 7 and PW 8 are found saying that they too arrived at the PO soon after the incident and found the victim lying dead in his own house. Little thereafter, police came there and found the accused sitting at a place not far from his house with a dao in his hand which police seized in presence of witnesses on the strength of seizure list, Ext 2. 24. Little thereafter, police came there and found the accused sitting at a place not far from his house with a dao in his hand which police seized in presence of witnesses on the strength of seizure list, Ext 2. 24. Evidence, tendered by PW 7 and PW 8 finds unqualified support from the evidence rendered by PW 9, Sri Prabin Kaila, SI of police since he was also found saying that on getting information in regard to the aforesaid incident, he rushed to the PO and found the father of the accused lying dead in his house face down. It is also in his evidence that he located the accused at a place not far from his house sitting there with a dao in his hand. 25. According to him he seized the dao in presence of witnesses in the strength of seizure list Exbt. 2. On considering the evidence of PW1 alongside the evidence other PWs, more particularly, PW 7 and PW 8 as well as the evidence of PW 9, the IO, we have found that on the eventful afternoon, the accused had killed his father at his own house on planting several blows on his person with a meat-dao. 26. The seizure of the dao from the accused person soon after the incident in question makes such a conclusion inevitable. The evidence of Doctor too supports such a conclusion since the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, found very many cut wounds, which, according to PW 10 (Doctor), occasioned the death of the victim. 27. We have also found that in his statement, recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has admitted to have killed his father. More importantly, he also admitted his guilt while the learned trial court read out the charge leveled against the accused person. Such revelations, in our opinion, fortify more and more that the accused, and none else, had killed his father on the evening of 27.02.2012 subjecting him to multiple cut wounds. 28. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the accused had killed his father under huge provocation since on the evening in question, his father made no arrangement of food for him and such conduct on the part of his father angered the accused so much so that he was provoked to inflict repeated dao blows on his father causing his instantaneous death. 29. 29. Being so, the learned trail court could not have convicted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC. Rather, in view of materials on record, the accused ought to have been convicted of offence u/s 304-II IPC instead. He therefore, urges this court to alter the conviction of the accused person from conviction u/s 302 IPC to 304-II IPC. 30. We have considered such submission in the light of evidence on record. Such an exercise reveals that the deceased, who was a man of about 60 years of age, was subjected to too many serious injuries and that too, by a weapon as dangerous as meat-dao. Equally important, the accused did so only for his aged and poor father not being able to arrange sufficient food for his adult and able bodied son. 31. When one read all those revelations together, he would find that the conviction of the accused u/s 302 IPC is proper and as such, the conviction of the accused u/s 302 IPC cannot be altered to a conviction u/s 304-II IPC as prayed for by the learned Amicus Curiae. 32. In the result, we have found no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly, dismissed. 33. Return the LCR forthwith. 34. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. L. R Mazumder, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay him an amount of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) as being his professional fee and same needs to be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.