JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sankardev Nagar at Hojai in Sessions Case No.150 (N)/2012 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6(six) months. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Chandan Das (PW-2) lodged an ejahar, Ext-4, before the Officer-in-Charge, Lanka Police Station, stating, amongst others, that his father, Bhuban Das, who was having an illicit relationship with the accused No.3, hacked his wife, i.e. mother of PW-2, Fulmoti Das, with a dao at about 11.50 A.M. inside the court premises at Sankardev Nagar when she had gone there in connection with a case lodged by her. On receipt of the ejahar, Lanka Police Station Case No.25/2012 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. Police started investigation of the case, conducted inquest over the dead body of Fulmoti Das and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses, seized the weapon of offence and had Section 164 CrPC statements of Uttam Das (PW-4), son-in-law of the accused-appellant and the deceased, Manik Chandra Das (PW-3), another son of the accused-appellant Bhuban Das, informant Chandan Das (PW-2), as also that of PW-8 and PW-11 recorded, which were subsequently exhibited as Ext-1, Ext-2, Ext-3, Ext-7 and Ext-8, respectively, before the court of Smti. Rani Boro (PW-1), Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, on 27.02.2012. On completion of investigation, finding sufficient materials against the accused-appellant, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Finding no incriminating materials against the other 3 accused persons named in the ejahar, prayer was made to discharge them from the case. 4. The case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon and on transfer, Sessions Case No.150 (N)/2012 was registered in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant and the same being read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant and the same being read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant. Defence adduced no evidence and the plea of the accused was that of denial. 6. PW-1 is the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-11 under Section 164 CrPC. She had deposed that while she was in the court room, she heard a hue and cry outside and suddenly saw a man, armed with a blood-stained dao in his hand, coming towards her court. She deposed that the person had told her that he had come to surrender and on a question being asked by her, the person stated that he had killed a woman called Fulmoti Das. She also deposed that on that day, Fulmoti Das had recorded her evidence under Section 202 CrPC and the incident had taken place about 10 to 15 minutes of her going out after deposing. The person was detained and put into lock-up by one police constable by the surname Singh (PW-9) and the dao was kept in the custody of one staff member, M. Ali and the same was later on handed over to the police. In cross-examination she stated that Section 164 CrPC statements were recorded by the witnesses voluntarily. 7. PW-2 is the informant and he deposed that Uttam Das (PW-4), Manik Das (PW-3) and one Babul Das had come with his mother and at around 12 O’clock, he received a telephone call from PW-4 informing him that his father Bhuban Das had killed his mother in the hotel of one Sankar Dey (PW-8) with a dao and that she died instantaneously. Hearing the news, he along with his brother Ajit Das (PW-5) came to the place of occurrence and found his mother lying dead smeared with blood. He noticed one large cut wound towards her ear and he did not notice any other injury as she was smeared with blood. He had stated that his father had illicit relationship with a woman and he had named that lady also who was accused No.3 in the ejahar. He noticed one large cut wound towards her ear and he did not notice any other injury as she was smeared with blood. He had stated that his father had illicit relationship with a woman and he had named that lady also who was accused No.3 in the ejahar. He also deposed that both his mother and father had filed cases against each other and that on the date of occurrence, his mother had gone to depose in her case. 8. PW-3 had stated that he along with his brother-in-law Uttam Das (PW-4), Babul Das and his mother had come to court to give evidence. After the evidence was recorded, they came out around 11.30 A.M. and then he and his mother had come to the tea stall of Sankar Dey (PW-8) which was located in the campus of the court to have tea. He saw his father coming to the court with a ‘chadar’. As he was coming out of the tea stall, his father entered the hotel with a dao in his hand and straightway felled his mother by giving 3/4 dao blows on the ear, neck and hands and she died instantaneously. He also deposed regarding his statement made under Section 164 CrPC as well as the Inquest Report (Ext-5). 9. PW-4 stated that he along with PW-3, Babul Das and Fulmoti Das had gone to the court to give evidence and that hearing his mother-in-law’s scream, he went to the tea stall of Sankar (PW-8) and saw that his father-in-law was hacking his mother-in-law with a dao. He further stated that Babul Das had also seen the occurrence. He noticed wounds on his mother-in-law’s ear, neck and head and stated that Fulmoti was lying in a pool of blood. 10. PW-5 is Ajit Das, another son of the accused-appellant and the deceased. He stated that he came to the place of occurrence after PW-4 had informed about the murder of his mother by his father. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the three brothers are engaged in jobs outside and that he had come home some 10/15 days before the incident and that his mother and his father were staying separately for the last one year. 11. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the three brothers are engaged in jobs outside and that he had come home some 10/15 days before the incident and that his mother and his father were staying separately for the last one year. 11. PW-6 is a lawyer by profession and in his evidence he had stated that while he was in the court room, he heard a hue and cry in the hotel of Sankar Dey(PW-8) and as he came out, he saw the accused with a dao in his hand going towards the court of R. Boro. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying, face down, smeared with blood. He also noticed injuries on her left hand, neck, towards ear and on the back of the head. In cross-examination, he stated that he was the counsel engaged by Fulmoti against the accused. 12. Babli Dey, PW-7, is the daughter of the owner of the tea stall Sankar Dey (PW-8). She stated that she screamed when the accused entered the hotel and assaulted the deceased with dao. She also deposed that many people had gathered and Fulmoti had bled profusely. 13. PW-8 is Sankar Dey. He had deposed that though he had gone out of his hotel to serve tea in the library of the advocates, as he came back, he saw Bhuban Das hacking Fulmoti with a dao and that Bhuban Das later on went towards the court of SDJM taking the blood-stained dao with him. He also deposed that he was a witness to Ext-1(A), seizure list, by which the dao was seized and also a witness in Ext-5, Inquest Report. 14. PW-9 Mahendra Singh is a constable. He stated that he came running when he saw the accused going towards the court room of PW-1 with a dao in his hand and he put the accused in the lock-up as per the direction of PW-1. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused did not offer any resistance when he was apprehended. 15. PW-10, another constable, also deposed that while he came out from the office of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, he saw the accused entering the court room of PW-1 with a dao in his hand and on being asked by PW-1, he along with Mahendra Singh (PW-9) and others kept the accused in the lock-up. 16. 15. PW-10, another constable, also deposed that while he came out from the office of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, he saw the accused entering the court room of PW-1 with a dao in his hand and on being asked by PW-1, he along with Mahendra Singh (PW-9) and others kept the accused in the lock-up. 16. PW-11 is the owner of another tea stall who deposed that he saw the accused going towards the court room with a blood-stained dao. 17. PW-12 only deposed that she heard that a murder was committed and that Fulmoti Das was lying dead in a pool of blood. 18. PW-13 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, Ext-8(B). He had described the injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature, and stated that according to him, death was due to head injury with haemorrhage. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he found four incised and one fracture wound, which was on the head, as well as laceration of the brain matter. 19. PW-14 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who narrated the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. 20. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record and also taking into consideration the statements made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21. Ms. Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted on the basis of statement made by PW-4 in his Section 164 CrPC statement (Ext-1) that the accused-appellant was trying to reconcile with his wife and he made overtures to his son-in-law, PW-4. But he was dejected because of unfavourable response from him. She also submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid approach of the accused-appellant, there was a possibility of the accused-appellant being provoked. Alternatively, she has also argued that it was not the accused who had committed the crime and it was Babul, who was not examined by the prosecution, who sought to assault the accused with the dao and the blow given by Babul fell on the head of the deceased instead of falling it over the accused and he had merely taken the blood-stained dao to the PW-1. Having the dao, in these circumstances, would not, ipso facto, prove that the accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. Having the dao, in these circumstances, would not, ipso facto, prove that the accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. She has also submitted that the depositions of the witnesses do not establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal, she submits. 22. Ms. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, has submitted that there is pointed evidence against the accused-appellant, not only from the family members of the accused-appellant, who were stated to be not in good terms with the accused-appellant, but also from independent witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses have not been impeached at all, she submits. It is also contended that during the course of trial, there was not even a feeble attempt on the part of the accused-appellant to raise the plea of grave and sudden provocation which is sought to be argued by Ms. Kanungoe now. The statement made by the accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that Babul had attempted to give dao blows on him is only an afterthought. It is argued by her that if that was so, there would not have been any occasion for the deceased to have suffered five injuries and this aspect totally falsifies the plea taken by the accused. On the above premise, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 24. That the deceased died in the court premises inside the hotel of PW-8 has been firmly established from the evidence on record. PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. There is no material on record to hold that their evidence is not inspiring or trustworthy. All of them had given consistent account of the assault made by the accused and there is no contradiction in their evidence. It also appears that deceased and the accused-appellant were not keeping in good terms and the evidence of PW-5 goes to show that they had been living separately for about a year or so. All of them had given consistent account of the assault made by the accused and there is no contradiction in their evidence. It also appears that deceased and the accused-appellant were not keeping in good terms and the evidence of PW-5 goes to show that they had been living separately for about a year or so. The evidence of PW-13 goes to show that there was- (i) incised wound on the left side of neck, which is 1 c.m. X 6 c.m. in size, (ii) incised wound over right side of neck below right ear measuring 1 c.m. X 6 c.m. in size, (iii) incised wound over mid vertex – (a) 1 c.m. X 10 c.m. bone depth, (b) 1 c.m. X 10 c.m. bone depth, (iv) fracture of parietal frontal bone, (v) incised wound over left forearm, 2 cm. X 1 c.m. X 3 c.m. in size. His evidence is consistent with the deposition of the eye witnesses. The plea taken by the accused-appellant in his Section 313 CrPC statement that Babul Das had attempted to assault him with a dao and the dao blow had fallen on the head of his wife, as rightly submitted by Ms. Jahan, does not inspire any confidence. If the dao blow had accidentally fallen on the deceased instead of the accused, there would not have been repeated blows on vital parts of the deceased. None of the witnesses were given any suggestion with regard to any such attempt made by Babul Das and therefore, the learned Trial Court opined that such a plea was quite unbelievable in the facts and circumstances of the case. During the entire course of proceeding before the learned Trial Court, no plea of grave and sudden provocation was articulated by the defence. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, had come to a categorical finding that there was no grave and sudden provocation which led to losing of self-control by the accused-appellant resulting in his committing the crime of murder of his wife and we have no reason to take a contrary view. 25. The blood-stained dao was initially, at the instance of PW-1, kept in the custody of one court staff after the same had been brought to the court room by the accused himself. 25. The blood-stained dao was initially, at the instance of PW-1, kept in the custody of one court staff after the same had been brought to the court room by the accused himself. That the dao was blood-stained was not even disputed by the defence during the course of evidence. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Taking that view, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 27. For the assistance rendered, Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae will be entitled to a fee of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. 28. Registry will send back the records.