JUDGMENT Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dt. 11.07.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No. 11 (July) 1993 wherein the learned court below sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- I. d. to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for another two years. The prosecution case in short is that on 01.02.92 one Krishna Kumar Dutta submitted a written complaint to the O.C. Jagat Ballavpur P. S. to the effect that on that day at about 10.30 a.m. when he was proceeding towards Munshirhat through the village pathway at that time he found near the culvert that his sister Dipa Dutta along with Gopa Mitra were proceeding to their house. When he reached near the Kohinoor Football Ground at that time accused Ashok Bose assaulted Gopa Mitra on different parts of her body by a knife in order to kill her. Due to this, Gopa sustained severe bleeding injuries. Local people thereafter took Gopa to Gabberia Hospital. On the basis of the written complaint Jagat Ballavpur P. S. Case No. 13/92 dt. 01.02.92 was started against the accused under sections 326/307 I.P.C. Subsequently as Gopa succumbed to her injuries, section 302 I.P.C. was added. The case was investigated. Immediately on receipt of the complaint, Police rushed to the spot and found that the accused was apprehended by the villagers. On reaching the P.O. police arrested the accused, seized the knife in question and other articles from the spot. In all 20 witnesses have been examined during investigation. After completion of the investigation charge sheet under section 302 I.P.C. was submitted against the accused. Same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Accused has not adduced any evidence. Defence case, as it could be ascertained from the statements made by him under section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as from the trend of the cross-examination, is that of denial. The accused has claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has taken a specific plea in his examination under section 313 Cr. Defence case, as it could be ascertained from the statements made by him under section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as from the trend of the cross-examination, is that of denial. The accused has claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has taken a specific plea in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was apprehended by some of the villagers unnecessarily while he was going to report to his place of duty by his cycle and thereafter he was taken to Kohinoor Club where he was assaulted severely by the villagers. The accused has denied that he assaulted Gopa with the knife, as claimed by the prosecution. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution, as we have already mentioned, have examined 20 witnesses. We have already pointed out that the allegation against the accused is that he intentionally caused the murder of the deceased Gopa Mitra. So the prosecution is bound to prove the said allegation beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt against the accused. Let us now see how far the prosecution has been able to discharge the onus. We have already mentioned that prosecution has examined in all 20 witnesses. Let us now see who are those witnesses and what they have stated in their evidence so far as the present case is concerned. 2. PW-1 is Krishna Kumar Dutta. He is the elder brother of Kumari Dipa Dutta who was at the material time, accompanied the deceased Gopa Mitra. The PW-1 is the de facto complainant of the case and on the basis of his written complaint the present case was started. He has stated in his evidence that on 01.02.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. he was going to Munshirhat Bazar through the village road and at that time he found that accused Ashok was sitting over the culvert with a by-cycle near him. According to him when he crossed Dipa and Gopa, immediately thereafter he heard cries of his sister and found that the accused was assaulting Gopa with a knife. According to this witness as a hue and cry was raised accused Ashok started running away from the spot. But PW-8 Niyamat Ali and PW-9 Sk. Sirajul apprehended him. According to this witness, he found the warpper of the accused and the slipper of Gopa were lying in the place of occurrence. According to this witness as a hue and cry was raised accused Ashok started running away from the spot. But PW-8 Niyamat Ali and PW-9 Sk. Sirajul apprehended him. According to this witness, he found the warpper of the accused and the slipper of Gopa were lying in the place of occurrence. He has claimed that he had noticed blood in the hand of the accused and there was also an injury on his hand. He has further stated that Ashok was taken to the Kohinoor Club and Gopa, the injured was sent to Gabberia Hospital by a private car. This witness, as we have already pointed out, submitted the written complaint to the P. S. He has further stated that subsequently police came to the place of occurrence and seized the by-cycle, the knife, the wrapper etc. from there under a seizure list. During this examination in the Court below this witness identified the knife, wrapper and other articles. According to this witness Chitra Mitra the elder sister of Gopa also came to the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the defence. It appears from the evidence of this witness that although he gave a detail description of the incident during his evidence, still in the F.I.R. no such detail description was there. Suggestion has been given by the defence that he was not present in the place of occurrence at the time of the incident and he came there, after the incident. 3. PW-2 is Pravat Kumar Ghosh. He is the husband of Chitra Ghosh, the elder sister of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that he came to the place of occurrence after the incident. He was present when the Police Officer seized the articles. According to him he found that the accused Ashok was detained in the Kohinoor Club by the villagers. 4. PW-3 is Smt. Chitra Ghosh. She saw the incident from a distance. She has stated that immediately on seeing the incident from a distance she reached the place of occurrence and found Gopa in a severely injured condition. She also noticed that the accused was standing there with the knife and he was rubbing the same with a napkin. According to this witness when the accused tried to runaway he was apprehended by two villagers. She also noticed that the accused was standing there with the knife and he was rubbing the same with a napkin. According to this witness when the accused tried to runaway he was apprehended by two villagers. This witness has stated that she took Gopa to the hospital and in the hospital he informed the Doctor that the accused Ashok stabbed Gopa. 5. PW-4 Dipa Dutta. She was at the material time accompanying Gopa when they were passing by the village pathway. She has stated in her evidence that she found that the accused Ashok assaulted Gopa with a knife and the two villagers namely Sirajul and Niyamat apprehended the said accused. This witness was cross-examined by the defence. Some suggestions have been given to this witness denying the presence of this witness at the material time. 6. PW-5 is Ajit Ghosh. He stated in his evidence that police seized some articles from the place of occurrence in his presence and he identified the wrapper of the accused. That apart he also identified the knife. He has further stated that on that day he saw accused Ashok sitting on the culvert prior to the incident. His evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination. A suggestion has been given to this witness that he was making false statement that he found Ashok sitting on the culvert prior to the incident. But no suggestion has been given to this witness regarding the seizure of the articles from the place of occurrence by the Police Officer. 7. PW-6 is Smt. Tuka Hazra. According to this witness the deceased Gopa was known to her. At the material time she was catching fish near the place of occurrence. She found the accused, wrapped in a wrapper, sitting on the culvert with a by-cycle by his side. According to this witness after some time she noticed that the accused Ashok stabbed Gopa with a knife and Gopa was crying for help. Immediately thereafter the witness rushed to the spot and at that time the accused threatened her. She has further stated that she subsequently came to know that the accused was apprehended by the villagers. During her evidence she identified the by-cycle and the knife. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that she knew Ashok as she found him moving through the village pathway everyday. She has further stated that she subsequently came to know that the accused was apprehended by the villagers. During her evidence she identified the by-cycle and the knife. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that she knew Ashok as she found him moving through the village pathway everyday. She has denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely at the instance of the brother and sister of the Gopa. 8. PW-7 is Subhankar Ghosh. He reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence and found Gopa was lying with severe bleeding injuries on her person. According to him, on enquiry Gopa disclosed that Ashok assaulted him with a knife. This witness arranged for a vehicle and took Gopa to Gabberia Hospital along with Chitra Ghosh and some other local people. He has identified the accused Ashok and the by-cycle and knife in court. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that he deposed falsely in this case. Although some questions were put to this witness during cross-examination challenging his claim that he made some statements before the I.O., still we find that no such contradiction was taken from the I.O. during his evidence. 9. PW-8 is Niyamat Ali. According to this witness he was ploughing in the nearby field. When he heard a cry of a woman and then found that accused was assaulting one person. He chased the accused and with the help of has nephew Sirajul apprehended him. He has stated that they caught the accused near the place of occurrence and found that Gopa Mitra was lying with bleeding injuries. He also noticed a knife and by-cycle lying near the place of occurrence. This witness identified the accused Ashok in court and stated that he was known to him before the incident. In his cross-examination this witness admitted that he stated to the I.O. that one knife and by-cycle were found in the place of occurrence and he noticed one cut mark in the hand of Ashok. He has admitted that Ashok was assaulted by the villagers. He has denied the defence suggestion that he deposed falsely. 10. PW-9 is Sk. Sirajul. This witness has stated that he along with PW-8 apprehended the accused. He has further claimed that Ashok confessed that he murdered Gopa. According to him he found Chitra the sister of Gopa and Keshta Dutta the brother of Dipa present there. 11. He has denied the defence suggestion that he deposed falsely. 10. PW-9 is Sk. Sirajul. This witness has stated that he along with PW-8 apprehended the accused. He has further claimed that Ashok confessed that he murdered Gopa. According to him he found Chitra the sister of Gopa and Keshta Dutta the brother of Dipa present there. 11. PW-10 is Harendra Nath Dutta. He is another brother of Dipa Dutta. According to him he saw accused Ashok Bose on the date of occurrence about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. sitting on a culvert wearing one violet coulour wrapper and a by-cycle was standing by him. He has identified the said wrapper and the by-cycle. But he did not see the actual incident. 12. PW-11 is Soumendra Nath De. He came to the place of occurrence after the incident and found Gopa lying in severely injured condition. According to him accused Ashok confessed before the villagers that he stabbed Gopa with knife in order to satisfy old grudge. Defence has taken some contradictions regarding his statement in Court, with that of the statements made by him before the I.O. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that Ashok was severely assaulted in the Club Ghar. He has denied the defence suggestion that at the instance of Chitra and Keshto Ghosh he was deposing against the accused falsely. 13. PW-12 is Lakshman Karmakar. This witness has stated in his evidence that the knife in question was made by him. But he could not say in his examination-in-chief that for whom he made the said knife. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Surprisingly during his cross-examination this witness stated "it may be that I made this knife i.e. Mat. Exbt. I for Ashok Bose." So, it appears that this witness could not deny the suggestion of the prosecution that he made the knife for Ashok. 14. PW-13 is Doctor Pankaj Roy. He is the Medical Officer who held the Post Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. According to him he found six incised injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the cause of the death of Gopa was, due to the effect of those injuries which were anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. 15. PW-14 is Snehashish Mitra, brother of the deceased. He has proved his signature in the inquest report. 16. According to him he found six incised injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the cause of the death of Gopa was, due to the effect of those injuries which were anti-mortem and homicidal in nature. 15. PW-14 is Snehashish Mitra, brother of the deceased. He has proved his signature in the inquest report. 16. PW-15 is Suranjan Sarkar. He wrote the complaint at the instance of the de facto complainant. 17. PW-16 is Monoranjan Goswami who filled up the formal F.I.R. 18. PW-17 is Asish Banerjee who prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses and he proved the same in his evidence. 19. PW-18 is Sachidananda Satpati, who identified the dead body before the Post Mortem Doctor. 20. PW-19 is Doctor Swapan Kumar Maji. This witness has stated in his evidence that on 01.02.1992 he was posted as Medical Officer in the Gabberia Hospital. According to this Doctor on that day at about 11.30 a. m. one Gopa Mitra was brought to the said Hospital by one Smt. Chitra Ghosh. He found Gopa having stab injuries on her person. According to this Doctor, Chitra Ghosh stated before him that one Ashok Bose of village Dasha stabbed Gopa near Kohinoor Football Ground on that day at about 10.30 a.m. The Doctor has stated that the condition of the patient at that time was very serious and she was w1able to say anything. He has proved the injury report. According to this Doctor, the injuries which were found on the body of Gopa can be caused by a sharp cutting weapon like the knife which was shown to this Doctor during his evidence. He has stated further that Gopa died in his hospital within three minutes of her arrival. 21. PW-20 is S. I. Amar Nath Ganguly. He is a person who investigated the case. 22. So from the evidence, as adduced in this case, it appears that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond any doubt that Gopa Mitra died as a result of stab injuries. From the evidence of the Doctor of Gabberia Hospital, as well as from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon, it has been clearly established that Gopa Mitra sustained stab injuries on her person and as a result of that she died. As such there is no doubt in our mind that Gopa Mitra was murdered. From the evidence of the Doctor of Gabberia Hospital, as well as from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon, it has been clearly established that Gopa Mitra sustained stab injuries on her person and as a result of that she died. As such there is no doubt in our mind that Gopa Mitra was murdered. Now the question that is to be looked into is, as to who accused the murder. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Ashok Bose actually caused the murder by inflicting knife injuries on the person of Gopa Mitra. In order to establish this fact the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-4 Dipa Dutta. She in her statement on oath has stated that at the material time she was accompanying Gopa Mitra and they both were passing through the village pathway. She has stated that at that time suddenly accused Ashok Bose came to the spot and assaulted Gopa Mitra severely by a knife. We must remember that this witness has stated that on that day she along with Gopa Mitra went to receive private tuition and from there they were returning back after seeing a village fair. There is nothing to disbelieve her statement. This witnesses has been cross-examined at length by the defence but we find nothing to disbelieve her evidence even after cross-examination. Some suggestions have been given only for suggestion sake to this witness regarding the alleged claim of the defence that this witness deposed falsely against the accused. But nothing has been established as to why this witness, who was at that time a student of Class XII, would depose falsely against this accused. We cannot ignore the fact that this witness was the friend of the deceased Gopa. It is most likely that she would state truthfully about the actual culprit who caused the murder of her friend Gopa Mitra. It is most unlikely that she would implicate another person falsely leaving aside the actual culprit. The evidence of this witness itself is a clear proof that it was the accused who actually caused the murder of the deceased Gopa Mitra. If we look into the evidence of the other witnesses, then we will find that the statements as made by the PW-4 finds support from the evidence of the other witnesses. The evidence of this witness itself is a clear proof that it was the accused who actually caused the murder of the deceased Gopa Mitra. If we look into the evidence of the other witnesses, then we will find that the statements as made by the PW-4 finds support from the evidence of the other witnesses. PW-1 Krishna Kumar Dutta has stated that immediately before the occurrence, he noticed the accused sitting on a culvert wearing a wrapper and the by-cycle was by his side. The learned Advocate for the defence argued that the evidence of the PW-1 cannot be believed and for that he drew our attention to the description of the incident as given by the PW-3 Chitra Ghosh. The learned Advocate has further criticised the evidence of this witness by pointing out the fact that whatever he had stated in his evidence during trial, were not stated in the written complaint. But we must accept the position that the written complaint was submitted by this witness immediately after the occurrence and it is not necessary that all the minute details would be given in the written complaint. We must bear in mind that there was a brutal murder of a young girl in the village and the PW-1 thought it necessary to bring it to the notice of the proper authority regarding the incident and for that reason he stated the incident as far as possible which was necessary for the police to start investigation of the case. Simply because this witness did not give detail description of the incident, as given by him in trial, in his written complaint, that does not mean that the evidence of this witness should be left out of consideration. As such we are unable to accept the defence claim that this witness was not at all present in the place of occurrence. On the contrary suggestion has been given to this witness that he reached the place of occurrence long after the incident. It is in fact an admission of the fact that there was an incident as claimed by the prosecution. The evidence of the other witnesses clearly shows that this witness appeared in the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. We find nothing to disbelieve the statement of those witnesses. PW-3 Smt. Chitra Ghosh is the sister of the deceased. It is in fact an admission of the fact that there was an incident as claimed by the prosecution. The evidence of the other witnesses clearly shows that this witness appeared in the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. We find nothing to disbelieve the statement of those witnesses. PW-3 Smt. Chitra Ghosh is the sister of the deceased. She has also stated in her evidence that when she reached the place of occurrence at that time she found her sister lying in seriously injured condition and the accused was standing there with a knife in his hand. The evidence of this witness cannot be disbelieved particularly when there is nothing on the part of the defence to show that she deposed falsely in this case. It is unbelievable that this witness, being the sister of the deceased would falsely implicate an innocent person leaving aside the actual culprit. Moreover, if we look into the evidence of the Doctor then it will appear that he has categorically stated that this witness Smt. Chitra Ghosh stated before him that it was the accused who actually caused the injuries on the body of Gopa by a knife. The evidence of this Doctor is a clear proof that the statement made by Chitra Ghosh is true and the same should be accepted. The evidence of the PW-3 and PW-4 finds able support from the evidence of the PW-8 Niyamat and PW-9 Sk. Sirajul. Both of them have stated that they saw the incident from a distance and after hearing a cry of a woman they found that this accused was running away. Then they chased him and apprehended. These two witnesses are the residents of the village where the incident took place and it is unbelievable that these two witnesses would depose falsely against the accused without any reason whatsoever. They have been cross-examined at length by the defence but inspite of that we find nothing to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. That apart, if we look into the evidence of PW-6 Smt. Tuka Hazra then it will appear that she has claimed that she found the accused assaulting Gopa with a knife. There is nothing in cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her statement. That apart, if we look into the evidence of PW-6 Smt. Tuka Hazra then it will appear that she has claimed that she found the accused assaulting Gopa with a knife. There is nothing in cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her statement. Of course the learned Advocate for the defence pointed out that the I.O. in his evidence has stated that this witness did not mention the name of the accused before him. But it appears from the evidence of this witness that, she clearly identified the accused in dock at the time of trial. Non-mentioning of the actual identity of the accused before the I.O. at that time of investigation does not nullify the statement of this witness made during the trial. We are of this opinion particularly because of the fact that it has already been established from the evidence of the other witnesses that it was the accused who actually caused the injuries on Gopa. It appears that this PW-6 is a village rustic lady and she is maintaining herself by working as a maid-servant in different houses. It is unbelievable that such a witness would depose falsely against the accused without any reason whatsoever. When there are clear evidence on this point, we are unable to accept the defence suggestion that this witness has made false statement in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case. 23. Apart from this, if we look into the evidence of the other witnesses who took part in the seizure of the articles namely by-cycle, knife etc., then it will appear that those witnesses clearly stated that those articles were seized from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. Some of the prosecution witnesses have clearly identified those articles to be the properties of the accused. It is hard to believe that these witnesses would unnecessarily depose falsely against the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the evidence of PW-12 Lakshman Karmakar. During evidence the knife in question was shown to this witness who is a blacksmith by profession and his shop is situated at Munshirhat Bazar. In his cross-examination-in-chief this witness clearly identified the knife by saying "this knife (identified Mat. Exbt. I) was made by me". True it is that this witness did not support the prosecution case on all the points and as such he was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination-in-chief this witness clearly identified the knife by saying "this knife (identified Mat. Exbt. I) was made by me". True it is that this witness did not support the prosecution case on all the points and as such he was declared hostile by the prosecution. But if we look into the cross-examination of this witness made by the prosecution then it will appear that this witness stated in his cross-examination to the effect "it may be that I made this knife i.e. Mat. Exbt.-I for Ashok Bose." This shows that this witness could not deny the prosecution claim that it is he who prepared the knife for the accused Ashok Bose. It is a settled principle of law that the evidence of a hostile witness should be thrown away in toto. There is no bar in accepting the evidence of a hostile witness which appears to the court to be probable for the purpose of a particular case. Under such circumstances, we are of opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove from the materials on record that the knife in question actually belonged to the accused and the same was seized from the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. There cannot be any doubt that it was the knife by which the actual offence was committed and this fact as such, certainly goes against the accused. 24. Learned Advocate for the accused argued that in this case although the I.O. has claimed that he seized the blood-stained knife, the blood-stained cloth of the accused immediately after the occurrence, still no step whatsoever was taken by the I.O. to send those articles for forensic examination. According to the learned Advocate, had those articles been sent to the forensic expert for chemical examination, then it could have established definitely as to whether the accused took part in the commission of the offence or not. We certainly agree with this view of the learned Advocate. It was certainly the duty of the Investigating Officer to send those articles to the expert for clear opinion regarding the involvement of the accused. If that was done then the guilt or innocence of the accused could have been conclusively established. But simply for this laches on the part of the I.O., entire prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. It was certainly the duty of the Investigating Officer to send those articles to the expert for clear opinion regarding the involvement of the accused. If that was done then the guilt or innocence of the accused could have been conclusively established. But simply for this laches on the part of the I.O., entire prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. We have already pointed out that from the overwhelming evidence on record it has been clearly established by the prosecution that it was the accused and none-else who actually committed the offence. Under no stretch of imagination we could disbelieve the evidence of the PW-4 Dipa Dutta who was at the material time accompanying her friend Gopa Mitra. The manner in which the investigation has been done by the Investigating Officer is really unfortunate. But simply for the laches on the part of the Investigating Officer, the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved particularly when there is overwhelming direct evidence in respect of the involvement of the accused so far as the present offence is concerned. If a prosecution case is disbelieved simply because there is laches on the part of the I.O. of the case, then if it is done, it will have serious consequence in respect of criminal trials and it would amount to playing in the hands of the Investigating Officer, if the investigation of a particular case is designed to be defective purposely. It is the duty of the court to evaluate the entire evidence and thereafter to come to a conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. It will not be proper to acquit an accused in such a case solely on account of the defect in investigation of the case. We have already pointed out that the prosecution had been able to show that there are overwhelming direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and under such circumstances we are not inclined to attach undue importance to these laches on the part of the prosecution so far as conducting of the investigation of the present case is concerned. 25. The accused has made a statement during his examination under section 313 Cr. 25. The accused has made a statement during his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. to the effect that on the date of incident at the relevant time when he was proceeding through the village pathway with his cycle at that time some people of the village unnecessarily and without any reason whatsoever stopped him and dragged him in the Kohinoor Club House and detained him there and also assaulted him severely causing injuries on his person. In order to substantiate this claim, the accused has failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever. As such, it appears that there is no corroboration of this statement of the accused. However, it is the settled principle that the prosecution case cannot depend upon the statement of the accused made under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the lacuna, if any, in the prosecution case, cannot be filled up by the statement made by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. But at the same time, there is no bar in considering the statement of the accused which has been made by him voluntarily under section 313 Cr. P. C. in order to show that the accused has made a false statement or that the said statement actually supports the prosecution case to a great extent. It is unbelievable that the villagers would unnecessarily apprehend the accused and detain him in the club house. But from this statement at least one thing is very clear that the accused has practically admitted that at the relevant time, on the date of incident, he was present near the place of occurrence and he had a by-cycle with him and that he was detained by the villagers in the club room. This statement of the accused actually corroborates the prosecution case which has been established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above. 26. Therefore, from our above discussion we are of opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased Gopa Mitra was murdered by a knife and it was the accused Ashok Bose who actually caused the murder and as such the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in coming to such a decision on the basis of the materials on record. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment, as passed by the learned Trial Judge and we are of opinion that the order of conviction and sentence, as passed by him on the accused, in connection with this case, should be confirmed. 27. Learned Advocate for the defence, at the time of argument, drew our attention to the fact that initially in this case an order of acquittal was passed by the then learned Trial Judge and as against that an appeal was preferred by the State. Same was heard by a Division Bench of this High Court and the matter was sent back to the Court below for examining the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. afresh and to pass a fresh judgement. The learned Advocate• for the defence argued that while passing the said order, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court discussed the evidence in detail and observed that there was no reason for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. So the learned Advocate for the defence submitted that the trial Judge who passed the order of conviction was biased or influenced by the said observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench and as such the accused could not get fair and impartial justice, to which he is very much entitled. We are not making any observation on this submission of the learned Advocate of the defence. We are at present not concerned with the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench. We are to confine our attention to the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge wherein the accused was convicted, and to see whether the order of conviction, as passed by the learned Court below was proper or not. The legality and propriety of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court cannot be a subject matter of our consideration so far as the present appeal is concerned. So we attach no importance to this argument of the learned Advocate for the defence. 28. The legality and propriety of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court cannot be a subject matter of our consideration so far as the present appeal is concerned. So we attach no importance to this argument of the learned Advocate for the defence. 28. Therefore, from the materials on record, we have got no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it was the accused who actually caused the murder of the victim Gopa Mitra and as such he is liable to be sentenced under section 302 I.P.C. The order of conviction and sentence, as passed by the learned Trial Court, appears to be perfectly justified and we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the decision of the learned Trial Court. So, the appeal stands dismissed and the order of conviction as passed by the learned Trial court is confirmed. Send back the L. C. R. along with a copy of this judgement to the court below at once. Appellant, if on bail is directed to surrender before the ld. Court below at once. Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.