JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 19.8.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 113/97, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to suffer a rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The FIR unfolds the prosecution case thus: On 8.3.1997, at about 6 P.M., one Shri Dwijin Gogoi lodged a written Ejahar (Ext. 1) at Tengaghat Police Station alleging that on the previous night (i.e., 7.3.1997) at about 8.30 P.M., accused-appellant, Pulu Tanti, killed the informant's brother, Arun Gogoi, by assaulting him with an axe following an altercation between the two and fled away. On the strength of this FIR, a case was registered against the accused-appellant and after usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. 3. When a charge framed under Section 302 IPC was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused was, then, examined tinder Section 313 Cr. PC and in his examination aforesaid, the accused denied that he had committed the offence allegedly to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denied. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. The trial ended with conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence, as has been mentioned hereinabove, was passed against him. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have examined the records and heard Mrs. P. Dutta Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. P. Bora, learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Dr. M.N. Gogoi (PW 6) who, admittedly, held autopsy on the dead body of deceased Arun Gogoi, on 8.3.1997 at about 11:30 A.M., found as follows: "One lacerated wound on the left side of the face of size 3x2 cm. One lacerated wound in the left occipital region of the head of size 4x2 cm. One abrasion with depressed fracture in the right temporal region of the scalp of size 10 x 3 cm. Scalp - Injuries described under wound No. 2 and 3. The inner surface of the scalp showed, contusions in the region of wound No. 2 and 3. Skull -- One depressed fracture of size 3x2 cm. One abrasion with depressed fracture in the right temporal region of the scalp of size 10 x 3 cm. Scalp - Injuries described under wound No. 2 and 3. The inner surface of the scalp showed, contusions in the region of wound No. 2 and 3. Skull -- One depressed fracture of size 3x2 cm. under wound No. 1. One depressed fracture under wound No. 2 of size 3x2 cm. One depressed fracture under wound No. 3 of size 3x2 cm. Vertebrae was healthy. Membrance was lacerated at the fractured sites. Brain was lacerated at the fractured site and profuse extradural, subdural and intracerebral haemorrhages in the brain. Brain was congested. Spinal cord was healthy. Thorax : all were healthy. Heart was healthy and empty. Abdomen : all were healthy. Stomach was healthy and empty." 7. In the opinion of PW 6, death was due to shock and haemorrhage that resulted from the antemortem head injuries caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon and the injuries are homicidal in nature. The finding of PW 6 and/or the opinion expressed by him were not disputed at the trial nor are the same in dispute before us. From the nature of the injuries aforementioned, we find that it has been rightly concluded by the learned trial Court that the death of the said deceased was homicidal in nature. 8. In the case at hand, PW 2 (Ranjit Tanti), his mother, Smt. Satyawati Tanti (PW 4) and PW 3 (Gimbu Mura) have been examined as the three eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of the three witnesses so examined, PW 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by them. We, first, deal with the evidence of PW 2. According to this witness, he knows the accused and deceased Arun, both of whom were his (PW 2's) neighbours. 9. Out of the three witnesses so examined, PW 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by them. We, first, deal with the evidence of PW 2. According to this witness, he knows the accused and deceased Arun, both of whom were his (PW 2's) neighbours. 9. As regards the occurrence, PW 2 has deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 8.30 P.M., when he (PW 2) was at home, deceased Arun, accused Pulu and one Jambu Mura (i.e., PW 3) came to his house, they all sat at his house and after taking liquor, he (PW 2) and Jambu went away to another room and while, he (PW 2) and Jambu (PW 3) were present in the other room, a quarrel broke out between deceased Arun and accused Pulu, whereupon he (PW 2) and Jambu (PW 3) came back to the room, where accused was present with Arun, and separated them. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that deceased Arun had broken a bottle in order to assault the accused. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that when the accused and Arun were separated, accused Pulu went away, but after coming out of the house of PW 2, Arun remained standing at the courtyard of PW 2. PW 2 has also deposed that a little later, he (PW 2) saw the accused hitting Arun from behind with an axe and when Arun fell down on the ground, the accused went away, whereupon he (PW 2) and Jambu (PW 3) informed Dwejen Gogoi, who is Arun's brother, and his other family members and on being so informed, PW 1 and others came. Later on, the village headman (i.e., PW 5) also arrived there. 10. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that though it was dark at the time of occurrence, he (PW 2) was at a distance of about 10-15 feet from the place, where deceased Arun was assaulted by the accused and that he had seen the assault on Arun. 11. 10. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that though it was dark at the time of occurrence, he (PW 2) was at a distance of about 10-15 feet from the place, where deceased Arun was assaulted by the accused and that he had seen the assault on Arun. 11. Since the accused was, undisputedly, well-known to PW 2 and was having drinks with him (PW 2) and the deceased moments before the occurrence took place, it is not impossible for the PW 2 to have seen the occurrence, when the assault on Arun took place, barely at a distance of about 10-15 feet from the place, where PW 2 was present. 12. We find that nothing could be elicited by the defence from the cross-examination of PW 2 to show that what he deposed was untrue or false. We also note that PW 2 has deposed that his mother (PW 4) was at home, when (Jambu) (PW 3), Arun and the accused had came to his house, 13. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 (Smt. Satyawati Tanti) has deposed that the occurrence took place on the night of 'Shiva Ratri' at about 8 or 8.30 PM. Describing the occurrence, PW 4 has deposed that Jimbu (PW 3), accused Pulu and Arun came to her house and when they were talking with her son, Ranjit (PW 2), she was in her kitchen and while present in the kitchen, she heard sound of beating or something heavy falling down, she came out and saw deceased Arun lying at her courtyard and Ranjit and Jimbu standing there and, on being asked by her, Ranjit (PW 2) said that the accused had assaulted Arun, whereupon on being asked by her, Ranjit (PW 2) and Jimbu (PW 3) went to inform people at Arun's house and she remained alone at the courtyard. 14. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that when she was so standing at her courtyards, the accused and his father came to her courtyard, the accused struck Arun twice with an axe and when she cried out, the accused said, 'Don't cry' and the accused, then, gagged her mouth with his hand. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that pushing aside the hand of the accused, she ran to the house of Prem Tanti, a neighbour. 15. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that pushing aside the hand of the accused, she ran to the house of Prem Tanti, a neighbour. 15. From the cross-examination of PW 4 too, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that her evidence is not reliable. 16. In fact, there was no meaningful and effective cross-examination of PWs 2 and 4 to show that what they deposed was false or untrue. On a combined reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4, it clearly transpires that on the ill-fated night, deceased Arun Gogoi, the accused-appellant, Pulu Tanti, and Jumbu (PW 3) came to the house of Ranjit Tanti (PW 2) and they took alcohol together. While they were so drinking, a quarrel took place between deceased Arun and the appellant Pulu. Deceased Arun broke a bottle in order to assault the accused. PWs 2 and 3 separated them. When they were so separated, the accused went away. Coming out of the house of PW 2, while Arun was standing at the courtyard of PW 2, the accused came from behind with an axe in his hand and gave a blow with the same on Arun and Arun fell down on the ground. On hearing the sound of Arun falling on the ground, when PW 4 came out of the house, she found Arun lying at her courtyard. On being asked by PW 4, PW told PW 4 that Pulu had assaulted Arun. PW 4, then, sent PWs 2 and 3 to the house of Arun to inform them. While PW 4 remained standing at her courtyard, the accused-appellant, accompanied by his father, came, once again, to the courtyard and gave two more blows on Arun with axe. On witnessing the occurrence, when PW 4 cried out, the accused said, "Don't cry", and gagged the mouth of PW 4 with his hand. Pushing his hands away from her mouth, PW 4 ran away to the house of their neighbour, Prem Tanti, and spent the night there. From the admitted evidence of PWs 5, 7 and 8, it further transpires that when PW 2, accompanied by Jambu (PW 3), informed Dwijen Gogoi (PW 1), brother of Arun Gogoi, about the occurrence, PW 1 came to the place of occurrence and found Arun lying dead at the courtyard of PW 2. From the admitted evidence of PWs 5, 7 and 8, it further transpires that when PW 2, accompanied by Jambu (PW 3), informed Dwijen Gogoi (PW 1), brother of Arun Gogoi, about the occurrence, PW 1 came to the place of occurrence and found Arun lying dead at the courtyard of PW 2. On that very night, on being informed by Uttam, younger brother of the deceased, when PW 5, who was the Goanbura, arrived at the place of occurrence at about 11 P.M., he found Arun lying dead there. Police came at about 5 AM on the following day, police held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report, which is Ext. 2. The police went to Pulu's house, but did not find him (Pulu) there. 17. From the evidence of PWs 7 and 8, it further transpires that after the police arrived, Pulu's father went home and called accused Pulu, whereupon Pulu came out with an axe and the same was seized by police by a seizure list, which is Ext. 3, Mat. Ext. 1 being the said seized axe. Though the defence has denied recovery and seizure of the said axe, nothing could be brought out by the defence from the cross-examination of the PWs to show that no such recovery and/or seizure, as deposed to by prosecution witnesses, took place. 18. What crystallizes from the above discussion of the ocular evidence on record coupled with medical and other evidence is that it was the accused, who had assaulted Arun Gogoi with an axe on his head and caused his death. Altogether, accused dealt three blows with axe on Arun. On receiving the first blow with axe at the hands of the accused, Arun fell down on the ground at the courtyard. After he so fell down, PW 2 and PW 3, on being asked by PW 4, went to Arun's house to inform latter's family members about the occurrence leaving Arun lying injured on the courtyard. At that point of time, the accused appeared there and gave two more blows on Arun and by the time, Arun's brother, Dwijen (PW 1), could reach there, Arun had already succumbed to his injuries at the very place of occurrence. At that point of time, the accused appeared there and gave two more blows on Arun and by the time, Arun's brother, Dwijen (PW 1), could reach there, Arun had already succumbed to his injuries at the very place of occurrence. The medical evidence on record given by PW 6 lends full support and corroboration to the evidence of the two eye witnesses aforementioned (i.e., PW 2 and PW 4) inasmuch as the post-mortem examination revealed altogether three injuries and all these injuries were found on the head of the deceased including one on the left occipital region and the nature of the injuries indicated that the same could have been caused a heavy weapon, such as, axe. 19. We may pause here to point out that so far as PW 3 (Gimbu Mura) is concerned, he has deposed that he knew Arun and he knows the accused. With regard to the occurrence, PW 3 has deposed that on the day of occurrence, at about 7 P.M., accused Pulu and he (PW 3) were standing on the road in front of the house of PW 2 with a view to watching a cinema show on the television at Prem Tanti's house, Arun came there with a bottle of wine and Arun took them to the house of PW 2 to consume the wine, all the three of them drank the wine at the house of PW 2. PW 2, then, went to another room and after taking the wine, he (PW 3) too went to the room in which PW 2 had gone to and a little later, they heard a sound in the office-room of PW 2 and, on coming out of their room, they saw Arun breaking a bottle and moving towards the accused, but seeing him (PW 3) and PW 2, Arun did not enter the room. The accused came out of the room and went away, whereupon he (PW 3) asked Arun to go to his (Arun's) house, but Arun kept standing at the courtyard, he (PW 3), then, went back into the room, but on coming out a little later, he saw Arun lying at the courtyard. 20. It needs to be pointed out, as already mentioned above, that PW 3 was declared hostile by prosecution and cross-examined, the prosecution. 20. It needs to be pointed out, as already mentioned above, that PW 3 was declared hostile by prosecution and cross-examined, the prosecution. Though this witness (PW 3) denied, the Investigating Officer (PW 7) has confirmed that PW 3 stated in his previous statement that Pulu (i.e., accd.) brought an axe from his house and made Arun fall down by giving him blow with the axe. 21. The law with regard to hostile witness is well settled. Merely because a witness has become hostile to the prosecution, his evidence cannot be thrown away; rather, such evidence can be used by the Court to the extent that the same corroborates the other evidence on record. 22. From the evidence of PW 3, it becomes transparent that even his evidence shows that on the evening of the day of occurrence, the appellant and Arun were, indeed, present at the house of PW 2, that some quarrel did take place between the accused and Arun, Arun broke a bottle and moved towards the accused, but the he stopped short on seeing PW 3 and PW 4 and it was then that the accused left the house of PW 2 and though PW 3 asked Arun to go home, Arun remained standing at the courtyard. Up to this stage, the evidence of PW 3 lends credible corroboration to the evidence of PW 2 and 4. Though hereafter, PW 3 does not support the prosecution's case and does not say, as indicated hereinabove, as to who had injured Arun, the fact of the matter remains that the unshaken evidence of PWs 2 and 4 coupled with the medical evidence on record convincingly shows that the injuries, which Arun sustained and led to his death, were caused at the hards of none other than the accused-appellant himself. 23. The question, which, now, arises for consideration is as to what offences, if any, the accused-appellant has committed? In this regard, learned trial Court has found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC. It is, no doubt, true that immediately preceding the assault on Arun, a quarrel had taken place between deceased Arun and the accused Pulu. Following this quarrel, Arun had broken a bottle to assault the accused, but the accused and Arun were separated by PW 2. It is, no doubt, true that immediately preceding the assault on Arun, a quarrel had taken place between deceased Arun and the accused Pulu. Following this quarrel, Arun had broken a bottle to assault the accused, but the accused and Arun were separated by PW 2. On being so separated, the accused went home and came back with an axe in his hand and while Arun was still present at the courtyard of PW 2, accused give a blow on Arun with the axe from behind, Arun fell down on the ground and the accused fled away. The evidence on record further discloses that the assaults on Arun did not stop there; rather, the accused came back, once again, to the house of PW 2, when no male member was present there, and gave two more blows on Arun's head with axe. What is extremely important to note is that the nature of the injuries found on Arun clearly indicates that the axe was dealt with by the accused with such great force that the assaults caused depressed fracture. If the whole occurrence is picturised before our eyes, it will become clear that the provocation, if any, which the accused had received, could not have continued after the accused had left the house of PW 2; but despite this fact, the accused came back with a lethal weapon, such as, an axe and gave a blow with some on Arun's head, Arun fell down and the accused fled away. However, the accused re-appeared on the scene, once again, with axe and gave two more blows on Arun scene, once again, with axe and gave two more blows on Arun with axe on such a vital part of his body as head. The re-arrival of the accused at the place of occurrence coupled with the weapon selected, the part of the body, which the accused chose to give blows, and the force with which the blows were dealt with are all indicative or the fact that the accused intended to cause nothing less than death of Arun and the accused did succeed in achieving his intent. 24. We have, therefore, no hesitation in our mind in arriving at the conclusion that the accused-appellant killed Arun Gogoi with the intention to cause his death. 24. We have, therefore, no hesitation in our mind in arriving at the conclusion that the accused-appellant killed Arun Gogoi with the intention to cause his death. The accused has, thus, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and he has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. 25. Considering the matter in its entirely, we uphold the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC as well as the sentence passed against him. 26. This appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 27. Let the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, and the Superintendent, District jail, Dibrugarh, be informed accordingly. 28. Send down the case record. Appeal dismissed