JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.08.2017 passed in Sessions Trial (T- 1)18 of 2016 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District, whereby and whereunder, the convict-appellant has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for the offences committed under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 2. The prosecution case as projected by the learned Trial Judge is as follows:- "The prosecution case was set into motion based on an oral complaint of one Kalachand Das, S/O Late Harendra Das of Bagabasa, Uttarpara, P.S.- Melaghar dated 11.02.2016 at 22.53 hours recorded by Inspector Soumen Das, O/C Melaghar P.S. alleging inter alia that on 10.02.2016 in the afternoon the accused Subash Nama, the brother-in-law of the informant came to their house and also stayed there and on the date of incident i.e. on 11.02.2016 in the afternoon while the informant went to the market and his other 3 sons also went to the playground to play football, in the meantime, the wife of the informant Dipali Nama Das and his brother-in-law were remain present alone in their house. At about 05:25 PM when the informant was marketing at that time someone informed him over phone that his wife Dipali Nama Das was assaulted by his brother-in-law Subash Nama Das by a piece of bamboo lathi and as result of which his wife sustained severe bleeding injuries. Thereafter, when the informant started to proceed towards his house at that time he found some local public were shifting his wife at Hospital with a vehicle. Then he also boarded in the vehicle and shifted his wife to Sukumar Barman Memorial Hospital where the attending Doctor declared Dipali Nama Das dead due to receiving such injuries After receiving such compliant O/C Melaghar P.S. registered Melaghar P.S. Case No.2016MLG016 dated under Section 302 of IPC against accused Subash Nama Das and thereafter he endorsed this case to SI Pritam Chakma of Melaghar P.S. for its investigation. After receiving the charge of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the hand sketch map of P.O. with separate index, examined the available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During investigation he also seized blood stain earth, control sample of mud, blood sample in a gauze cotton and bamboo piece with blood stain from the place of occurrence. During investigation he also seized other articles and also collected PM report and forensic report from State Forensic Laboratory. Thereafter, after completion of investigation having found a prima facie case against accused Subash Nama Das he submitted charge-sheet against Subash Nama Das under Section 302 of IPC vide C/S No.51/2016 dated 30.07.2016. " 3. Having received the copies of the charge-sheet and being committed, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the convict-appellant under Section 302 of IPC. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and introduced some documents(Exbt-1 to Exbt- 10/1) including material objects (Exbt. M/O-1). 4. Evidence was recorded and at the closure of recording evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., where he denied all the incriminating evidences as surfaced against him by the prosecution witnesses, but, he declined to adduce any witness on his behalf. 5. The learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the arguments and the materials brought on record, the learned Judge returned a finding of guilt against the accused-person and convicted and sentenced him as afore- stated. While deciding the case, learned Judge formulated the following point of determination:- "(I) Whether the accused person namely, Sri Subash Nama, S/O Late Nishi Kanta Nama Das of Tepania Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District-Gomati, on 11th day of February, 2016 at about 05.00 PM in the house of the informant Sri Kalachand Das at Bagbasa, Uttar Para under Jurisdiction of Melaghar police station committed murder of his elder-sister namely, Dipali Nama Das, aged 35 years by means of bamboo stick." 6. We have heard, Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State- respondent. 7. Mr. We have heard, Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State- respondent. 7. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that the appellant was suffering from a serious mental disorder at the time of the commission of the offence but the learned Addl. Session Judge did not take care of this material aspect. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that the prosecution witnesses, who claimed to be the eye witnesses, deposed that while the accused was fleeing away being chased by the witnesses, then, he threw away the 'lathi' (hard bamboo stick) the weapon of offence towards the jungle but from the seizure list of the said weapon of offence, it came to light that the alleged weapon of offence was seized from the kitchen of the house of the informant. According to the learned counsel, the seizure of the 'lathi', the weapon of offence from the kitchen instead of the jungle, reasonably caused a suspicious circumstance about the genesis of the prosecution case. 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the statement of the investigating officer (P.W.- 15), wherein, the said witness in his cross-examination stated that:- "During my investigation, I did not try to ascertain whether the accused-Subash Ch. Nama is mentally retarded person or not." 9. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel further submitted that the SFSL report revealed that the blood found in the "Bamboo stick" did not match with the blood group of the victim. Further, claiming acquittal of the convict-appellant, the learned counsel contended that P.W.-4 was a 'chance witness' and learned Trial Judge ought to have discarded the statement of such 'chance witness' for returning the finding of guilt against the accused person. 10. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel in support of this submission has placed reliance on AIR 1998 SC 2899 titled as State of Punjab Vs. Sarup Singh (para-3); (1976) 3 SCC 564 titled as Bahal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana (Para- 10); (1974) 3 SCC 698 , titled as Guli Chand and ors. Vs. The state of Rajasthan, (Para-11). 11. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. Sarup Singh (para-3); (1976) 3 SCC 564 titled as Bahal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana (Para- 10); (1974) 3 SCC 698 , titled as Guli Chand and ors. Vs. The state of Rajasthan, (Para-11). 11. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., defending the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge strenuously argued that there was no iota of evidence that at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was suffering from 'insanity' or any kind of 'mental disorder' as defined under Section 84 of the IPC. More so, learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 ought to have been treated as the evidence of res gestae. 12. Further, arguing in favour of the judgment and order of conviction, learned Addl. P.P. submitted that burden of proof was upon the accused regarding the existence of circumstance that at the time of the commission of offence, he was suffering from 'unsoundness of mind' to claim the Exception as enumerated under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. 13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have proceeded to decide the sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 14. We have perused the evidence and materials brought on record for appreciation and re-evaluation of the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to connect the involvement of the accused with the crime. 15. Reiterating his version, P.W.-1, Sri Kalachand Das, the informant-husband of the deceased, deposed that on 10/02/ 2016, his brother-in-law, the accused herein had visited his residence and also stayed therein. On 11.02.2016 at about 03:30/04:00 PM he left his house when his three sons were playing football in the nearby playground. 15. Reiterating his version, P.W.-1, Sri Kalachand Das, the informant-husband of the deceased, deposed that on 10/02/ 2016, his brother-in-law, the accused herein had visited his residence and also stayed therein. On 11.02.2016 at about 03:30/04:00 PM he left his house when his three sons were playing football in the nearby playground. At that time, his wife and the accused were in the house and at about 04:40/05:00 PM, he was informed over mobile phone by one of his neighbour asking him to return to their house immediately since an unwanted incident had taken place at his residence and that without loss of time, he proceeded towards his house, and en route to his house, he received another telephonic call when he was told not to visit his house and to wait on the road itself since neighbouring people were going towards the hospital at Bairagibazar through Bagabasa Bazar with his injured wife by an auto-rickshaw. He further deposed that his eldest son, Titan Das along with others met with him near Bagabasa Bazar where he had seen his injured wife with serious bleeding injuries on the backside of her head and was lying on the back seat of that auto-rickshaw, almost in an unconscious condition. At that time, his son and the wife of his younger brother told him that the accused-Subash Nama struck his wife on the backside of her head with bamboo-made 'lathi-P.W.-l further deposed that he boarded the said autorickshaw and when his wife was taken to the hospital, she was declared dead. Deposing further, P.W-1 stated that in a short while, the officer-in-charge of Melaghar P.S along with his subordinate staff had arrived at Sukumar Barman Memorial Hospital and saw the dead body of his deceased wife-Dipali Nama Das. The O/C of Melaghar P.S. asked him as to how his wife had sustained injuries. He narrated the whole incident orally which was reduced into writing and the said write-up was explained to him wherein he put his signature at the foot of the said recorded FIR, having due satisfaction about the correctness of the recorded fact. P.W-1 further deposed that inquest was prepared and he identified his signature (Exbt- 2/1) on the said inquest report. On 12.02.2016, the postmortem was conducted. P.W-1 further deposed that inquest was prepared and he identified his signature (Exbt- 2/1) on the said inquest report. On 12.02.2016, the postmortem was conducted. The investigating police officer seized the viscera and blood sample of his deceased-wife at the hospital morgue by preparing a seizure list in presence of him and others, whereupon he put his signature and being identified, the same was marked as Exbt-3/1. In cross-examination, the defense tried to draw his attention to his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., wherein P.W.-1 admitted that he did not tell the investigating officer that on the relevant date and time, he had received one telephonic call from his neighbour, Dulal, and that he found his eldest son, Titan Das and the wife of his younger brother with his injured wife inside the auto-rickshaw on their way to the hospital from the place of occurrence and further that he had heard about the alleged incident from his eldest son and the wife of his younger brother. In his further cross-examination, the P.W.-1 admitted that "It is fact that the wife of accused Subhash Nama Das was not residing with the accused persons for last 5 years. It is fact that the wife of accused-Subash Nama Das had left her matrimonial home due to mental disease of accused Subash Nama Das. It is a fact that myself also took initiative for the proper medical treatment of accused Subash Nama Das before the alleged incident. It is not a fact that on 11th February, 2016 at about 04:30/05:00 PM I did not receive any telephone call from my neighbour Dulal". The suggestion put to the P.W.-1 regarding information passed by his neighbour-Dulal and that he did not see his injured wife inside the auto-rickshaw and that the accused was not present at his house on the relevant date and time and his sons were in playground and the contentions of the FIR were not admitted by P.W.-1. 16. P.W.-2, Sri Nimai Chandra Das deposed that the accused was residing at the house of P.W.-1 on the relevant date and time and his house was situated just adjacent to the house of his brother-Kalachand Das (P.W.-1). 16. P.W.-2, Sri Nimai Chandra Das deposed that the accused was residing at the house of P.W.-1 on the relevant date and time and his house was situated just adjacent to the house of his brother-Kalachand Das (P.W.-1). Narrating the incident, during his deposition, he stated that while he was taking rest at about 05:00/05:30 PM he heard an alarm of one Paltu Nama from the house of his brother saying that 'Subash Nama killed Dipali Nama'. When he rushed to the house of his brother, he found Dipali Nama was lying in her kitchen with bleeding on her head. He further deposed that at that time, other local people appeared there and from the place of occurrence, Paltu Nama informed that while he was going to his house, he found Subash Nama was assaulting Dipali Nama by means of 'bamboo stick' and thereafter, he caught Subash Nama after chasing along with others, near to their house. At that time, Subash Nama was holding the 'bamboo lathi' in his hand. P.W.-2 further deposed that subsequently, his sister-inlaw i.e. the deceased was shifted to the hospital by her son by an auto-rickshaw where the attending doctor informed that she died due to such assault. He further deposed that on that day, Daroga Babu came to the house of the informant and also seized the blood-stained mud collected from the P.O. and one piece of blood-stained bamboo. Darogababu further collected blood samples in gauze cloth by preparing a seizure list in his presence including other witnesses and obtained their signatures. His signature was identified and marked as Exbt— 4/1 and the seized 'bamboo lathi' being identified was marked as (Exbt-M.O-1). During cross-examination, his attention was drawn to his statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. where he stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, at that time, one Paltu Nama and others caught hold of Subash Nama after chasing and he was holding the 'bamboo lathi' in his hand, which statement was found to be absent. In his crossexamination, P.W.-2 categorically stated that he had no knowledge whether Subash Nama was suffering from 'insanity' or whether he had a wife and children. The other parts of his cross-examination were just the suggestions made by the defence to shake his defence but he was found firm to the statements he made in his chief examination. 17. In his crossexamination, P.W.-2 categorically stated that he had no knowledge whether Subash Nama was suffering from 'insanity' or whether he had a wife and children. The other parts of his cross-examination were just the suggestions made by the defence to shake his defence but he was found firm to the statements he made in his chief examination. 17. P.W.-3, Sri Titan Das being the son of the deceased deposed that on the relevant date and time he was playing along with his two brothers in the nearby playground when his father was in the Bagabasa Market. At that time, his matrimonial uncle, Subash Nama, and his mother were in the house. He further deposed that at about 05:00/05:30 PM he came to learn that the accused killed his mother and, accordingly, he rushed to their house and found his mother was lying with bleeding injuries on her head and person when one Paltu Nama informed that at the time of the incident while he was passing in front of their house, he found his maternal uncle-Subash Nama was assaulting his mother-Dipali Nama by means of "bamboo lathi". He further deposed that Paltu Nama caught hold of the accused along with 'bamboo lathi' while chasing and subsequently, he and his uncle shifted her mother to the hospital. He informed his father, who accompanied them on their way to the hospital. In the hospital, his mother was declared dead. P.W-3 further stated that on that day, he came to learn from Paltu Nama that at the time of incident, Subash Nama, the accused demanded some money from his mother when she refused to give such money to him and for that matter, the accused assaulted his mother by means of 'lathi'. He further deposed that subsequently, local people handed over Subash Nama to the police. During cross-examination, P.W.-3 stated that the accused, his maternal uncle was married and his wife and children were living separately. He further deposed that subsequently, local people handed over Subash Nama to the police. During cross-examination, P.W.-3 stated that the accused, his maternal uncle was married and his wife and children were living separately. His statement that Paltu Nama informed them that at the time of the incident while he was passing in front of their house, he found his maternal uncle was assaulting his mother by means of 'bamboo lathi' and thereafter, he caught hold of his maternal uncle after chasing along with the said 'lathi' was found absent in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, the suggestion put to him that Subash Nama did not visit their house on and the fact that his maternal uncle demanded money from his mother and when she refused to give such money she was assaulted by his maternal uncle was not admitted by him. He denied the suggestion that a false case was lodged against the accused. 18. P.W.-4, Sri Paltu Nama is one of the most vital witnesses to the instant case. He deposed that at about 05:00/05:30 PM he was proceeding towards his shop at Bagabasa market and when he reached in front of the house of Kalachand Das, at that time, he heard some noise of beating from the house of Kalachand Das. He rushed to the house of said Kalachand Das and found that Subash Das, the brother-in-law of Kalachand Das was beating Dipali Nama Das by means of 'bamboo Lathi' and as a result of which, she sustained bleeding injuries on her head and face and fell down in the open kitchen. He further deposed that on raising alarm, the accused was trying to flee away towards Bagabasa Market. He chased him along with others including one Bhajan Das saying 'Dhar Dhar' (catch catch) and they managed to catch the accused. P.W-4 further deposed that after being intercepted, the accused stated that he demanded some money from deceased-Dipali, and when she refused to pay such money, he assaulted her by means of 'bamboo lathi'. He further deposed that at that moment he again tried to escape along with the said 'lathi' in his hand and after running a short distance he had thrown away the said 'lathi'. He further deposed that Dipali was shifted to hospital where the attending doctor declared her dead. He further deposed that at that moment he again tried to escape along with the said 'lathi' in his hand and after running a short distance he had thrown away the said 'lathi'. He further deposed that Dipali was shifted to hospital where the attending doctor declared her dead. Being confronted with cross-examination, the statements, P.W-4 made during his examination-in-chief in respect of the fact that after such incident Subash Nama fled away along with said 'bamboo lathi' and after running a short distance he had thrown away the 'bamboo lathi' and tried to escape from the place of occurrence were not found. He denied all other suggestions the defence put to him during his cross-examination that Subash Nama did not demand any money from Dipali. 19. P.W.-5, Sri Bhajan Das deposed that on the relevant date and time, after hearing some noise from the house of Kalachand he rushed to their house and found Dipali Nama was lying with bleeding injuries on her head in their open kitchen. He further deposed that he found one Paltu Nama was chasing Subash Nama towards Bagabasa market calling 'dhar dhar' ('catch catch') and thereafter, he also chased them and somehow managed to intercept the accused with the help of other local people. P.W.-5 further deposed that on being asked, Subash Nama stated that he assaulted Dipali Nama by a 'bamboo lathi' while she refused to give money on his demand. He further deposed that being taken to hospital, the attending Doctor declared Dipali dead. P.W.-5 deposed that on that day, in the evening at about 7.00 PM, Darogababu seized the blood-stained 'bamboo lathi', the blood-stained earth and some blood gauze cotton collected from the place of occurrence by preparing a seizure list. He was one of the signatories which being identified was marked as Exbt-4/2. P.W.-5 also identified the seized 'bamboo lathi' which was already marked as Exbt-M.O-1. In his cross-examination, his deposition in examination-in-chief remained unshaken. 20. P.W.-6, Shri Jiban Das deposed that he knew both Dipali Nama and Subash Nama being closely related. He deposed that on the relevant date at about 7.00 PM one of his neighbours informed him over telephone that his aunt-in-law was murdered by her brother Subash Nama at her residence at Bagabasa. On hearing this, he rushed to the hospital and he found Darogababu preparing an inquest report. He deposed that on the relevant date at about 7.00 PM one of his neighbours informed him over telephone that his aunt-in-law was murdered by her brother Subash Nama at her residence at Bagabasa. On hearing this, he rushed to the hospital and he found Darogababu preparing an inquest report. He also put his signature on the said inquest report which being identified was marked as Exbt-2/2. None had been elicited from his cross-examination to benefit the defence case. 21. P.W.-7, Dr. Rajbithi Debnath deposed that on the relevant date and time she was attached to Sonamura Sub-Divisional Hospital, Melaghar. On requisition, he along with Dr. Rajesh Das and Dr. Gopal Krishna Debnath conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased, aged about 35 years as per the Melaghar P.S. GD. No.457 dated 11.02.2016 and found the following injuries:- "1. A lacerating would over right ear measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A cut injury over right temporal region measuring 8 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm Cut injury over right frontal region measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. A curvilinear cut injury over frontal region measuring 12 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. One cut injury over right zygoma measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Bruise over right zygoma measuring about 10 cm x 5 cm area." She identified the post-mortem report and her signature which were marked as Exbt-5/1. During cross-examination, P.W.-7 stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp-cutting weapon like 'dao' She further stated in cross examination that such injuries could have been caused by the sharp cutting edge of 'bamboo'. She further deposed that such injuries might have been caused due to a sudden fall on a hard substance. 22. P.W.-8, Doctor Gopal Krishna Debnath being member of the examination team deposed that he along with Dr. Rajesh Das and Dr. Rajbithi Debnath, P.W.-7 conducted the post mortem examination. He identified his signature in the post mortem report (Exbt-5/2). 23. P.W.-9, Sri Sudhir Debbarma deposed that after post-mortem examination, the body of the deceased was handed over to her relatives by the investigating officer in his presence. 24. P.W.-10, Sri Somen Das deposed that he was working as the Officer-in-charge of the Melaghar P.S. on 11.02.2016. He identified his signature in the post mortem report (Exbt-5/2). 23. P.W.-9, Sri Sudhir Debbarma deposed that after post-mortem examination, the body of the deceased was handed over to her relatives by the investigating officer in his presence. 24. P.W.-10, Sri Somen Das deposed that he was working as the Officer-in-charge of the Melaghar P.S. on 11.02.2016. On that day, while he was busy at a conference, he received telephonic information that a person was murdered and the dead body was lying at Sukumar Barman Memorial PHC at Jumerdhepa, Bairagibazar. He went to the Sukumar Barman Memorial PHC at Jumerdhepa at about 07:35 PM where P.W.1 lodged an oral complaint to him which was reduced into writing and the contents were read over to him. Thereafter, P.W.-1 put his signature. P.W.-10 also put his signature in the FIR and registered the case. P.W.-10 had proved the written complaint and the formal FIR was drawn and prepared by him which being identified were marked as Exbt-1, Exbt-1/2, Exbt-6 and Exbt-6/1 respectively. He further deposed that he endorsed the case to S.I. Pritam Chakma of Melaghar P.S. to conduct the investigation and handed over the case docket on 05.07.2016 on the basis of which, the investigating officer examined two witnesses, namely, Ganesh Kapali and Titan Das and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He also deposed that he sent the seized article to SFSL. P.W.10 also submitted the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, nothing came out to help the defense case. The said witness during his cross-examination also volunteered that he seized one number of blood-stained 'bamboo piece'. In cross-examination, he stated that during his investigation, he did not try to ascertain whether the accused-Subash Nama was a mentally retarded person or not. He denied in his cross-examination that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses of Ganesh Kapali and Titan das on his own version. 25. P.W.-11, Sri Ganesh Kapali deposed that on 11.02.2016, at about 05.00 PM, while proceeding towards the market on his way when he reached near the house of P.W.-1, he found a gathering of many people in front of the house of P.W-1 and they stopped his vehicle and requested him to shift one patient. 25. P.W.-11, Sri Ganesh Kapali deposed that on 11.02.2016, at about 05.00 PM, while proceeding towards the market on his way when he reached near the house of P.W.-1, he found a gathering of many people in front of the house of P.W-1 and they stopped his vehicle and requested him to shift one patient. He further deposed that they brought the wife of P.W.-1 with some blood injuries on her person and he shifted her to Jumerdhepa Hospital with the help of some local people. P.W.-1 also accompanied them from Bagabasa market. Thereafter, when Dipali Nama was brought to the hospital, the attending doctor declared her dead. He came to know that the deceased was assaulted by her brother. No contradiction or deviation or any kind of improvement was noticed in his cross-examination. 26. P.W.-12, Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty who was posted as Deputy Director in State Forensic Science Laboratory deposed that he scientifically examined the sample of different organs. 27. P.W.-13, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath, the scientific officer deposed that on 11.07.2016, altogether five exhibits marked as E, F, G, H & I were received from the Toxicology Division of their Laboratory for examination and report. Dr. Nath, further deposed that out of the said five exhibits, two exhibits were marked as Exbt-F (after sub-sampling in bio/sero Division) and Exbt-G were forwarded to phy/Bale Division for further examination and report. So four exhibits marked as Exhibit-E, F, H & I were examined under bio/sero division. He further deposed that Exhibit-E contained a piece of light brownness stain gauze clothe said to be the blood of the deceased. Exbt-F contained some mud bearing some brown stain said to be blood stain mud collected from P.O. Exbt-H contains a piece of brown stain gauze cloth said to be the blood sample collected from P.O. Exbt-I contains a piece of bamboo said to have bloodstain. He further deposed that after examination, he submitted his report which stated that: "(i) Bloodstain of human origin were detected in the exhibits F, H and I. (ii) Blood groups of the exhibits marked as E, F, H & I were inconclusive. He identified the report marked as Exbt-7 and Exbt-7/1." He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he submitted his report without proper examination. 28. P.W.14, Dr. Ajitesh Pal deposed that he examined two samples of soil marked as Exbts-F and G sent to him. He identified the report marked as Exbt-7 and Exbt-7/1." He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he submitted his report without proper examination. 28. P.W.14, Dr. Ajitesh Pal deposed that he examined two samples of soil marked as Exbts-F and G sent to him. After examination, he opined that exhibits marked as “F and G”' are similar. He identified his report and his signature thereon which were marked as Exbt-8 and Exbt-8/1 respectively. 29. P.W. 15, Sub Inspector Pritam Chakma deposed that on 11.02.2016 while he was working as S.I. of Police attached to Melaghar P.S., he received information at about 06.30 PM over telephone that one lady had sustained injuries due to struck by 'lathi'. The said information was entered into G.D and thereafter as per instruction of the O/C of the police station, he and along with S.I. Uttam Pal went to the place of occurrence at Bagabasa to verify such information. He further deposed that after reaching the place of occurrence they found blood-stains inside the kitchen of the victim. The victim was shifted to the hospital. He further deposed that in the place of occurrence he found a gathering of people who also detained one Subash Nama who allegedly assaulted the victim, his sister. The local people informed him that he assaulted the victim by a 'bamboo lathi' which was present near to the place of occurrence. Accordingly, he started an investigation on spot as the nature of offense was found cognizable in nature and also seized the bloodstained earth and collected sample mud from the place of occurrence. Blood samples were collected in gauze cotton. He also seized blood-stained 'lathi' by preparing a seizure list in presence of the witnesses. He identified the seizure list marked as Exbt-4. His signature was marked as Exbt-4/3. He identified the bamboo stick ('lathi') which was already marked as Exbt-M.O.1. He further deposed that he arrested the accused-Subash Nama and after going to the hospital, he prepared the inquest report, Exbt-2 and the signature as Exbt-2/3. P.W.-15 further deposed that after returning to P.S. he found that oral complaint was lodged by informant P.W.-1 which was recorded by inspector-Somen Das. It was reduced into writing and the formal FIR was prepared. P.W.-15 further deposed that, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exbt-8). P.W.-15 further deposed that after returning to P.S. he found that oral complaint was lodged by informant P.W.-1 which was recorded by inspector-Somen Das. It was reduced into writing and the formal FIR was prepared. P.W.-15 further deposed that, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the hand-sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exbt-8). During cross-examination, defence could not shake his evidence deposed in his examination-in-chief. However, in his cross, he stated that during the investigation, it came to his notice that the accused-Subash Nama Das was sent for Medical Examination at Kendriya Sansodhanaghar through Psychiatrist, Dr. B. Roy of Narsingarh Modern Psychiatrist Hospital. He did not try to examine Dr. B. Roy with the case. 30. On a careful survey of the entire evidence as surfaced from the prosecution witnesses, the following facts have been proved:- the convict-appellant on 11.02.2016 was at the house of P.W.-1 and his sister, now deceased; P.W.1 went to Bagabasa market in the afternoon at about 03.30/4.00 PM and his three sons were playing football in a playground near to his house; P.W.4 was passing through the road adjacent to which the house of P.W.1 was situated and when he reached in front of his house, he heard the noise of beating and after entering into house he found the accused-convict had dealt blows by 'bamboo stick' on the head of the deceased and her person when the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on her head and face and she fell down their open kitchen. Thereafter, P.W.-4 raised alarm when the accused tried to flee away towards the Bagabasa market. At that time, P.W.-4 also chased him saying 'dhar dhar' ('catch, catch') when P.W.-5 came to the place of occurrence, he also chased the 'accused' and managed to apprehend him with the help of other local people. The evidence of these two witnesses was corroborated by the P.W. -2, Sri Nimaichand Das; P.W-3, Sri Titan Das and to some extent by P.W. -5, Sri Bhajan Das as well; The truthfulness of this statement relating to the cause of the death has been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses as the same could not be shaken by the defence; P.W.-4 appears to be the eye witness of the assault inflicted by the accused with a bamboo stick upon his deceased-sister inside the open kitchen. He raised alarm, on the basis of which, neighbouring people rushed to the place of occurrence, being relevant, has been supported by the statement of other witnesses who gathered at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence. The fact that, on being asked, the accused disclosed that he assaulted her deceased sister as she refused to meet his demand to pay some money to him; P.W.-4 was very categoric to make this statement in his deposition and the said statement was supported by Sri Titun Das (P.W.-3) who deposed that he came to learn from Paltu Nama (P.W.-4) that at the time of the incident the accused demanded some money from her mother and when she refused to give such money, the accused assaulted his mother by means of lathi; The fact that accused tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence and P. W. -4 chased him from behind calling "dhar dhar" when P. W-4 himself along with Bhajan Das and other local people managed to intercept the accused, when, the accused divulged in front of all that he demanded some money from the deceased and on her refusal, he assaulted the deceased by means of bamboo stick ('lathi'). The said statement was supported by Bhajan Das, P.W.-5 who denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that the accused did not disclose that he assaulted the deceased by means of 'bamboo lathi' when she refused to pay money on his demand; The fact that the accused again tried to flee away from the road where he was intercepted but the local people thwarted that attempt is also established; (9) The fact that investigating officer collected the blood sample attached to the earth from the scene of occurrence and also seized the blood-stained 'lathi' (weapon of offence) from the kitchen of P.W.-1 and the kitchen was found open is also established. 31. The aforesaid facts, if read in juxtaposition of each other, then, we find, the entire sequence of events forms a complete chain to point out that there was none other than the accused who assaulted his deceased sister leading to her death. According to us, the defence has failed to demolish the proven fact in the entire chain of the circumstances behind the cause of death of the wife of P.W.-1, the informant of the case. 32. According to us, the defence has failed to demolish the proven fact in the entire chain of the circumstances behind the cause of death of the wife of P.W.-1, the informant of the case. 32. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sample of bloodstain collected from the scene of occurrence and that of 'lathi' (weapon of offence) remains 'inconclusive' as opined by scientific examiner, which, according to the learned counsel, ought have led the Addl. Sessions Judge to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt. According to us, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot sustain. It is established in the present case that the blood sample was mixed with earth and there was reasonable probabilities that the sample collected got degraded by the time it was examination by the scientific officer. 33. As such, according to us, in the nature of the present case, the Court will inquire about genuinity and authenticity of the prosecution witnesses without giving much importance to the scientific examination. It is a settled proposition of law that a conviction cannot be brushed aside if the bloodstain in the material objects remains 'inconclusive', and if such situation arises, then, the Court will search for other credible evidence free of any embellishment which will only point out the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 34. Another discrepancy, which was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.-4 stated that the accused tried to flee away along with the "lathi" in his hand and at that time, he had thrown away the said "lathi" into the nearby jungle, but, according to the seizure list, said "lathi" (weapon of offence) was found in the kitchen, wherefrom, the same was seized. According to us, this is a minor discrepancy and is not sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution case because of overwhelming evidence that blood-stained 'lathi' was seized from the kitchen itself. 35. Again, the fact that the accused tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court should overlook such minor discrepancy when the involvement of the accused in the crime appears to be well established. 35. Again, the fact that the accused tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court should overlook such minor discrepancy when the involvement of the accused in the crime appears to be well established. Here, it will be relevant to say that recovery of weapon of offence is not a sine qua non to return the finding of guilt against the accused when other circumstances establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. 36. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel that P.W.4 is a 'chance witness' and for that matter, the Court should not rely upon the statement of this witness. For convenience, if we revisit the statement of P.W.-4 it transpires that P.W.-4 on the relevant date and time was proceeding towards Bazar and when he reached in front of the house of P.W.-1, he heard some noise of beating coming from the house of P.W.-1 and he rushed to the house and found the accused assaulting the victim with a 'bamboo lathi' causing bleeding injuries on her head. When he raised alarm, the accused tried to flee away towards Bagabasa market but he along with others chased him. In our opinion, P.W.-4 is the most natural witness. 37. To establish that P.W.4 is a 'chance witness' learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bahal Singh (supra) wherein the Apex Court had observed thus:- "10. As to the presence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 at the time and place of occurrence the trial Court entertained grave doubts. If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny. In the instant case, P. Ws. 4 & 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased-one of them a close one. The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial Court. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny. In the instant case, P. Ws. 4 & 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased-one of them a close one. The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial Court. There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses. It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial Judge. 38. Unlike the case referred to supra in the case in hand, we find that P.W.-4 is a resident of Uttar Para, Bagabasa and he has a shop at Bagabasa Market and on the relevant date and time, he was proceeding towards his shop which is not disputed. The resident of P.W.-1 and the deceased is also at Uttar Para, Bagabasa. According to us, it does not appear un-natural that a shop owner would go to his shop in the late afternoon, in all probability after taking rest in the mid afternoon. Added to that, we have noticed that the said plea was not raised by the defence at the time of trial. 39. In the case of Bahal Singh (supra), the trial Court itself raised grave doubt regarding the presence of P.W.- 4 and P.W.-5 who had agnatic relation with the deceased one of them a close one. The trial Court expressed serious doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence and considering the fact of circumstances of that case it was interfered by the High Court. 40. In the instant case, none had said that P.W.-4 had any relation with P.W.-1 and the deceased family. Moreso, the evidence is galore in regard to the fact that P.W.-4 was very much present at the time of occurrence of the incident and he raised alarm, and in response to that alarm, the neighbouring people had rushed to the scene of occurrence. Moreso, the evidence is galore in regard to the fact that P.W.-4 was very much present at the time of occurrence of the incident and he raised alarm, and in response to that alarm, the neighbouring people had rushed to the scene of occurrence. So, in the facts of the case, we may unhesitantly arrive at a finding that P.W.-4 cannot be in any way be said to be a 'chance witness' but a 'natural witness'. 41. Lastly, we have consciously proceeded to examine the fact as to whether at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was suffering from 'unsoundness of mind' as contemplated in Section 84 of the IPC. 42. Section 84 of the IPC reads as under:- "84. Act of a person of unsound mind-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law" 43. Before entering the legal aspect on the 'plea of insanity' as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we may quickly read over the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 44. In reply to the incriminating materials for which he was noticed, nowhere the accused had taken the plea that prior or after the occurrence more importantly at the time of the commission of the offense, he had been suffering from "unsoundness of mind''. We have noticed in the question No.3 put to him which is as follows:- "Q.No.3 He further stated that on 10.02.2016 you came to his residence and also stayed there on that day. What do you have to say in regard this? Ans: It is false, I went to their house on in the morning." 45. At the end, the following question was put to him:- "Q.No.79. Will you adduce the evidence in your defence? Ans: No sir." 46. As such, it is aptly clear that the accused never said anywhere at any point of time in course of the trial that he was a person suffering from 'unsoundness of mind'. 47. At the end, the following question was put to him:- "Q.No.79. Will you adduce the evidence in your defence? Ans: No sir." 46. As such, it is aptly clear that the accused never said anywhere at any point of time in course of the trial that he was a person suffering from 'unsoundness of mind'. 47. It is a pristine rule that onus on the accused is not as heavy as on the prosecution in the criminal case and the burden on the accused is not a honourious as that which lies on the prosecution. Prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused can discharge the onus by proving preponderance of probability. Again, when the onus is shifted on to the accused, he is not required to furnish that standard of proof which is required for prosecution. If evidence on behalf of the accused invests the plea with probability, he will get the benefit of doubt and probability of the version of the accused, at least, to that extent that it casts doubt on the prosecution case. 48. To earn the exemption under Section 84 of the IPC, defense has to prove the 'insanity' of the accused, at least by way of proving preponderance of probability. Behaviour antecedent, attendant and subsequent to the event of offence may be relevant in finding mental condition at the time of the commission of offense but not those remote in time. It is only 'unsoundness of mind' which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form the ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. The nature and extent of 'unsoundness of mind' required being such as would make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law. 49. In the instant case, we have given our anxious effort in our quest to substantiate the plea of 'unsoundness of mind' or 'insanity' as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our quest, we have taken into account, the conduct of the accused and the motive of the accused to cause assault and also his subsequent conduct after the crime. In our quest, we have taken into account, the conduct of the accused and the motive of the accused to cause assault and also his subsequent conduct after the crime. As we said in the earlier part of our finding that the accused assaulted his deceased-sister for her refusal to meet his demand of paying some money to him, which he confessed when he was caught hold by P.W.-4 and other witnesses on the road approaching Bagabasa Market. We do not find any reason not to admit this confession in evidence as it is relevant to the fact of killing Dipali as contemplated in Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., as it tantamounts to extra-judicial confession which the accused made immediately after the incident to the witnesses. We are not oblivious that the Court always will look for the motive behind the commission of crime, albeit, establishing motive is not a sine qua non to return a finding of guilt against an accused committing crime. It is also equally true that Court should read the confessional statement with greater caution. 50. Regarding the evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession we would like to extract below the observation made by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505 :- "There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extrajudicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extrajudicial confession a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused the words spoken to by the witnesses are dear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then, after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test, on the touchstone of credibility, if he passes the test, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. In such a circumstance to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. In such a circumstance to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon." 51. In the case of Sahadevan and anr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported on (2012) 6 SCC 403 , the Apex Court on culmination of its previous decisions led down the following principles:- "Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. It should inspire confidence. An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 52. In the case in hand, we find the accused confessed, as stated here-in-above while he was not in police custody and made it voluntarily being asked by P.W.-4 which is corroborated by other witnesses and thus inspires out confidence since the witnesses who deposed about the extrajudicial confessions made by the accused-appellant have been found to be quite reliable and trustworthy, and the words spoken by them are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime. 53. However, the conduct of the accused prior to or after the commission of the crime is very much relevant to establish the fact related to the crime and is admissible to the evidence under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. 53. However, the conduct of the accused prior to or after the commission of the crime is very much relevant to establish the fact related to the crime and is admissible to the evidence under Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. More so, P.W.-4, Paltu Nama, the eye-witness to the incident immediately disclosed about the commission of crime by the accused-appellant to the neighbouring people when they rushed to the scene of occurrence. The statements of such witnesses are very much relevant and admissible as evidence of res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 54. What has been gleaned in the case in our hand that apart from the prosecution witnesses that on 11.02.2016, the accused was very much present in the house of the appellant is substantiated by the statement of the accused himself as surfaced from his examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. when he himself revealed that he went to the house of P.W.-1 and his deceased-sister on 11.02.2016, though not on 10.02.2016. Again, his conduct that immediately after the incident he tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence when P.W.-4 accompanied by other local persons interception him on the road leaves no room for us to come to a finding that at the time of the commission of crime, he was suffering from 'unsoundness of mind' or 'insanity'. 55. What has come to light from this conduct of the convict-appellant, is that, at the time when the incident had taken place, the convict-appellant was in such a state of mind that he was able to understand about his acts and conduct. Further, he was able to understand that he committed a crime and for that reason he tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence. In our opinion, where the accused was able to understand the fact that he committed a crime and it was necessary to leave the place immediately and also was in a position to remember what he had committed and divulged the same to the person or persons who were present and interacted with him after the commission of the crime, in that situation, the accused should not be said to be of 'unsoundness of mind' or a person suffering from 'mental disorder' which impaired his thought process and intelligence. 56. 56. In our considered view, to invoke the defence of 'insanity' it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from the disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong. The mere fact that on former occasions, the accused had been occasionally subjected to 'insane', 'delusion' or had suffered from 'derangement’ of the mind or that subsequently he had at times behaved like a mentally deficient person, is per se and insufficient to bring his case within the exemption provided by Section 84 of IPC. Mere abnormality of mind by partial delusion does not afford any protection under Section 84 of the IPC. 57. In this view of the matter, the suggestion put forth by the defence to some of the witnesses, particularly P.W.-1 when he stated that on previous occasions, he took the accused i.e. his brother-in-law for his proper medical treatment before the alleged incident or for that matter of fact, the accused was referred to a Physiatric Hospital by a physiatrist, Dr. B. Roy would not per se enough to bring his case within the exemption provided under Section 84 of IPC. 58. However, on cautious scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, from the evidence of P.W.-7, Dr. Rajbithi Debnath, it leads us to hold that the accused-Subash Ch. Nama Das did not assault his deceased sister with the clear intention to kill her. There was no premeditation behind the killing of his sister. Dr. Rajbithi Debnath has clearly stated in the cross-examination that the last injury might have caused due to a sudden fall on a hard substance. 59. Keeping in mind, the aforesaid proven facts and circumstances, we endorse the view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge to convert the sentence of the accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 60. Having held so, the finding of conviction and sentence as returned by the learned Addl. District Judge are not interfered with and we give our stamp on the said conviction and sentence imposed upon the convict-appellant. 61. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.