JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Sr. counsel appearing in this case as amicus curiae. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel (Addl. P.P. Assam) appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant. 2. Assailing the judgment and order dated 02-01-2019 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Margherita at Tinsukia in connection with Sessions Case No. 45(M)/2016 convicting the sole appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months, the present appeal from jail has been preferred. 3. The appellant in this case was accused of causing death to his mother, viz. Indramaya Chetry on 16-10-2015 at around 10:00 a.m. by hacking her with a ‘dao’. Another son of the victim, viz. Prakash Chetry has lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of the Lekhapani Police Station reporting the incident. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 142/2015 was registered on 16-10-2015 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector of Police Sri Pratim Gogoi for carrying out investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. After committal of the case to the court of Sessions Judge (FTC) No 1, Margherita at Tinsukia, charge was framed by the learned trial court against the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused, to which, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the appellant/accused was subjected to trial. 4. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home charge the prosecution side had examined 11 (eleven) witnesses. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case of the accused is one of total denial. However, the defense side did not adduce any evidence. On considering the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court has held that the charge brought against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the defense side did not adduce any evidence. On considering the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court has held that the charge brought against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court had also observed that the statement of the witness PW-5 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though not exhibited or proved by the prosecution, was a corroborative piece of evidence and since the statement was available on record, judicial notice of the same was taken by the learned court below so as to convict the appellant. The learned trial court had also taken note of the confession made by the appellant before some of the witnesses in presence of the police by holding that such admission of guilt by the accused person would be relevant fact under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. Goswami, learned amicus curiae has argued that the statement of witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a piece of substantive evidence and therefore, the same ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court for convicting the accused. In support of his above argument, Mr. Goswami has relied upon and referred to a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras rendered in the case of R. Murugesan vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, (2014) 5 RCR (Cri.) 125 (DB). 6. By referring to the evidence available on record the learned amicus curiae has further argued that the alleged confession of the accused made in presence of a Police Officer and during the course of investigation was not admissible in evidence in view of Sections 25/ 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Notwithstanding the same, the learned court below had erroneously relied upon the alleged confession of the accused made in presence of the police. It is also the submission of Mr. Goswami that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution side has failed to prove each link in the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charge brought against the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the IPC. Referring to the discovery of a ‘dao’ by the Police on being led by the accused, Mr. Goswami submits that the ‘dao’ was not sent for FSL. Referring to the discovery of a ‘dao’ by the Police on being led by the accused, Mr. Goswami submits that the ‘dao’ was not sent for FSL. Mere discovery of the ‘dao’ would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused/ appellant had committed the offence unless the prosecution succeeds in establishing the link between the ‘dao’ and the offence. In support of his above arguments Mr. Goswami has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 . The learned amicus curiae, therefore, submits that the present is a fit case for acquittal of the appellant by setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. 7. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, on the other hand, submits that the deceased is the mother of the appellant and they used to live in the same house. After the incident had occurred, several witnesses had seen the accused sitting in the veranda of the house while his mother was lying critically injured in the courtyard. There was also discovery of the ‘dao’ on being led by the accused. Therefore, the charge brought against the accused/ appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Bhuyan has, however, fairly submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence and the alleged confession of guilt by the accused in presence of police would also not be admissible in law. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and have also analyzed the evidence available on record. The question as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the appellant/ accused under Section 302 of the IPC would have to be answered upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Therefore, it would be necessary for us to discuss the evidence brought on record. 9. The FIR lodged on 16-10-2015 discloses that the victim was taken to Lekhapani Hospital in an injured state for treatment wherefrom, she was referred to the Assam Medical College & Hospital (AMCH) at Dibrugarh but the Doctors had declared her brought dead. Dr. Therefore, it would be necessary for us to discuss the evidence brought on record. 9. The FIR lodged on 16-10-2015 discloses that the victim was taken to Lekhapani Hospital in an injured state for treatment wherefrom, she was referred to the Assam Medical College & Hospital (AMCH) at Dibrugarh but the Doctors had declared her brought dead. Dr. Subhajyoti Deka was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at the AMCH, Dibrugarh on 17-10-2015 when the dead body of Indramaya Chetry was brought for post mortem examination at about 01:00 p.m. The post mortem examination was conducted under his supervision. Dr. Subhajyoti Deka was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1). This witness has proved the postmortem report (Exhibit-1) by identifying his signature therein as well as the signature of Prof. Dr. Rupak Gogoi, HoD, Forensic Medicine, AMCH, Dibrugarh with an endorsement that he concurs with the view expressed by PW-1. According to the postmortem report, the following injuries were found in the dead-body: “Injuries 1. Stitched wound of 6 cm present over the forehead midline, 3 cm above the glabella, extending to the scalp, obliquely placed. 2. Chop wound of 16 cm x 2 cm present over the posterior region of occipital bone, obliquely, brain deep, occipital protuberance to the left 4.5 cm medical to the left mastoid process, 11 cm from it. Margins are sharp. Scalp, membrane and brain cut. 3. Incised wound of size 11 cm x 1 cm present over the left side of the neck extending from 1.5 cm right to left, lower portion of trachea, 5 cm above the sternal notch and 5 cm above the lateral 1/3rd of clavicle (tissue deep).” The Doctor has opined that death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained, as described. All injuries were ante mortem and caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. Approximate time since death was 18 to 24 hours. The cross-examination of PW-1 was declined. 10. From the medical evidence brought on record it is firmly established that the deceased Indramaya Chetry had died a homicidal death due to the grievous injuries caused to her in the vital parts of the body by sharp cutting weapon. 11. The informant Sri Prakash Chetry was examined as the second prosecution witness (PW-2). 10. From the medical evidence brought on record it is firmly established that the deceased Indramaya Chetry had died a homicidal death due to the grievous injuries caused to her in the vital parts of the body by sharp cutting weapon. 11. The informant Sri Prakash Chetry was examined as the second prosecution witness (PW-2). This witness has deposed that accused Arjun Chetry @ Ron Bahadur Chetry was his elder brother and deceased Indramaya Chetry was his mother. On the day of the occurrence, at about 10:00 a.m. when he was in his shop at that time, his nephew Deben Chetry came to him and told that someone has killed his mother. Then he went to the house of Arjun and found his mother lying in the courtyard. He had noticed injuries on the head of his mother and blood was oozing out from the head. At that time, he found his elder brother (accused) sitting on a chair in the varanda. On being asked, his elder brother (accused) told him that he did not know how his mother died. At that time his mother was alive. The victim was taken to the Lekhapani Police Station and from there, to the Lekhapani Hospital wherefrom, she was referred to Margherita Civil Hospital. The victim was then referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh. On the way to Dibrugarh, she succumbs to her injuries. On the same day, postmortem was conducted on the dead body at the AMCH, Dibrugarh and on the next day the dead body of his mother was brought back home. PW-2 has further stated that his mother used to reside with the accused in his house. His elder brother/accused did nothing for his livelihood and he used to demand money from his mother. The PW-2 has confirmed that he had lodged the ejahar Exhibit-2 with the Police and when the Police came, his brother/accused had confessed to have killed his mother. This witness has also deposed that when the Police brought the accused to his house, one ‘dao’ was recovered on being led and shown by the accused. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that when he went to the house of the accused his sister-in-law Bhadramaya Chetry had told him that someone had assaulted his mother and fled way towards the river. 12. PW-3 Smti. Shobha Chetry is the wife of the informant. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that when he went to the house of the accused his sister-in-law Bhadramaya Chetry had told him that someone had assaulted his mother and fled way towards the river. 12. PW-3 Smti. Shobha Chetry is the wife of the informant. She has also deposed that her mother-in-law Indramaya Chetry used to stay with the accused in his house. On the day of the incidence, Bhadramaya Chetry, i.e. the wife of the accused came to their house and told her that the deceased Indramaya Chetry was cut by someone. Hearing the news, she went to the house of the Arjun Chetry and found her mother-in-law lying on the ground in injured condition. In the meantime, her husband also arrived there and took her mother-in-law to the Margherita Hospital. At that time, the accused was found sitting on a chair in the varanda. Chandan Chetry, i.e. the son of the accused had disclosed before her that his father had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. PW-3 has also stated that the accused used to quarrel with her mother-in-law for money. When the Police came, the accused brought out a ‘dao’ and handed over the same to the Police in her presence. 13. Sri Deben Chetry who is a neighbour of the informant was examined as prosecution witness No. 4(PW-4). He has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at around 10:00- 10:30 a.m. his wife had informed him over telephone that deceased had been cut by someone. Hearing the news, he went to the house of the accused and found him sitting on a chair in the veranda. He had also found the deceased lying on the ground. Another son of the deceased, i.e. the informant came there and took the deceased to the hospital. On the way to AMCH, Dibrugarh the victim succumbed to her injuries. The Police came and on being asked, the accused had admitted that he had assaulted his mother. According to PW-4, such admission of guilt by the accused was made to the Police in his presence. Thereafter, the Police took the accused to the Police Station and again brought him back to his house. This time the Police had recovered one ‘dao’ on being led and shown by the accused. During his cross-examination, this witness could not be shaken. 14. Smti. Bhadramaya Chetry was examined as PW-5. Thereafter, the Police took the accused to the Police Station and again brought him back to his house. This time the Police had recovered one ‘dao’ on being led and shown by the accused. During his cross-examination, this witness could not be shaken. 14. Smti. Bhadramaya Chetry was examined as PW-5. She is the wife of the accused. Her statement was also recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she had stated that her husband used to consume alcohol from the morning and used to demand money from her and her mother-in-law for that purpose. On 16-10-2015, at around 08:00 a.m. she was plastering mud over the bamboo walls. At that time, her husband was demanding money from her and her mother-in-law for purchasing alcohol. She had refused to give money to the accused. Then her husband (accused) and mother-in-law entered into a quarrel over money in front of their house. Suddenly she had heard her mother-in-law screaming. Then she came out of the house and found her mother-in-law lying on the ground and her husband was dealing blows on the back of her mother-in-law with a “kalam katari” (pruning knife). She had rushed to help her mother-in-law. After that her husband went away and after washing the knife he had kept it in the kitchen. As she was in her wits end after witnessing the insane act of her husband, she had told the villagers that one insane person had hacked her mother-in-law. Since she was frightened to see the gathering of so many persons, hence, she told that the insane person ran towards the river but actually it was her husband who had hacked her mother-in-law. However, in her deposition before the court the PW-5 did not say so. PW-5 did not support the prosecution case as a result of which, she was declared as a hostile witness. 15. In her deposition before the court, the PW-5 had stated that on the day of the incident she had gone to the field with cows and when she returned home, she found her mother-in-law lying on the ground in injured condition. At that time, her husband was found sleeping inside the house. On being asked, her husband had replied that he did not see as to who had assaulted his mother-in-law. At that time, her husband was found sleeping inside the house. On being asked, her husband had replied that he did not see as to who had assaulted his mother-in-law. During her cross-examination by the prosecution side, PW-5 had denied the suggestion that she did not state before the Police that four days prior to the incident her mother-in-law had sold one pair of bullocks for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- and on the day of the incident her husband had asked for the said amount from her mother-in-law. PW-5 has, however, admitted that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had been recorded by the Magistrate. What would be significant to note herein that although PW-5 had turned hostile, yet, this witness was neither confronted with her previous statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor was her statement proved by the prosecution side. 16. Sri Chandra Bahadur Chetry (PW-6) has deposed that on the day of the incident, he was away from his house and on the next day accused Arjun Chetry had confessed before the public in his presence that he had killed his mother Indramaya Chetry with a handless dao. The Police came and then accused Arjun Chetry himself handed over the ‘dao’ to the Police. 17. PW-7 Shyam Chetry has deposed that when Police came, the accused Arjun Chetry himself stated before the Police that he had killed his mother and had produced a handless ‘dao’ to the Police. At that time, many people were present there. The ‘dao’ was seized by the Police vide seizure list Exhibit-3 which contains his signature Exhibit-3(2). Materials Exhibit-1 is the said dao. 18. Sri Keshab Sarma is known to both the accused and the deceased. He was examined as PW-8. He is another seizure witness of Exhibit-3 and has identified his signature Exhibit-3(3) in the seizure list. This witness has stated that he had heard from the informant that his mother had died. On the same day, Police came and he also went to the house of the accused. The accused was sitting on the front side of the veranda. 19. Sri Prateem Gogoi, SI had conducted the investigation in connection with Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 142/2015 and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. He was examined as the ninth prosecution witness (PW-9). On the same day, Police came and he also went to the house of the accused. The accused was sitting on the front side of the veranda. 19. Sri Prateem Gogoi, SI had conducted the investigation in connection with Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 142/2015 and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. He was examined as the ninth prosecution witness (PW-9). The Investigating Officer (I/O) has deposed to the effect that on 16-10-2015, when he was on duty at Lekhapani Police Station, on that day, at about 04:00 p.m., Prakash Chetry came to the Police Station and lodged an ejahar saying that at around 10:00 a.m. on that day his mother Indramaya Chetry was killed by his elder brother Ron Bahadur Chetry with a ‘dao’ when a quarrel took place between them on property dispute. The injured was taken to Lekhapani Hospital from where she was referred to Dibrugarh. But the Doctor declared her brought dead. PW-9 has further stated that he had interrogated the informant at the Police Station and then he went to the place of occurrence and found accused Arjun Chetry in the house. He had noticed clotted blood in the courtyard. On being asked, Arjun Chetry did not reply anything. He then took accused Arjun Chetry to his custody. He had also recorded the statement of the witness found there, prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-4), recorded the statement of the wife of the accused in the Police Station. On interrogation, Bhadramaya Chetry, i.e. the wife of the accused had disclosed that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At that time she was plastering the floor of the house. When she came out after hearing cries of the deceased she had noticed that her husband was standing there with a ‘dao’ in his hand and she had seen her husband assaulting the deceased twice with a dao. Thereafter, Arjun Chetry slipped away towards the kitchen, washed away the ‘dao’ and went inside the house. When she raised an alarm the neighbouring people gathered there. On the fear that the villagers might assault her husband, she had narrated a story saying that one mad person had assaulted the deceased. Thereafter, Arjun Chetry slipped away towards the kitchen, washed away the ‘dao’ and went inside the house. When she raised an alarm the neighbouring people gathered there. On the fear that the villagers might assault her husband, she had narrated a story saying that one mad person had assaulted the deceased. PW-9 has also stated that during interrogation of the accused, he had admitted that he had ill feelings for his mother as she was not giving him proper share in the property for which he had assaulted her but not with the intention to kill her. The accused had also admitted before him that he had washed the ‘dao’ and kept the same in the kitchen and would be able to show it to him. Next day, he seized the ‘dao’ on being shown by the accused from the kitchen of the house vide seizure list Exhibit-3. PW-9 has also confirmed that the statement of Bhadramaya Chetry had been recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He had collected the postmortem report, inquest report and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit-5) against the accused Arjun Chetry which was under Section 302 of the IPC. The material Exhibit-1 was the ‘dao’ (kalam katari) which was seized by him. The PW-9 has also brought the contradiction in the evidence of PW-5 on record. During cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that he did not record the statement of Chandan Chetry nor did he send the seized ‘dao’ to the FSL for examination. 20. PW-10 Sri Sankar Chetry is another son of the deceased and the younger brother of the accused. This witness has stated that the incident had occurred when he was in the school. At that time, his nephew Samir Chetry had informed him over phone that some miscreants had inflicted cut injuries to his mother and asked him to come immediately. He immediately went to the house of the deceased but the people present there told him that his mother had been taken to Lekhapani Hospital. He went to the Lekhapani Hospital and found his mother but she was not in a position to speak. PW-10 has stated that he had noticed cut injuries on the head, backside of the neck and neck of the deceased. Later on, he came to know that Arjun Chetry had killed his mother and had also confessed is guilt. 21. He went to the Lekhapani Hospital and found his mother but she was not in a position to speak. PW-10 has stated that he had noticed cut injuries on the head, backside of the neck and neck of the deceased. Later on, he came to know that Arjun Chetry had killed his mother and had also confessed is guilt. 21. PW-11 Dhan Bahadur Chetry is the brother-in-law of the accused Arjun Chetry. He had gone to AMCH, Dibrugarh wherein the deceased was admitted and succumbed to her injuries. PW-11 is an inquest witness and proved his signature in the inquest report Exhibit-6. 22. The accused has admitted in his 313 statement that his mother was staying with him but has maintained that he did not kill his mother nor did he know as to how she died. 23. From an analysis of the testimonies of PWs. 2 to 4 and 8 what can be seen is that the occurrence took place at around 10:00 a.m. on 16-10-2015 and soon after the occurrence, the accused was found sitting in the veranda of his house not doing anything to save his mother who was still alive and lying in the courtyard in an injured state. PW-3 has corroborated the version of the PW-2 and further stated that the son of the accused viz. Chandan Chetri had told her that his father had inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. However, PW-3 did not say so before the police. PW-4 has also stated that the accused was found sitting on a chair in the varanda and similar is the version of PW-8. If the mother of a person is seen lying in the courtyard in a grievously injured state on being struck by some miscreant then also, it would be difficult to believe that instead of taking her to the hospital her son would be sitting in the varanda and quietly watching her unless he himself had a role to play in her injury and wanted her to die. The above conduct of the appellant, in our opinion, would raise a strong presumption against the accused appellant thereby suggesting that he had a role to play in causing the injuries on his mother. 24. The above conduct of the appellant, in our opinion, would raise a strong presumption against the accused appellant thereby suggesting that he had a role to play in causing the injuries on his mother. 24. There is evidence to show that the deceased had suffered multiple cut injuries leading to her death and the materials available on record goes to show that the Police had recovered ‘dao’ used in the incident on being led by the accused. The said fact finds mention in the case diary. The recovery of the ‘dao’ on being led by the accused/ appellant find mention in the testimony of the I/O (PW-9) and the said fact finds due corroboration from the testimony of PWs. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. The seized ‘dao’ Material Ext-1 had also been produced before the court. 25. PW-9 has deposed that on reaching the house of the accused he was found sitting in the veranda and on being asked by him, the accused did not reply anything. 26. Witnesses PWs. 4 and 6 have stated that the accused had confessed his guilt before the Police and the said fact has also been confirmed by the I/O (PW-9). However, from the evidence on record, we find that such confession was made by the accused before the Police during the course of investigation when he was in Police custody. Therefore, in view of the provision of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, confession of the accused cannot be proved in the eye of law. 27. Coming to the testimony of PW-5, i.e. the wife of the accused she has stated that she was present at home at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, she was in all likelihood, an eye witness to the occurrence. However, as noted above, PW-5 had turned hostile during trial. Reasons as to why she did not support the prosecution case is quite understandable which is nothing else but to save her husband from going to jail. However, the facts remain that, having been declared as a hostile witness, her evidence, save and except that part of her testimony which finds corroboration from the other materials on record, cannot be relied upon. 28. As noted above, the statement of the PW-5 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not proved. However, the facts remain that, having been declared as a hostile witness, her evidence, save and except that part of her testimony which finds corroboration from the other materials on record, cannot be relied upon. 28. As noted above, the statement of the PW-5 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not proved. Even if the same was proved, law is well settled that statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the witnesses but not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the observation of the learned trial court in taking judicial notice of the statement of the PW-5 and using the same for conviction of the accused, in our opinion, was not correct. Likewise, the alleged confession of guilt by the accused before the Police would also not be admissible in the eye of law and therefore, such confession cannot be relied upon by the court for conviction of the accused. However, even if these two circumstances are excluded from the purview of proven facts even then we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the following chain of circumstances: (a) That the incident occurred on 16-10-2015 at about 10:00 a.m. in the house of the accused. (b) The deceased used to live with the accused in his own house. (c) Soon after the occurrence, the accused was found sitting in the varanda watching his mother die in the courtyard in an injured condition doing nothing. (d) On being asked as to how the incident took place the accused/ appellant did not reply. (e) Police had seized the ‘dao’ used in the occurrence from the house of the accused on being led by him. 29. The cardinal principles applicable for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . In that decision the golden principles or the panchasheel of proving of a case based on circumstantial evidence has been laid down which are as follows: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. In that decision the golden principles or the panchasheel of proving of a case based on circumstantial evidence has been laid down which are as follows: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 30. If the principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) is applied to the facts of this case then the irresistible conclusion that would follow is that it was none other than the accused/ appellant Arjun Chetry who had hacked his mother with a ‘dao’ (kalam katari) causing grievous injury on her body leading to her death. In other words, we find that the prosecution had succeeded in cogently establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances which excludes all other hypothesis except the one which is consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 31. We may hasten to add here that PW-5, i.e. the wife of the deceased had tried to project a different story by stating that at the time of the occurrence the accused was sleeping inside the house and an unknown person had assaulted her mother-in-law and ran away. However, such explanation furnished by the PW-5 does not at all find support from the materials available on record. No such person was either seen or heard of by any person of that locality. Moreover, the PW-5 had changed her version from time to time. Therefore, the version offered by the PW-5, in our view, is unworthy of any weightage, whatsoever. 32. We also find that the explanation furnished by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was sleeping inside the house when the incident occurred is not a plausible explanation and hence, not worthy of any value. Therefore, the version offered by the PW-5, in our view, is unworthy of any weightage, whatsoever. 32. We also find that the explanation furnished by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was sleeping inside the house when the incident occurred is not a plausible explanation and hence, not worthy of any value. At 10:00 in the morning, it is very unlikely that any person in a village set up would be sleeping inside his house. The incident occurred in the house of the accused wherein he was present but the accused could not reply to the query made by the I/O (PW-9) as to what had happened. Moreover, even after seeing his injured mother lying in the courtyard, the accused did nothing to save her and there is no explanation for not doing so. Such conduct of the accused, viewed in the light of the materials available on record, in our considered opinion, would provide additional links in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 33. Having held as above, taking note of the materials available on record suggesting that there was some quarrel between the accused and his deceased mother just before the occurrence, we have made an attempt to examine as to whether, any of the exceptions of Section 300 of IPC would be applicable in this case and to that extent, if the conviction of the accused could be converted to one under either part of Section 304 IPC meriting a lesser punishment. However, after careful scrutiny of the materials on record we do not find any evidence available on record justifying such a conclusion. We say so for the following reasons: Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was grave and sudden provocation to the accused just before the occurrence. Secondly, the accused had dealt multiple cut injuries on the vital parts of the body of the victim, who was his mother, with a sharp cutting weapon thereby clearly establishing his intention to cause death to her. Thirdly, even after the occurrence, the accused was sitting in the veranda of his house and did not do anything to save the life of his injured mother who was fighting for her life in front of his eyes. Fourthly, it has come out from the evidence of PWs. Thirdly, even after the occurrence, the accused was sitting in the veranda of his house and did not do anything to save the life of his injured mother who was fighting for her life in front of his eyes. Fourthly, it has come out from the evidence of PWs. 2 and 9 that the accused used to demand money from the deceased and he was harbouring ill feelings towards the victim on property matters. Under the circumstances, pre-meditation on the part of the accused to cause death to his mother is self-evident. 34. For the reasons stated above this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. We affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC as well as the sentences awarded to him by the learned trial court. 35. Send back the LCR. 36. Before parting with the record, we wish to put our appreciation on record as regards the valuable services rendered by Mr. K. Goswami, learned amicus curiae appearing in this case and recommend that just remuneration, as may be permissible under the existing norms, be paid to him.