JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor (APP for short) for the State. 2. The notice issued to the complainant/informant (respondent no. 2) by registered post with acknowledgement due, was received by one Maya Tamang on 18.06.2020. Hence, notice by usual process was issued by this Court. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Changlang had submitted a report dated 17.11.2021, to the effect that the wife of the complainant, namely, Smt. Gopi Maya Lama had informed that the complainant/ informant had died on 10.09.2019. Accordingly, by virtue of order dated 02.12.2021, it was provided that in the meantime if the victim or any other private person on their own volition comes forward before the Court with a pleader for participating in the proceeding, grant of permission to such person would be considered as per law. However, the Court had observed that the case was otherwise ready for hearing. 3. The appellant, namely, Ram Chetry, who is currently lodged in District Jail, Tezu has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 17.10.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirap, Khonsa in connection with Khonsa Sessions Case No. 26/2019, arising from Jairampur P.S. Case No. 27/2014, by which the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default clause of undergoing a further simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months. 4. The prosecution case was set rolling by one Rup Bahadur Lama, with the lodging of an FIR dated 01.10.2014, before the Jairampur P.S., alleging that on 30.09.2014, at around 1930 hours, the appellant had a quarrel with Mundalal Murah (deceased), who was one of their labour, and that in the morning of 01.10.2014, at 0600 am., Mundalal Murah was found on the roadside of Kharsang Jairampur Road in seriously injured condition. On being asked by witnesses, the victim had informed that he was assaulted with a dao by the appellant. The injured labour was evacuated to CHC, Jairampur, but he succumbed to his injury on 01.10.2014 at about 0900 hours. Accordingly, the police had registered Jairampur P.S. Case No. 27/2014, and the Officer-In-Charge took up the investigation. 5. On being asked by witnesses, the victim had informed that he was assaulted with a dao by the appellant. The injured labour was evacuated to CHC, Jairampur, but he succumbed to his injury on 01.10.2014 at about 0900 hours. Accordingly, the police had registered Jairampur P.S. Case No. 27/2014, and the Officer-In-Charge took up the investigation. 5. Inquest was conducted on 01.10.2014 and witnessed by three persons, who had put their respective signature on the inquest report. During inquest, a local daowas found beside the dead body, which was recovered by a boy, named Chingku. As the witnesses disclosed it to be the weapon of offence, used by the appellant, the same was seized vide MR No. 21/14 dated 01.10.2014 at 1210 hours. Accordingly, the I.O. had examined the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet no. 47/2014 dated 20.12.2014 was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 6. After compliance of the initial formalities, the trial had commenced in the Court of Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu. But, after creation of Court of Sessions Judge at Tirap District, Khonsa, the case was transferred to the said Court for trial. The learned Sessions Court had framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and on being read over, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to stand trial. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, viz., (1) Chingku Ghatwal (PW-1), (2) Rup Bahadur Lama (PW-2), (3) Binod Murah (PW-3), (4) Jaggu Tamang (PW-4), (5) Kenya Lungphi (PW-5), (6) Lal Bahadur Rai (PW-6), (7) Wangnyak Hakun (PW-7), (8) Kumar Rai @ Sina Rai (PW-8), (9) Jagmaya Lama (PW-9), (10) Auity Maya @ Kanchi (PW-10), (11) Shom Bahadur Tamang (PW-11), (12) Dr. Tangko Kodai (PW-12), and (13) Tomai Wangpan (PW-13) in support of the charge. The following were exhibited by the prosecution, viz., (i) FIR (Ext.1), (ii) Seizure Memo (Ext.2), (iii) Inquest report (Ext.3), (iv) Post Mortem report (Ext.4), (v) Photograph of deceased (Ext.5), (vi) Rough Sketch Map (Ext.6), (vii) Charge-sheet (Ext.7), (viii) Medical fitness report of appellant-accused (Ext.8), (ix) Dao (Mat.Ext.1). Tangko Kodai (PW-12), and (13) Tomai Wangpan (PW-13) in support of the charge. The following were exhibited by the prosecution, viz., (i) FIR (Ext.1), (ii) Seizure Memo (Ext.2), (iii) Inquest report (Ext.3), (iv) Post Mortem report (Ext.4), (v) Photograph of deceased (Ext.5), (vi) Rough Sketch Map (Ext.6), (vii) Charge-sheet (Ext.7), (viii) Medical fitness report of appellant-accused (Ext.8), (ix) Dao (Mat.Ext.1). Thereafter, the learned Court below had confronted the appellant with incriminating material that had appeared against him and recorded the same under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant took the defence of total denial and stated that earlier he use to work with one Tamang for sawing timber and they use to have some argument but without doing any offence and that he had handed over the appellant to the police and it was also stated that he had not killed Mundalal, who was stronger than him and for which he would not be able to kill him. However, he had declined to adduce any defence evidence. The only point of determination framed by the learned Sessions Judge, was as follows- “Whether the accused person, namely, Ram Chetry has inflicted cut injury upon deceased Mundalal Murah causing his death and as to whether accused has committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s 302 IPC? 8. The learned Sessions Judge had referred to the evidence of the PW-1, who had stated that he knew the appellant standing on the dock and that on one evening of 2014, during Durga Puja, when he along with PW-4 was coming back from Jairampur to Taipong village, they had seen the appellant and the deceased fighting with each other and that both of them were under the influence of liquor. He had stated that in the night he had halted in the house of his uncle and that on the next morning he had seen the deceased with injury on the same road nearby the place where he had seen them on the previous night. He had stated that the deceased had cut injury on his head was still alive. In his cross-examination, PW-1 had stated that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and that he had seen the deceased lying injured at a distance of about 1 (one) km. from the place where he had seen him quarreling with the appellant. 9. In his cross-examination, PW-1 had stated that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and that he had seen the deceased lying injured at a distance of about 1 (one) km. from the place where he had seen him quarreling with the appellant. 9. The learned Sessions Judge had referred to the evidence of PW2, i.e. the informant, who had stated that he can identify the appellant on the dock, but could not recollect his name. He had stated that one morning during the Durga Puja, the master of the appellant, whose name he had forgot, had taken him to a place where the injured person was lying unconscious and that when they took the injured person to the medical, on the way he had succumbed to his injury. He had stated that the appellant was present at the spot and he was apprehended and brought to Jairampur P.S., and he got to know that the appellant and the deceased were on the road for whole night. He had stated that he had lodged an FIR but cannot identify the daoshown to him which was seized by the police, but admitted that the dao was seized by the police before him. He had exhibited the FIR filed by him and the seizure memo of the dao along with his signature. During his cross-examination, he had stated that he knew that the appellant was working at Taipong before the said incident and that he had heard that the deceased was killed by the appellant and that he had not seen the incident. 10. The learned Sessions Judge had referred to the evidence of PW3, who had deposed that he knew the appellant on the dock as Chetry and he was working at Taipong. He had also deposed that the incident took place 3-4 years back on Durga Puja, and stated that one morning having heard of the incident, he had visited the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying in injured condition and when they asked about the person who had inflicted the injury, the injured (deceased victim) had disclosed the name of the appellant. The PW-3 had also stated that though they had evacuated the deceased to medical, he had died on the way. The PW-3 had also stated that though they had evacuated the deceased to medical, he had died on the way. He had also deposed that as the appellant was present on spot, they had apprehended and produced him before the police and that while being taken to the police, he was in an inebriated condition and that the police had seized a daofrom him. He had stated that he had seen cut injury on the head of the deceased. In his cross-examination, the PW-3 had denied that the deceased had not mentioned the name of the appellant as person who had assaulted him. He had also stated that at the time of offence, the appellant was working under Yaka and that he had not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. He had also deposed that the daoshown to him in the Court was not the same which was seized by the police. 11. The Court had also relied on the evidence of PW-4, who had stated that he knows the appellant standing on the dock as Chetry and that one day, while he and Chingku were returning to their home at Taipong, they had seen the appellant quarrelling with the deceased. 12. The PW-5 had deposed that while he was approaching towards his farm, he had seen one injured person in the midst of public gathered there and he asked them to take the injured to hospital and left for his destination. 13. The Court had relied on the evidence of PW-6, who had stated that three years back on the occasion of Durga Puja, while he was leaving for ploughing his farm, on way he saw the deceased lying injured on the road and on being asked, he had disclosed the name of Chetry as the person who had assaulted him with a dao and accordingly, he along with others evacuated the deceased to hospital and that he died on way and thereafter, the appellant was apprehended from the road and was handed over to the police. The doctor conducted post mortem examination on the deceased. He had stated that he saw multiple cut injuries on the head and hand of the deceased. In his cross-examination, PW-6 had stated that it was true that the deceased had not mentioned the name Ram, and he had disclosed the surname Chetry as the person who assaulted him. The doctor conducted post mortem examination on the deceased. He had stated that he saw multiple cut injuries on the head and hand of the deceased. In his cross-examination, PW-6 had stated that it was true that the deceased had not mentioned the name Ram, and he had disclosed the surname Chetry as the person who assaulted him. He had also stated that he cannot firmly say that the deceased was killed by Ram Chetry and he denied that the deceased had not taken the name of Chetry as the person who had assaulted him. 14. The learned Sessions Judge had also relied on the evidence of PW-7, who had deposed that he did not know who Ram Chetry is. One morning when he was proceeding towards the market, he noticed the victim lying injured on the road and on being asked, he had disclosed in the presence of many other people who had gathered there that Ram Chetry was the name of the person who had assaulted him. The deceased had died on the way to hospital and that they had gone to the police station and reported the incident. In his cross-examination, the said witness had denied that the deceased had not taken the name of Ram Chetry as the person who had assaulted him and he had admitted as true that he was not acquainted with the appellant, Ram Chetry. 15. The evidence of PWs 8 to 10 are not very material, because the PW-8 had merely deposed to the effect that he knew the appellant, who was roaming as a vagabond, having no permanent address and that he sometimes used to visit his place and that he knew nothing about the case. The PW-9 had deposed that she knew the appellant, standing on the dock, whom she used to call Chetry and that he hails from her same place. She had stated that the victim used to work for her as a labour four years ago and that on one Monday, the deceased was asking for his wages from her, which was paid and thereafter, the deceased went towards the market and never returned, and on the next day she had heard that the deceased was killed by the appellant on the roadside. Similarly, the PW-10 had deposed that she can recognize the appellant-accused, who was standing on the dock and that his name was Ram Chetry. She had deposed that the incident took place at the distance of 3 kms. away from her house and that she had heard about this incident from some other person and that as per her information, the appellant had killed the deceased and that she does not know how and who had killed the deceased. 16. The learned Sessions Judge had relied on the evidence of PW-11 and he had deposed that he can recognize the appellant standing on the dock as they are from the same village, whom he used to call as Chetry. He had seen the dead body but he had not seen any dao. He had put his signature on a paper on being asked by the police. He had seen the police conducting inquest over the dead body and had put his signature on the inquest report and seizure memo and had exhibited the same with his signature. 17. The learned Sessions Judge had also relied on the evidence of the PW-12, the doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination, had exhibited the said Post-Mortem report as Ext.4. She had deposed that on 01.10.2014, she was posted as Medical Officer at Jairampur CHC and on that day, the dead body of the deceased was brought by the personnel of Jairampur PS with a requisition for conducting post-mortem examination. Apart from physical condition of the dead body, she found that the shirt stained with blood and torn near button area for 14cm, face pale, eyes closed, mouth partly opened, rigor mortis present in eye lid, jaw, neck, partial rigor mortis seen upper trunk and lower extremities. Post mortem staining on the back of the body is seen except for the parts directly pressed on occipital shoulder blades, buttocks and posterior aspect of thigh. In her cross-examination, she had stated that the injury found in the dead body were ante-mortem. The following injuries were found on the dead body. (1) Laceration wound: (a) Bone deep/ wound over right side of skull anterior and 9cm above right ear and runs backward and upward for 6 cm. Posterior end lies at 14 cm away from middle of right eyebrow. The following injuries were found on the dead body. (1) Laceration wound: (a) Bone deep/ wound over right side of skull anterior and 9cm above right ear and runs backward and upward for 6 cm. Posterior end lies at 14 cm away from middle of right eyebrow. (b) Bone deep right side o occipital area of 4.5cm, anterior and directed medially and arterially and posterior and directed backward and laterally it lies 25cm behind right eyebrow and 12.5cm from right ear. (c) Muscle deep 1cm to the left of wound (b). (2) Incise wound: (a) Muscle deep 4cm seen over dorsal medial aspect of right hand just distal to wrist joint. (b) 3cm muscle deep over lateral aspect of middle part of left arm. (c) 1cm each skin deep Parma aspect of first phalanx of middle and ring finger (right). (3) Abrasion wound: (a) 2 linear of 2cm and 3cm lying horizontally over right shoulder. (b) 7 angle shaped of 4cm and 5cm over posterior of middle of right arm. (c) Angle shaped of 1.5cm X 1.5cm just above would no.3 (b). (d) 2 x 0.3cm over right side of back 32cm below right mid shoulder and 12cm from the mid vertebral column. (e) 1cm 7cm above leg and lateral aspect of arm. (f) 2cm x 7cm over lateral aspect of left wrist. (g) 2cm/over dorsal lateral aspect of left hand. (h) Linear wound running downward and medially over anterior aspect of left thigh of 14 x 0.1cm. (4) Fracture of 9th rib right seen at posterior aspect of right chest. Contusion of right pleura just below fractured rib seen 1 x 1.2cm. Larynx and trachea healthy. Bruise/contusion 3 x 3.5cm seen on right lower lobe of lung (interior lobe) Heart pale. Left lung, pericardium, vessels, peritoneum, mouth, pharynx, and esophagus intestine are healthy. Liver pale, skin, kidney, bladder, organs of generation external and internal are healthy. (5) Extra vasation of blood in the surrounding tissue of scalp seen, haematoma of 5.5 x 7.6cm over parietal right vision seen. Fracture of right parietal bone (skull) seen. Fragment of bone spindle shaped of 6 x 2cm depressed and impacted inside. Fracture lies/anterior end anterilly and to the right and posterior end facing posterially and medially. It lies 8cm to the right of mid parietal suture and 8cm anterior to mid right parietal occipital suture. Fracture of right parietal bone (skull) seen. Fragment of bone spindle shaped of 6 x 2cm depressed and impacted inside. Fracture lies/anterior end anterilly and to the right and posterior end facing posterially and medially. It lies 8cm to the right of mid parietal suture and 8cm anterior to mid right parietal occipital suture. Extra dural, sub dural and sub arachnoids hemorrhages seen. Contusion of brain at a fracture side (right parietal lobe) seen. Description of injuries: The deceased Mundalal Murah was brought for PME on 01-10-2014 on examination body was fresh, rigor mortis not completely developed, dried mud seen over his neck region, right ear vertex area of head and both legs. Shirt stained with blood, torn at right side near button area of 14cm his pale eye closed. Several injuries seen over the body. On completion of PME, she found that the dead of the deceased was due to head injury, leading to injured brain, haemorrhages and shock. She exhibited her signature and PME Report. 18. The learned Sessions Judge had relied on the evidence of PW13, i.e. the IO of the case. He had deposed that on 01.10.2014, he was posted as Jairampur PS as Officer-In-Charge, and on that day he had received a written FIR submitted by one Rup Bahadur Lama, alleging that at 0630 hrs on the same day, the victim was found on road side of Kharsang Jairampur road in a serious injured condition. On enquiry by the witness, the victim had informed that he was assaulted with a daoby Ram Chetry. The injured victim was evacuated to CHC Jairampur, but on the way he had succumbed to his injuries at 0900 hrs on 01.10.2014. He had registered Jairampur PS Case no. 27/2014 U/S 302 IPC against the appellant and he took up the investigation of the case, and had examined the available witnesses. The appellant, who was apprehended, was examined. During preliminary interrogation, the appellant was under suspected influence of alcohol, as such, complete information could not be extracted from him. He had visited the place of occurrence and necessary investigation was carried out. After requisite investigation, inquest, seizure of recovered weapon of assault, etc., the dead body of the victim was shifted for post-mortem examination to CHC Jairampur, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by PW-12. He had visited the place of occurrence and necessary investigation was carried out. After requisite investigation, inquest, seizure of recovered weapon of assault, etc., the dead body of the victim was shifted for post-mortem examination to CHC Jairampur, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by PW-12. After completion of required legal procedures, the dead body of the victim was handed over to the complainant for the last rites. He had stated that the appellant was arrested, and during his arrest, multiple sign of struggle was evidently found on this person. The appellant was sent for medical examination at CHC Jairampur, where he was examined by the doctor and in his report, the Medical Officer was of the opinion that the bruise over backside of the chest (2.5 x 6.5cm) and upper part of left arm size 5cm x 8cm., lacerated wound over right eyebrow size 2cm x 4cm and over right thumb 1.7cm skin deep were found on the person of appellant. As per the medical report, the appellant had consumed alcohol and was under its influence during examination and was unfit to be kept in police custody and on the advice of the Medical Officer, the arrested appellant was kept under medical observation at CHC Jairampur. The Investigating Officer had also deposed that on completion of investigation, he found that the case is well established against the appellant and accordingly, he had submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 IPC. He had identified the appellant, who was standing on dock and had proved the following exhibits, viz., his signature, FIR, seizure memo, inquest, photographs, rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, charge-sheet, medical report and also the material exhibit (dao). During his cross-examination, the evidence of PW-13 could not be dislodged. He had admitted that he had not sent the seized daofor FSL examination and had stated that as per investigation, the quarrel took place due to the reason that they were under influence of alcohol. 19. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge had arrived at a conclusion that from the evidence, the prosecution had proved it beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Mundalal Murah was caused by accused Ram Chetry. It was also held that there was no iota of doubt to draw an inference that no person other than Ram Chetry had caused the death of the deceased. It was also held that there was no iota of doubt to draw an inference that no person other than Ram Chetry had caused the death of the deceased. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant herein, i.e. Ram Chetry had committed the offence of culpable homicide by killing deceased Mundalal Murah. It was held that the evidence had indicated that both the deceased and the appellant were intoxicated and were threatening to kill each other, which primafaciereveals that the appellant herein, i.e. Ram Chetry had an intention to kill the victim and in the said context, it was held that self-intoxication can never be a ground of defence in any criminal proceeding. Accordingly, it was held that the case did not fall within the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC and that the appellant had committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Be it mentioned herein that it appears that a typographical/ clerical error has crept in para 30 of the impugned judgment, wherein it has been mentioned in the second-last line that “ accused Mundalal Murah has committed offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder.” In other paragraphs 29 to 32, it has been correctly mentioned that the appellant herein, i.e. Ram Chetry had caused the death of the deceased Mundalal Murah. The aforesaid said typing error that has crept in second-last line of para-30 of the impugned judgment has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. 20. The learned amicus curiae had meticulously read out the impugned judgment, evidence of the witnesses, examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., contents of the medical report of the deceased victim as well as of the other exhibits including the FIR. 21. The learned amicus curiae had submitted that the prosecution had not made any attempt to explain the injury on the appellant. It was submitted that the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses, i.e. PW nos. 1 and 4 were not reliable as they did not make any attempt to stop the alleged fight. It was also submitted that PW-1 was a minor and having not spoken with the two, his evidence that the appellant was intoxicated was not believable and accordingly, it was submitted that there were no real eye witness to the alleged fight between the appellant and the victim. It was also submitted that PW-1 was a minor and having not spoken with the two, his evidence that the appellant was intoxicated was not believable and accordingly, it was submitted that there were no real eye witness to the alleged fight between the appellant and the victim. Alternatively, it was submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have believed the statement of PW nos. 1 and 4, who were the alleged eye witness to the fight between the appellant and the victim, then it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to kill the victim. It was also submitted that the seized dao was never sent for forensic examination to ascertain whether it was the weapon of assault and was actually used for the alleged crime and therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted. 22. However, the learned APP had made her submission to defend the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. In support of her submissions, the learned APP has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 : (2018) 0 Supreme(SC) 436, (ii) State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 115 : (2011) 0 Supreme(SC) 842, (iii) Md. Halim Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 5 GLR 114: (2008) (2) GLT 544. 23. On a perusal of the materials available on record, including the LCR, it is seen that the PW-1 and PW-4 were eye-witnesses to the fight between the appellant and the victim since the evening of 30.09.2014, i.e. night prior to 01.10.2014, the date when the victim was found on the road in injured condition. While the cross examination of PW-4 was declined by the defence, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 could not be demolished in cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of the said PW-1 and PW-4, can be said to be of sterling quality, which inspires confidence of the Court. The PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 are the witnesses before whom the victim, who was then alive but in injured condition, had stated that the appellant had inflicted injury on him by a dao. The evidence of PWs 3, 6 and 7 could not be demolished during cross examination. Therefore, the evidence of the said PWs 3, 6 and 7 can be said to be wholly reliable and also inspires confidence of the Court. The evidence of PWs 3, 6 and 7 could not be demolished during cross examination. Therefore, the evidence of the said PWs 3, 6 and 7 can be said to be wholly reliable and also inspires confidence of the Court. The PW-6 had heard that the victim had taken the name of Chetry, but as there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the appellant, the non-uttering of the full name before PW-6 would not bring a dent in his examination-in-chief. Such a statement made by the victim before the PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. From the deposition of PW-12, i.e. the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination of the victim discloses that the victim suffered multiple/three incised wounds, eight abrasion wounds, three lacerated wounds, bruise, contusion, he had also suffered fracture of 9th right rib at posterior aspect of chest. Such injuries cannot be said to be self-inflicted and therefore, leads to the only conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. Under the circumstances, when there are two direct eye-witnesses to the fight between the appellant and the deceased victim which was going on since last evening, and that before dying, the deceased had stated before the people gathered near him that the appellant had injured him with a dao, the chain of circumstances is complete in all respects and lead to the only conclusion that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased victim. 24. In the case of Satpal(supra), there was no eye witness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact that the deceased was last seen with the accused-appellant. By referring to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and several precedents, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India had held, inter-alia, that there was little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. By referring to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and several precedents, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India had held, inter-alia, that there was little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. It was observed that when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse in close proximity of time, the accused owed an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and that if no explanation is forthcoming or information furnished is wrong, or the accused absconds, or motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available in form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused. 25. The statement of the victim before the people gathered near him that the appellant had injured him with dao, would amount to his dying declaration and is otherwise admissible under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, in the case of Md.Halim Ali(supra), the Division Bench of this Court had held that dying declaration itself can be treated as a substantial piece of evidence and can be the basis of the order of conviction and sentence even without corroboration, provided that such dying declaration brings forth a sense of confidence and trust-worthiness in the minds of the Court. In other words, it must be wholly reliable and must inspire the confidence of the Court. The ratio of the said case applies to the present case in hand. 26. One of the submissions of the learned amicus curiae was that the prosecution had not been able to prove the motive for murder. Although it is true that the prosecution has not proved the motive for murder, but the chain of events leads to no other conclusion but that the victim was murdered by the appellant. 26. One of the submissions of the learned amicus curiae was that the prosecution had not been able to prove the motive for murder. Although it is true that the prosecution has not proved the motive for murder, but the chain of events leads to no other conclusion but that the victim was murdered by the appellant. In the case of Arjun Singh(supra), the Supreme Court of India has observed that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally read the mind of another and it was further observed that motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act and that even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, when the victim had died due to several grievous injuries sustained by the victim, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on that ground. Moreover, where ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from medical evidence, finding and guilt can safely be recorded even if motive is not proved. Reference in this context can be made to a decision and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory and Chandigarh, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 380 . 27. The evidence on record does not lead to a presumption that the injury to the deceased, which was caused by the appellant was covered by any of the exceptions as provided under Section 300 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge had rightly held that self-intoxication would not come within the exceptions as the defence did not take and/or made any attempt to prove that the appellant had been intoxicated by the deceased victim. 28. Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge and resultantly, the impugned judgment and sentence passed against the appellant does not warrant any interference. 29. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, Ram Chetry, under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default clause to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months are upheld. 30. The appeal stands dismissed. 31. The learned amicus curiae shall be paid usual honorarium. 32. 29. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, Ram Chetry, under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default clause to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months are upheld. 30. The appeal stands dismissed. 31. The learned amicus curiae shall be paid usual honorarium. 32. Let a free copy of this appellate judgment be served on the appellant, namely, Ram Chetry, currently lodged at District Jail, Tezu. 33. Let the LCR be sent back.