JUDGEMENT Baruah, J. :- The above appeal and the revision are directed against the judgment dated 30-3-93 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 1/92 convicting the accused appellants Mour Uddin Choudhury alias Mour and Jakir Hussain Choudhury alias Boraguta under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. One Wee Khasia, PW-1 lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Algapur Police Station stating, inter alia, that on 24-1-91 at about 9/9.30 a.m. he along with his maternal uncle Danish Khasia, Jamin Khasia, Lobis Khasia and their labourers Bhola and Suyaid Ali and others had been cutting earth in the paddy field near Jitermukh. At that time five accused persons; namely, Mour Ali, Asar Ali, Karum Ali, Bargota and Akil Ali armed with dao, dagger, ballam (spear), pistol etc. came out from the neighbourhood of his homestead and attacked his maternal uncle Danish Khasia causing grievous injuries on his persons. He was taken to Algapur Hospital. However, he died on his way. He also mentioned that the accused persons were inimical to his maternal uncle. On receipt of FIR., police registered a case under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and commenced investigation. During Investigation police examined witnesses and held inquest and also prepared a sketch map. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. Sunil Ranjan Roy, PW-6 held the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Danish Khasia. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, trial commenced. 3. During trial 7 witnesses were examined including Dr. Sunil Ranjan Roy who held the post mortem examination and the Investigating Officer, PW-7 (Jadav Ch. Hazarika). At the time of examination of the witnesses 3 witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution declared those witnesses hostile and with the permission of the Court they were cross-examined by the prosecution. PW-6 Dr. Hazarika). At the time of examination of the witnesses 3 witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution declared those witnesses hostile and with the permission of the Court they were cross-examined by the prosecution. PW-6 Dr. Sunil Ranjan Roy who held the post mortem examination stated in his evidence that he was Medical and Health Officer-I Hailakandi Civil Hospital on 24-1-91. The dead body of the deceased Daniah Khasia was brought before him and the deceased was identified by Home Guard Ajiruddin and Const. No. 1264 Biswesswar Sinha. He performed the post mortem examination and found the following injuries: " 1) One half circular incised injury, size 10 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on occipital region. 2) One incised injury, 2 cm x cm x 1 cm on the right side of the head. 3) One incised injury, size 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm in the right side of the right leg. 4) One incised injury 9 cm x 1 cm on front side of the right thigh 2 cm above the knee joint. 5) One incised injury, size 4 cm x 2 cm on lateral side of the right leg. Skull and vertebrae : 1) Corresponding to injury No. 1 occipital bone is cut along with (illegible) and brain-matter, Blood-clot present in the brain. Membrane and brain injured. All the findings are ante-mortem in nature." In the opinion of the Doctor, the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries sustained. The Doctor also opined that Injury No. 1 itself was sufficient to cause the death. In answer to a question put by the Court, PW-6 the doctor, said that in his opinion the injuries noticed by him might have been caused by probable use of dao, dagger or any sharp and broad cutting instrument. He however, stated that no injury was detected by him which could have been caused by use of lathi or lenja. 4. PWs 1 and 5 are the witnesses who supported the prosecution case. They are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 in his evidence stated that on 24-1-91 which was a Thursday, he had been working in the field for cultivation. 4. PWs 1 and 5 are the witnesses who supported the prosecution case. They are said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 in his evidence stated that on 24-1-91 which was a Thursday, he had been working in the field for cultivation. Around 9.30 a.m. while he had been working along with Suyaid Ali, Bhola Bauri, Lobis Khasia for cultivation of land and his maternal uncle Danish Khasia had been tilting the land, accused Mour and Jakir Hussain came from the northern direction and asked his uncle regarding sale of " Supare" (areca nut). Thereafter, the accused persons requested Danish to give them areca nuts for chewing. When Danish put his hand in the bag for taking out areca nuts from it, the accused person (the appellant No. 1) took out a dao from under his " chadar" and dealt a blow with it on the back of his head. Danish screamed. PW-1 along with others wanted to run, but Borgota alias Jakir Hussain took out a pistol from his jacket and told that he would kill them had they go forward. After running a distance of about 3/4 nals to the west, Danish fell down on the ground. The other accused, namely, Asar, Kutum (Kamal) and Akil came from the north and inflicted blows on Danish with dao, lathi and dagger etc. 4/5 more persons accompanied them. However, PW-1 stated that he could not notice before from where accused Asar and others came. After committing the assault, the accused persons fled towards the north. This witness also stated that they went home, brought a jeep-car and took Danish to Algapur Hospital, but the doctor declared that Danish had died on the road. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, attempt was made to show that this witness was inimical to the accused. Attempt was also made to show that there was no occurrence as mentioned by this witness. 5. PW-5 Lobis Khasia in his evidence stated that on 24-1-91 at about 9.30 a.m. Suyaid Ali, Bhola, Wee Khasia (PW-1), Dhanish Khasia and this witness had been working in the paddy field. Suddenly, Borgota alias Jakir Hussain and Mour Uddin came from the northern side and discussed with Danish about the price of 'supari.' They also requested Danish to give them 'supari' for chewing. Suddenly, Borgota alias Jakir Hussain and Mour Uddin came from the northern side and discussed with Danish about the price of 'supari.' They also requested Danish to give them 'supari' for chewing. When Danish had been taking out 'supari' from the bag, accused Mour Uddin took out a dao from under his 'Chadar' and hit on the back of Danish's head. Danish and this witness screamed. This witness wanted to go forward when Borgota alias Jakir Hussain threatened them by showing a pistol. Danish fell down. Accused Asar, Kutum, Akil and 2/3 others came and went on assaulting Danish with dao, lenja, dagger and lathi. Wee went and took a jeep-car. Danish was taken to the hospital. After examining him the doctor declared Danish to be dead. In the cross-examination of this witness also attempt was made to show that the occurrence had not taken place and that the accused had been implicated because of the long standing land dispute. 6. PWs 1 and 5 are the witnesses whom the prosecution relied. Three other witnesses, namely, PWs 2, 3 and 4, however, did not support the prosecution case. They totally denied that they saw the occurrence. Prosecution drew their attention to the statements made by them before police as well as under Section 164, Cr. P.C. They stated that they made the statements under threat of police. The Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 found the accused appellants guilty under Section 302/34, I.P.C. but did not find positive evidence so far the other accused persons are concerned and they were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt. Hence the present appeal by accused Mour Uddin Choudhary alias Mour and Jakir Hussain Choudhury alias Boraguta. Against the acquittal of other accused persons, State did not file any appeal. However, the complainant filed the above revision. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 8. Mr. C.R. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenges the conviction mainly on the ground that there were two contradictory sets of evidence one by PWs 1 and 5 and the other by PWs 2, 3 and 4 who were later on declared hostile by the prosecution. According to Mr. 8. Mr. C.R. De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenges the conviction mainly on the ground that there were two contradictory sets of evidence one by PWs 1 and 5 and the other by PWs 2, 3 and 4 who were later on declared hostile by the prosecution. According to Mr. De, in view of the contradictory statements a doubt has been created and accused-appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Mr. Dey submits before us that there are a number of infirmities. One of the most important infirmities, according to Mr. De, is in the sketch map. In the sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer, no place has been mentioned as the place of occurrence. This has created a serious doubt as to the place of occurrence. When the place of occurrence becomes doubtful, the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful and, therefore, the accused appellants ought to have been acquitted on the benefit of doubt. Mr. De also draws our attention to the evidence of the doctor who held the post mortem examination and the inquest report. In the inquest report there is mention about injury on the abdomen of the deceased. However, such injury was not found by the doctor. About this injury PWs 1 and 5 also do not state anything. This is a serious infirmity and the prosecution, according to Mr. De, miserably failed to prove the cause of death. Mr. De further submits that the witnesses who supported the prosecution case ought not to have been believed because they could not give the details of the occurrence. Mr. De also submits that the accused persons were put in Test Identification Parade. But none of the witnesses, namely, Smt. Premada Ree, Sumu Bouri and Dilip Bowri could identify the accused persons. Therefore, according to Mr. De, for all such infirmities the accused-appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt. 9. Mr. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supports the judgment. He submits before us that the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 were sufficient for conviction of the accused appellants. Existence of two sets of evidence - one supporting the prosecution case and the other not supporting it, does not mean that conviction is not possible. Mr. 9. Mr. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supports the judgment. He submits before us that the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 were sufficient for conviction of the accused appellants. Existence of two sets of evidence - one supporting the prosecution case and the other not supporting it, does not mean that conviction is not possible. Mr. Goswami also submits that non-mentioning of the place of occurrence in the sketch map does not affect the prosecution case inasmuch as the death is not disputed. 10. On the rival contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor it is to be seen whether the conviction awarded by the Sessions Judge can sustain in law. 11. We have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and 5. They categorically stated that they saw the accused-appellant Mour Uddin inflicting dao blow on the back side of Danish's head while the other threatening them with pistol. Requirement of Section 34, I.P.C. so far the other accused i.e. Jakir Hussain alias Boraguta is concerned, is complete. No witness said about the injury inflicted on the abdomen of the deceased. Immediately after the assault, in all probability, there was a melee in which it was not possible to notice each and everything. But the fact established by the evidence of these two witnesses is that the accused-appellants took part in assaulting the deceased and the accused-appellant No. 1 Mour Uddin gave the fatal blow on the back side of the head of the deceased. The evidence of the doctor also shows that the membrane and brain were injured. Therefore, in our opinion, there is sufficient evidence for conviction of the appellants. Regarding the test identification parade, it is true that the witnesses could not identify the accused persons. But those witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 12. Regarding the revision filed by the complaint against the acquittal of other accused, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submits that the Sessions Judge overlooked the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. According to him, there is specific evidence that the other accused persons also gave blows on the person of the deceased which is corroborated by PWs 1 and 5. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submits that the Sessions Judge overlooked the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. According to him, there is specific evidence that the other accused persons also gave blows on the person of the deceased which is corroborated by PWs 1 and 5. PWs 1 and 5 specifically stated that the appellant Mour Uddin had given a dao blow on the back of the deceased's head and other accused persons also gave blows on the person of the deceased with lathi etc. and the evidence of these two witnesses are sufficient to convict other accused persons. However, the Sessions Judge acquitted other accused persons and this cannot be said to be reasonable. 13. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the oppositve party in the revision petition. He submits that the complainant has no locus standi to challenge the acquittal of other accused persons. Where the State is a party, it can file an appeal, if aggrieved by an order of acquittal. In appropriate case, however, the complainant may come up against the order of acquittal. However, we do not feel it necessary to express our opinion on this in the present case. We have gone through the evidence. We do not find that the view expressed by the Sessions Judge are fanciful and unreasonable and in that view of the matter we are not inclined to entertain this revision petition. The revision petition is also accordingly dismissed. 14. It is stated that the accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They shall surrender within 10 days from today to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.