JUDGEMENT Biswas, J. :- The appellants herein were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 16/95 under S. 302, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under S. 302, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal from jail. 3. Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor represented the State. 4. Investigation was set in motion by the Police on receipt of an ejahar on 20-9-1993 lodged by one Ancharuddin alleging that the appellants on the same day at 7.30 a.m. Chased Asabuddin and inflicted grievous injuries on his person with dao and dagger like weapons. The complainant"s younger brother informed the police about the on-going occurrence. The Police came and removed Asabuddin to Kadamlal Hospital where he was declared dead. 5. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants for causing death of Asabuddin in furtherance of their common intention. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Ss. 302/34, I.P.C. and proceeded with the trial. 6. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution during the course of trial including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. P.W. 3, Abdul Noor, son of late Haji Zafar Ali and P.W. 4 Abdul Khalique, son of late Indraj Ali, were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Both of them deposed that the occurrence took place at 7 O"clock in the morning about 21/2 years ago. P.W. 3 Abdul Noor came to the place of occurrence after hearing alarm (cries). He has evinced that he saw accused-appellant-Abdur Rahman trying to hit the deceased with a wooden rod. This witness along with P.W. 4 Abdul Khaleque, his wife (P.W. 4) and son made attempt to desist Abdur Rahman. Somehow he was disengaged. This occurrence took place in the house of P.W. 4 Abdul Khalique. Sometime after, when P.W. 3 was going to his house he again heard cries raised by Asabuddin. He went back and saw that Asabuddin was swimming in the pond of Abdul Khalique raising alarm for help. Both the appellants were trying to intercept the deceased. This occurrence took place in the house of P.W. 4 Abdul Khalique. Sometime after, when P.W. 3 was going to his house he again heard cries raised by Asabuddin. He went back and saw that Asabuddin was swimming in the pond of Abdul Khalique raising alarm for help. Both the appellants were trying to intercept the deceased. This witness saw Abdur Rahman carrying a sword and Safiqur Rahman carrying a dao. Abdur Rahman threw a banana plant into the tank and using it as buoy went to Asabuddin and dragged him out of the tank. He was taken to the north-western corner where Safiqur Rahman assaulted on his head with a dao. Abdur Rahman also assaulted him on his head with the dao. This witness has been corroborated in all material points by P.W. 4 Abdul Khalique. It would appear from the evidence of both the witnesses that Asabuddin was chased by the appellants and eventually captured and killed. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence and nothing favourable for defence could be elicited of them. 7. The evidence of P.W. 1 Ancharuddin, the complainant, is to the effect that on the previous day of occurrence at about 10 a.m., P.W. 4, Abdul Khalique came to his house and wanted the deceased to go to his house. Again on the day of occurrence, Abdul Khalique came to his house and took out his brother Asabuddin at about 7.30 a.m. P.W. 4 Abdul Khalique came back to him (P.W. 1) and reported that a few persons had killed Asabuddin near the tank in his homestead. Abdul Khalique also named the appellants as assailants. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence. His evidence shows that the appellants had a design from before to eliminate Asabuddin. P.W. 5 Abdul Noor, son of Haji Sajjadur Rahman was declared hostile by the prosecution. He, however, denied the suggestion put to him that he told the Police that accused-Safiqur Rahman had a dao in his hand and Abdur Rahman had a khukri and that they had chased Asabuddin and eventually assaulted him. 8. P.W. 9, Shri Biswajit Purkayastha is the Investigating Officer but it appears that the aforesaid contradiction was not put to him by the prosecution. Exts. 4, 5 and 6 are the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under S. 164, Cr. 8. P.W. 9, Shri Biswajit Purkayastha is the Investigating Officer but it appears that the aforesaid contradiction was not put to him by the prosecution. Exts. 4, 5 and 6 are the statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under S. 164, Cr. P.C. These have been tendered in evidence by the I.O. Even though the contradiction as stated above is not proved and the statements of the witnesses under S. 164 are not proved in accordance with law, yet the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other supporting witnesses clearly establish that prosecution case is well founded. 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the medical report and the version of the eye-witnesses are contradictory and, hence, the accused persons are entitled to benefit. To appreciate this contention, the injuries found are quoted below :- "Wounds 1) One sharp cut injury at the backside of the left scapula region 6" x 1" depth up to bone. 2) Left temporal bone and occipital bone were broken into pieces. Brain matters of the injured were found lacerated and some body particles were found occupied in the brain matters. Cranium and spinal canal Scalp and skull at the left temporal and occipital part were found injured by incised wound underneath of left temporal and occipital part. Membrane was found cut underneath the left temporal and occipital part. Brain and spinal cord were also cut underneath on left temporal and occipital part." 10. We are unable to agree with the contentions of Mr. Choudhury that the above injuries do not support the ocular version of the case. Injury No. 1 is sharp cut injury on the back side of the left scapula region. It is capable of being caused by a sword. Injury No. 2 is also capable of being caused by a dao. Dao is capable of causing both sharp cut and fracture injuries depending on the projection of the weapon. Besides the defence did not cross-examine the doctor as to whether the above injuries could be caused by a dao and dagger (kupri). In our opinion, there is no discrepancy at all. Rather the medical evidence supports the statements of the eye-witnesses. The genesis of the prosecution case that Asabuddin was assaulted and killed is not shaken. 11. Besides the defence did not cross-examine the doctor as to whether the above injuries could be caused by a dao and dagger (kupri). In our opinion, there is no discrepancy at all. Rather the medical evidence supports the statements of the eye-witnesses. The genesis of the prosecution case that Asabuddin was assaulted and killed is not shaken. 11. The facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the way in which the appellants chased and killed Asabuddin indicate that they were determined to wipe out Asabuddin. The deceased was chased, dragged out from the tank where he jumped into for safety and eventually assaulted with deadly weapons. This is indicative of meeting of mind between them to eliminate Asabuddin. Common intention is writ large in the sequence of events that preceded the killing of Asabuddin. We are of the firm opinion that both the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under S. 302, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismsised. We record our appreciation to Mr. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the State to pay him honorarium which we fix at Rs. 2500/-. Appeal dismissed.