JOYTOSH BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC and the sentence of R. I. for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default R. I. for a further period of one year, imposed upon all the five appellants/accused here. ( 2 ) IN a nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 16-2-87 at about 4 p. m. the informant Mijanur Rahaman (P. W. 1) got the information from Labanu Barman (P. W. 6) that his father Saifur Rahaman had been murdered by the appellants/accused. Getting that information, the informant rushed to the spot that is to say the field within the Mouza Haridas under P. S. Gazole accompanied by some of his co-villagers and found that his father was lying dead on the field. The informant noticed that the victim had bleeding injury on the head. It was further alleged in the FIR that there was a long standing dispute over some land between the accused persons and the victim and there was also litigation over such dispute and for that reason the victim was killed by the accused persons. It was further noted in the FIR that from the spot, the informant had been to the house of the accused persons, but none of the accused was available in the house. Thereafter, the informant came to the P. S. to lodge the information. On the basis of the FIR, O. C. Gazole P. S. started a case and the same was endorsed to P. W. 18, Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee for investigation. The I. O. , after taking up investigation visited the P. O. , found the deadbody of the victim there, held inquest on such deadbody in presence of the witnesses and thereafter sent the deadbody of the victim to the morgue with the original inquest report through a constable. he seized controlled earth and wearing apparels of the deceased by preparing seizure lists in presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses recorded their statements and tried to arrest the appellants/accused but could not succeed as they were not available in the house. Later on appellants/accused surrendered before the Court. The witness collected P. M. report and on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet. He examined the witnesses recorded their statements and tried to arrest the appellants/accused but could not succeed as they were not available in the house. Later on appellants/accused surrendered before the Court. The witness collected P. M. report and on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet. On considerations of the materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge raised charge under S. 302 read with 34, IPC against all the appellants/accused. They pleaded not guilty to such charge and in this way the trial proceeded. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. Amongst the prosecution witnesses P. W. 6 Labanu Barman alone is an eye-witness. There was of course another person who according to P. W. 6 was present at the spot but that person, namely, Bhutia Mudi was dead before the trial started. It is an admitted position that the other witnesses who came to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 6 heard all about the incident from the witness P. W. 6. In this category there is the evidence of P. W. 1, Md. Mijanur Rahaman, the informant, P. W. 4 Mujibar Rahaman, P. W. 5 Fazlur Rahaman, P. W. 9 Samsunahar Bini. P. W. 10 Sonaram Mudi is the grand son of the other deceased, eye-witness Bhutia Mudi. His evidence indicated that he was a witness just after the incident and coming out of his house he found the appellants/accused to run away from the spot. P. W. 2, Md. Maijur Rahaman and P. W. 12 Pratap Chandra Pal were seizure list witnesses, the former witnessed, the seizure of wearing apparels of the victim, P. W. 3 Golam Akibar Hossain, P. W. 7 Erfan Mian, P. W. 8 Moklesur Rahaman, P. W. 11 Toffazal Hossain were tendered from the side of the prosecution for the purpose of cross-examination and no cross-examination was done from the side of the defence in respect of any of such witnesses. P. W. 13, S. I. , T. K. Banerjee at the relevant point of time was O. C. , Gazole P. S. who on receipt of the formal FIR filled up the same and started the case and endorsed the case to P. W. 18 N. C. Bhattacharjee, I. O. of the case. P. W. 13, S. I. , T. K. Banerjee at the relevant point of time was O. C. , Gazole P. S. who on receipt of the formal FIR filled up the same and started the case and endorsed the case to P. W. 18 N. C. Bhattacharjee, I. O. of the case. Besides these two witnesses, there were other police witness like P. W. 14 P. M. Sarkar who as a constable attached to Gazole P. S. took the deadbody to the morgue attached to the district hospital at Malda. P. W. 16, S. S. Ghatak, who at the relevant point of time was S. I. Gazole P. S. and who was a witness to seizure of wearing apparel on the basis of a seizure list, P. W. 17 Bimalendu Sarkar who at the relevant point of time was A. S. I. , Gazole P. S. He was a seizure list witness. Besides these formal witnesses there is the evidence of P. W. 15 Dr. D. P. Chatterjee, who at the relevant point of time was M. O. Blood Bank Malda and who in connection with Gazole P. S. Case No. 9 dated 16-2-87 held P. M. examination over the deadbody of the victim. ( 3 ) LABANU Barman (P. W. 6), the only eye-witness stated in his evidence that he used to know the deceased Saifur as his co-villager. Further indicated in the evidence that the witness was a resident of Durgapur and victim Saifur was a resident of Rahimpur. He specifically stated that those two villages were contiguous to each other. It was the further evidence of Labanu that on the date of the incident that is to say 3rd Falgun he had been to the village Haridas to attend an invitation in the house of Akshay Barman. At about 4. 45 to 5 p. m. he came out of the hose of Akshay, hearing hue and cry and found that appellants, namely, Bechara, Sitaram, Lakhiram, Hariram and Patiram encircled the victim Saifur Rahaman in the paddy field of Rabi Mudi. Thereafter, he found accused Lakhiram struck a blow on the head of Saifur from his behind with spade and then all of the accused ran away to the west of the field. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the distance of his house and the house of Akshay was about a mile. Thereafter, he found accused Lakhiram struck a blow on the head of Saifur from his behind with spade and then all of the accused ran away to the west of the field. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that the distance of his house and the house of Akshay was about a mile. He also disclosed that there was a locality between his house and the house of Mizanur at Rahimpur but he did not meet anybody before meeting Mizanur (P. W. 1 ). At the same time he further stated that reaching the locality he met many persons. He further disclosed that Akshay Barman to whose house he had been to attend a social ceremony was dead when the witness came to depose. His evidence further indicated that he narrated the incident to the informant and also to the elder brother of the victim. There is no suggestion from the side of the defence, why the evidence of this eye-witness should not be accepted. Only thing which can be said to criticise the oral testimony of P. W. 6 was that he was not a person, coming from that locality where the offence complained of took place. But this should not detain us for long, as it would be seen that the presence of P. W. 6 in a neighbouring house at the relevant time was not disputed. In this way it transpires that the evidence of P. W. 6, the only eye-witness, clearly implicated all the appellants/accused with the offence complained of, and such evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of some other witnesses, to whom either this witness or another eye-witness who died before the trial proceeded, reported the incident. ( 4 ) P. W. 10, Sonaram Mudi indicated in his evidence that he was a resident of Bomka village and prior to the incident he was in his house. He came out of the house hearing the shouting raised by his grand father Bhuria Mudi (who was dead when the witness deposed ). He heard his grand father that all the five appellants/accused were assaulting the victim Saifur and coming out of his house he found that the appellants/accused to run away from the spot. Thereafter he informed about the aforesaid fact to the wife of the deceased (P. W. 9), Mujibar Rahaman (P. W. 4 ). He heard his grand father that all the five appellants/accused were assaulting the victim Saifur and coming out of his house he found that the appellants/accused to run away from the spot. Thereafter he informed about the aforesaid fact to the wife of the deceased (P. W. 9), Mujibar Rahaman (P. W. 4 ). His evidence clearly indicated that the distance between his house and paddy field of Rabi Mudi whom the witness described as Rabia, where the incident of assault launched on the victim Saifur took place, was about 35 cubits. The cross-examination of the witness further indicated that on that day he was also invited in the house of British Barman, son of Akshay Barman. The witness further indicated in the cross-examination that Labanu (P. W. 6) was also invited on that day in the house of British Barman. It is to be noted here that in the cross-examination of P. W. 6 there was a specific suggestion that the witness Labanu was not invited in the marriage of the son of Akshay Barman and therefore had no occasion to witness the incident, which no doubt was stoutly denied by the witness Labanu. But from the evidence specially from the cross-examination of P. W. 10 a resident of that locality it came out very clearly that Labanu (P. W. 6) was invited in the marriage ceremony of British Barman, the son of Akshay Barman and there was no suggestion offered to the witness (P. W. 10) that he was deposing falsely about the invitation and attendence of Labanu in connection with the marriage caremony of British Barman. ( 5 ) NOW, the question is whether we can place any reliance on the evidence of these two witnesses that is to say one eye-witness and another a witness just after the incident? We have already seen the evidence of the only eye-witness (P. W. 6) that hearing a halla he came out of the house of Akshay Barman and found all the appellants/accused who encircled the victim Saifur in the paddy field of Rabi Mudi. Then he saw appellant/accused Lakhiram to strike a spade blow on the head of the victim from his behind and thereafter, all the appellants ran away towards the west of the field. So it is evident from the oral testimony of P. W. 6 that he saw all the appellants to surround the victim. Then he saw appellant/accused Lakhiram to strike a spade blow on the head of the victim from his behind and thereafter, all the appellants ran away towards the west of the field. So it is evident from the oral testimony of P. W. 6 that he saw all the appellants to surround the victim. He further saw the appellant Lakhiram to strike a blow on the head of the victim Saifur with a weapon like spade. P. W. 10, Sonaram Mudi who came to the spot immediately after the incident, saw the appellants flee away from the spot. He also heard his grand father Bhutia Mudi to shout that all the appellants were assaulting the victim Saifur and accused Lakhiram struck the victim with a spade on the head. There is no indication in the evidence of these witnesses that apart from Lakhiram, the other appellants were armed with any specific weapon. In fact the eye-witness saw only one of the appellants, namely, accused Lakhiram to give a blow on the head of the victim with the aid of a spade. It is needless to repeat here that the other witnesses who deposed about the incident came to learn all about the incident and involvement of the accused persons from either P. W. 6 or from Bhutia Mudi, who at the time of the deposition was dead. P. W. 15, Dr. D. P. Chatterjee who held the P. M. examination over the deadbody of the victim on 17-2-87 found the following injuries :-I. Three sharp cut wounds behind the left ear 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" x 2" x 1/2" x 1" and 1" x 1/4" x 1" on the scalp. ii. One lacerated wound 11/2" x 1" x 1/2". iii. One lacerated wound 11/2" x 1" x 1/2" x 11/2" on the occipital region of the scalp. iv. One sharp cut wound 1" x 1/2" x 11/2" on the left shounder. v. One abrasion on left illiac creast 1" x 3/4". vi. One severely lacerated wound 13" x 4" x 5" from left temporal region to right temporal region across vertex of the scalp resulting laceration of brain matter. vii. One lacerated wound on the pina of the left ear 1" x 1/2" x 1/4". viii. Fructures present on all the crenial bones, brain crashed and punched out some portion. vi. One severely lacerated wound 13" x 4" x 5" from left temporal region to right temporal region across vertex of the scalp resulting laceration of brain matter. vii. One lacerated wound on the pina of the left ear 1" x 1/2" x 1/4". viii. Fructures present on all the crenial bones, brain crashed and punched out some portion. It transpires from the medical evidence that the doctor who held the P. M. examination found numerous injuries on the person of the victim on the scalp, left shoulder and temporal region. The doctor opined that the injuries seen were sufficient to cause instant death in the ordinary course of nature and those injuries might be caused by back portion of the axe. Now, the evidence of the only eye-witness indicated that he saw all the accused persons to encircle the victim and he also saw one of the accused Lakhiram to strike a blow on the head of the victim from behind with spade. But the doctor who held the P. M. examination saw more than one injuries on the person of the victim. Therefore, the question would be whether for this reason the evidence of the eye-witness could be rejected by the court or not. It is well established of law that the evidence of eye-witness if accepted is sufficient to warrant conviction, though in appropriate cases the Court may as a measure of caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources. But ordinarily the evidence of truthful eye-witness is sufficient without anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence. (Shrishail Negashi Pare v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 866 : (1985 Cri LJ 1173 ).) We get from the evidence of P. W. 1 Mijanur Rahaman, the informant and the son of the deceased that there was a previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased and such assertion gets corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 4, the brother of the deceased. It is to be noted here that there was no cross-examination, on this point. So it can be said that accused persons attacked the victim on the date of incident and one of them struck the victim with blunt side of the weapon, namely, spade, due to previous enmity. It is to be noted here that there was no cross-examination, on this point. So it can be said that accused persons attacked the victim on the date of incident and one of them struck the victim with blunt side of the weapon, namely, spade, due to previous enmity. The version given by the eye-witness should not be rejected only because the victim had more than one injury on his person as seen by the doctor, who held the P. M. examination over his deadbody. In this connection, it should be noted that the only eye-witness stated in his evidence that he had been to a nearby house in connection with a marriage ceremony and he came out of the house to find that the victim was encircled by the appellants/accused and he also witnessed one blow which the victim received from one of the appellants, namely, Lakhiram. So, it is evident from the statement made on oath by the witness that he could not see the incident from the very beginning and he witnessed the same when it had already started and therefore the possibility of sustaining other injuries at the hands of the appellants by the victim cannot be ruled out. In any view of the matter, the medical evidence cannot discredit the eye-witness if the same is found to be trustworthy as the case here. Regarding the scope of the medical evidence, the Apex Court made the following observation which in our considered opinion would be very much relevant on this point, which reads as follows :-"ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witness. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witness, the testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. " (1983, Cri LJ (SC) 822 ). Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witness, the testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. " (1983, Cri LJ (SC) 822 ). ( 6 ) THUS from the evidence on record, it is clear that due to previous enmity the appellants/accused on the date of incident attacked the victim. While all the appellants encircled the victim to launch assault on him with the common intention to finish him, one of the appellants, namely accused/appellant Lakhiram launched assault on the victim with the blunt side of a weapon like spade. Now, before we part with the matter, we have to note here that the doctor who held the P. M. examination opined that the injuries seen on the person of the victim could be inflicted with the blunt side of the weapon like axe. But the prosecution here has led evidence to allege that the victim was assaulted with the blunt side of the weapon like spade. In our considered opinion, since the blunt side of the weapon has been used for the purpose of launching assault and since both the weapons, namely, axe and spade are heavy weapons or medium weight weapons and since both the weapons are sharp edged weapons, this cannot go to the root of the case to make the whole allegation regarding the assault a matter of suspicion. As such medical evidence cannot completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the eye witness. ( 7 ) IN the result, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, the appeal must fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Let the appellants and the Court below be informed accordingly. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, J. :- 8. I agree. Appeal dismissed.