JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 11.8.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 1051 of 1996, the accused Appellant stands convicted under Section302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The case against the accused-Appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: Deceased Muslema Bibi was wife of the accused-Appellant, Nesatullah Sk. a resident of village Sindurai Part II. The occurence took place during the period of Ramadan, i.e. the month during which the Muslims keep fast. On the day of occurrence, Smti. Jabeda Bewa, widowed mother of deceased Muslema, was present at the house of the accused-Appellant. On the day of the occurrence i.e., on 6.2.1996, the accuse-Appellant slept on a bed with his daughter, while on the other bed, Muslema slept with her son, Jiyarul, her daughter, Nilima, and her mother. Jabeda, the said house having only one room. Just before the day broke, the accused got up from his bed and started giving blows with his fist on Muslema. On witnessing the same, Jabeda intervened, but she was pushed away by the accused-Appellant with such force that she fell down, the accused mounted on Jabeda and twisted her hand. The accused-Appellant,. Then, hit Muslema with an axe causing injuries on her person. On cries being raised from inside the house, other members of the family of the accused-Appellant, who used to live nearby, came to the place of occurrence. On 6.2.1996 itself, the occurrence was orally reported by Gaon Panchayat President, Habibur Rahman, to the In-charge of Agamoni Police Out Post and G.D. Entry No. 169, dated 6.2.1996, was made accordingly. On the following day, i.e. on 7.2.1996, a written F.I.R. was lodged at the said Police Out Post by the accused-Appellant's brother, Nabiullah, who came to the said Out post accompanied by accused-Appellant and their co-villager, Habibur Rahman, aforementioned. A case was accordingly registered against the accused-Appellant. During investigation, the police held inquest over the dead body of Muslema. The police seized, vide sizure list (Ext. 8), the said axe. The police also seized, vide seizure list (Ext. 4), a bloodstained Shirt (Ext. 4), which the accused was wearing. A case was accordingly registered against the accused-Appellant. During investigation, the police held inquest over the dead body of Muslema. The police seized, vide sizure list (Ext. 8), the said axe. The police also seized, vide seizure list (Ext. 4), a bloodstained Shirt (Ext. 4), which the accused was wearing. The police also got medically examined Nilima, daughter of the accused-Appellant, and Jabeda, widowed mother of the said deceased, who had allegedly sustained injuries, while intervening in the occurrence of assault on Muslema. On completion of investigation, police laid chargesheet against the accused-Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. During trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 302I.P.C. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses including the Investigating officer. The accused-Appellant was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and in his examination aforementioned, the accused-Appellant denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found the accused-Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. The impugned sentence, as already mentioned hereinabove, accordingly followed. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have perused the materials on record. We have heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned Amicus Curae, and Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. While considering the evidence on record, it is pertinent to note hat P.W. 1 (Dr. M.R. Mandal) is the doctor, who had held post mortem examination on the dead body of Muslema, P.W. 2 (Dr. M.C. Goswami) is the doctor, who had examined Jabeda, widowed mother of the said deceased, and P.W.3 (Dr. R. Sharma) is the doctor, who had examined Nilima, daughter of the said deceased. It is also pertinent to note that P.W. 4 (Nabiullah Sk.) is the brother and neighbour of the accused-Appellant, P.W. 5 (Nilima Khatun), the daughter of the said deceased, is a child witness, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, namely, Habibur Rahman and Aluddin Sk. respectively are the Co-villagers of he accused Appellant. All these witnesses, namely P.W. 4 to and P.W. 7 were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined. respectively are the Co-villagers of he accused Appellant. All these witnesses, namely P.W. 4 to and P.W. 7 were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined. P.W. 8 (Jabeda), widowed mother of the said deceased, However, supported the case of the prosecution and P.W. 9 is the Investigating officer of the case. 6. Bearing in mind the above features of the case we, first, come to the evidence of P.W. 1. According to his evidence, on conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of Muslema, he found as follows: An average built female body. Rigormortis present. Eyes open. Mouth partly opened. Nail pale. External injuries 1) 3 Nos of incised wounds; i) 2"x½"x½" ii) 2"x½"x½",and iii) 3"x 1"x¼" present over the right cheek. 2) 1 incised wound 2"x½"x½ seen over the middle of the forehead. 3) One incised wound 5"x1"x¼" present along the lower border of right mandible region. 4) Teeth from upper and lower jaws of right side are lost. 5) 3 more injuries measuring: i) 3"x½"x½". ii) 3"x½"x½x½", and iii) 2½"x1"x1"; are present over the right side of neck and upper chest. The injury No. 5(3) has punctured in the right lung. 6) Two incised wounds measuring 5"x1"x½" and 3"x½"x½" are seen over the left side of neck. On dissection: Right pleurae was punctured. Pleural space contains blood clots. This injury corresponds to injury No. 5 (iii), Punctured wound over upper part of right of right lung. This injury also corresponds to injury No. 5(iii). Right lung collapsed Blood vessels collapased. All other organs found normal. 7. In the opinion of P.W. 1, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the said ante-mortem injuries sustained by the said deceased, the injuries having been caused by sharp cutting weapon, Ext. 1 being the postmortem report and injury No. 5 (iii), i.e. the injury caused on the neck of the said deceased being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. It may be noted that the findings of the P.W. 1 and the opinion expressed by him with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the said deceased the cause of her death and the nature of weapon, which could have been used, have remained undisputed by the defence. 8. It may be noted that the findings of the P.W. 1 and the opinion expressed by him with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the said deceased the cause of her death and the nature of weapon, which could have been used, have remained undisputed by the defence. This apart, the consistent and unchallenged evidence of P.W. 4 to P.W. 8 is that Muslema was found is severely injured condition in the room of the house, where she used to live with her husband i.e. the accused-Appellant, and she succumbed to her injuries. 9. From the above oral and medical evidence on the record it is clear that Muslema met with homicidal death as a result of multiple injuries caused to her. 10. In the light of the above medical evidence on record, we straightway turn to the evidence of P.W. 8 (JabedaBewa). According to the evidence of this witness, Muslema was her daughter and on the day of occurrence, she (P.W. 8) came to her daughter's house, which had only one room. As regards the occurrence, the evidence of P.W. 8 is that at night, the accused slept on a bed with his daughter, Nilima, and, on the other bed, she (P.W. 8)), Muslema,. Jiyarul and Muslima's another younger daughter slept. As it was the moth of Ramadan, at small hours of the night, she (P.W. 8) got up and started warming her-self by making fire at the courtyard. Nabiullah, brother of the accused, and his mother, who used to live in another house contiguous to the house of the accused, also came there and, later on, she (P.W. 8) along with mother of the accused started warming themselves sitting near the fire. Adjoining the house, where they slept, there was a kitchens, Muslma cooked rice in the said Kitchen, while they were so warming themselves. The mother of the accused and she (P.W. 8) took their food, but the accused remained sleeping. After taking food, they went back to bed, but she (P.W. 8) did not fall asleep. A lamp was burning inside the house at that time. The mother of the accused and she (P.W. 8) took their food, but the accused remained sleeping. After taking food, they went back to bed, but she (P.W. 8) did not fall asleep. A lamp was burning inside the house at that time. The day had not broken till then, it was the time for' Azan' and, suddenly, the accused got up from his bed, closed the door and, then, he came near their bed, threw Muslema from the bed by shaking and started giving fist blows on her, she (P.W. 8) got up from the bed and, embracing her daughter, asked the accused not to beat her dangerously, but the accused pushed her (P.W. 8) so hard that she (P.W. 8) fell down. The accused, then, mounted on her (P.W. 8) and twisted her hand. She (P.W. 8) remained lying flat there for some time. By that time, the accused killed Muslema by hitting her with an axe. Getting up from the place, where she (P.W. 8) had fallen, she found her daughter, Muslema, dead. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that when she was pushed hard by the accused, she (P.W. 8) sustained injuries on her leg from the axe that had been in the hand of the accused., It is also in the evidence of P.W. 8 that as she (P.W. 8) tried to pick up Muslema from the ground, her hands got smeared with blood, she, then, cried out and all the family members of the accused woke up, the mother of the accused and his brother, Nabiullah, too came there and she (P.W. 8) told everybody that Muslema was dead. 11. In her cross-examination, P.W. 8 has, however, deposed that the negihbouring people came in the morning and as she was lying unconscious she could not tell anybody about the occurrence. P.W. 8 has also deposed, in her cross-examination, that there was darkness inside the house, when she was lying on the bed, after taking rice, towards the end of the night and that there was no lamp. P.W. 8 has also deposed, in her cross-examination, that there was darkness inside the house, when she was lying on the bed, after taking rice, towards the end of the night and that there was no lamp. Though it is in the evidence of P.W. 8, in her cross-examination, that at the time, when the accused was given fist blows on Muslema after throwing her (Muslema) on the ground from the bed, she (P.W. 8) had not seen anything because of the darkness and that she had also not seen the axe, what remained unshaken in the evidence of P.W. 8 is her assertion that a little later, she saw the door opening. This apart, in the later part of her cross-examination, P.W. 8 denied that the accused had gone to offer prayer and at that moment, some body else had killed Muslema This witness also denied that she had implicated the accused out of suspicion. 12. While appreciating the evidence of P.W. 8, it is important to bear in mind that according to the evidence of P.W. 2 (Dr. M.C. Goswami.), who, admittedly, examined P.W. 8 on 9.2.1996, he found one lacerated abrasion in the lower part of her right leg measuring ¼"x1x4", but since the injury was old, he could not give any opinion as to how the injury was caused, Ext. 2 being the report in this regard. The veracity of the evidence, so given by P.W. 2, has not been challenged by the defence. The evidence of P.W. 2, thus, remains intact and his evidence makes it abundantly clear that P.W. 8 had, indeed, sustained injuries on her person. In the light of this fact, when the evidence of P.W. 8 is taken into account, it clearly follows that she was, indeed, injured in the occurrence, as she has described, and that the occurrence took place inside the room, where she was, admittedly, lying on bed, with the deceased and her children and in the same room was sleeping the accused too. The presence of the accused in the room has not been denied. Even if for a moment, it is presumed that it was dark inside the room, the accused being the son-in-law of P.W. 8 and Muslema being her daughter, there is no reason for P.W. 8 to falsely implicate the accused. The presence of the accused in the room has not been denied. Even if for a moment, it is presumed that it was dark inside the room, the accused being the son-in-law of P.W. 8 and Muslema being her daughter, there is no reason for P.W. 8 to falsely implicate the accused. It is not alleged that P.W. 8 bore any animosity against the accused-Appellant nor is there any evidence on record in this regard. Not-with-standing the fact that there was no lamp, the assertion of P.W. 8 was that the accused had been giving blows on her daughter, Muslema, after throwing her on the ground from the bed. There is no evidence on record that the accused was not present in the room, when Muslema was hurt and/or the accused appeared on the scene after the occurrence. In the absence of any material on record falsifying the evidence of P.W. 8 that the accused-Appellant was present in the room, when the occurrence took place, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 8 is trustworthy and reliable and her evidence clearly shows that it was none but the accused-Appellant, who had hurt and killed Muslema. It needs to be carefully noted that the villagers are used to living in darkness and it is not unusual for them to get used to noticing things even in the darkness. There is nothing in the evidence on record to show that at the time of occurrence, the room, in question, was pitch dark. The fact that P.W. 8 was lying on her bed along with Muslema and her daughter and that the accused was also present in the room at that time could not be disputed nor could the defence dislodge the assertion of P.W. 8 that the accused-Appellant had not gone to offer his prayer at the time, when Muslema was assaulted and killed. 13. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 4 (Nabiullah), who is the brother of the accused-Appellant, we find that his house is situated at a distance of about 50 cubits from the house of the accused-Appellant. 13. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 4 (Nabiullah), who is the brother of the accused-Appellant, we find that his house is situated at a distance of about 50 cubits from the house of the accused-Appellant. P.W. 4 has deposed that he had been at home on the day of occurrence and just before dawn, he heard hue and cry raised in the house of the accused, he, immediately, got up from his bed and went to the house of the accused and, on arriving there, he found the dead body of Muslema lying on the floor of the house of the accused, he met the two daughters of the accused, namely, Nilima Khatun and Senima Khatun, who were 10 and 7 years of age respectively, at the time of occurrence. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 that he did not see the accused there. 14. P.W. 4 has also deposed that their neighbour, Alauddin, came there and that on reaching near Nilima (P.W. 5), he saw cut injury on her back, whereupon he (P.W. 4) took Nilima (P.W. 5) to the house of Adhir Sarkar, a neighbour, he showed Nilima to Adhir and from there, he (P.W. 4) took Nilima (P.W. 5) to Agamoni hospital from where he took her to Dhubri Civil Hospital as per advice of the doctor and lodged an ejahar at Agamoni police outpost, the ejahar having been written by one Abdul Qader Ahmed and he put his thumb impression thereon after it was read over to him. P.W. 4 has further deposed that the police visited the place of occurrence on he very day of the occurrence. P.W. 4 has claimed that Muslima had illicit relation with Dhepra Sk. and he (P.W. 4) had warned Muslema twice in this regard. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 that in the morning of the day preceding the day of occurrence, he had seen the accused in the house, police came and held inquest over the dead body of Muslema. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. 15. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 4 that in the morning of the day preceding the day of occurrence, he had seen the accused in the house, police came and held inquest over the dead body of Muslema. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. 15. Though this witness has denied, the Investigating Officer has confirmed that this witness (P.W. 4) stated before the police that 2/3 months before the occurrence, the accused had told him that his wife had illicit relation with Dhupera Sk and that having heard hue and cry raised, suddenly, from the house of his brother at 5.30 a.m., he (P.W. 4) woke up, went there and tried to open the door of his brother's house by pushing the same, but he could not open the door as it was locked from inside, Muhanmnad Ali Sk, who is a neighbour living to the north of their house, came to their courtyard after having heard the hue and cry and failing to open the door, he (P.W. 4) managed to make a gap in the door and entered the room, which was dark, where his elder brother was present and when he asked him (elder brother) as to what he had done, he said that he had finished his 'bhabi' (elder brother's wife). The Investigating Officer has also proved that P.W. 4 stated before him that he had stepped in to the blood that had oozed out of the body of his bhabi and her mother, sitting near her body, was crying, whereupon he out of fear, came out and went to the house of Md. The Investigating Officer has also proved that P.W. 4 stated before him that he had stepped in to the blood that had oozed out of the body of his bhabi and her mother, sitting near her body, was crying, whereupon he out of fear, came out and went to the house of Md. Habibur Rahman, the husband of his sister, and told him that his elder brother, Nesatullah, had killed his 'bhabi' Muslima, Habibur Rahman asked him to take his elder brother to Agomani police Outpost, he, hurriedly, came back home and found that his elder brother had come out towards the road in front of their house and as his elder brother was about to go towards his house, he (P.W. 4) went near his elder brother and told him that he should surrender before the police since he had killed his 'bhabi', his elder brother enquired from him (P.W. 4) whether police would not beat him if he went near them; then, assuring him (i.e. accused) that police would not beat him, he (P.W. 4) took the accused along with his niece to the Police Out post, he (P.W. 4) took his niece to Agamoni State Dispensary and that later on, he (P.W. 4) lodged an ejahar with the out post informing them about the offence committed by his elder brother. 16. What becomes evident from the above discussion of the evidence of P.W. 4 is that though this witness denied to have known as to who had killed Muslema, his previous statement recorded by the police showed that he did enter into the room, in question, and, on finding Muslema lying on the ground smeared with blood, when he enquired from the accused as to what he had done, the accused replied by saying that he had finished his wife. Though the previous statement, so recorded by the Investigating officer (P.W. 9), is not substantive evidence against the accused, it clearly reveals that at the earliest opportunity, P.W. 4 did report to the police that it was the accused-Appellant, who had killed Muslema Though this fact has been denied by P.W. 4 and there is no substantive evidence given by him that the accused had killed Muslema, the fact remains that in the light of the previous statement given by this witness, his evidence given before the Court that he did not see the accused, when he had arrived at the place of occurrence, may not be true. It is, however, clear from the evidence of P.W. 4 that the accused-Appellant did live in a one-roomed house along with his wife, two daughters and his son and on the . day the occurrence took place, the accused was very much present in his house and so was present there the mother of deceased Muslima 17. In the face of the said previous statement of P.W. 4, it is also clear that P.W. 4 is not a trustworthy witness and it is possible that on account of the fact that he is the brother of the accused, he has opted not to reveal the truth. In short, thus, the discredited evidence of P.W. 4 does not reduce the value of the evidence given by P.W. 8 depicting the accused-Appellant as the assailant of Muslema. 18. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 5 (Nilima Khatun), we find from the questions put to this wi tness by the learned trial Court that this witness was mature enough to understand the meaning and implications of the questions put to her. In her evidence, P.W. 5 has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, her sister, mother and she (P.W. 5) had slept on the same bed and when she woke up in the morning, she found that her mother was lying dead on the floor of the house. It is, however, in the evidence of P.W. 5 that on the night of the occurrence, the accused-Appellant slept on a separate bed in the same room in which she (P.W. 5), her sister and her mother slept. P.W. 5 has, however, asserted, in her evidence, that she came to know that her father had gone to 'Namaz' towards the end of the night. P.W. 5 has, however, asserted, in her evidence, that she came to know that her father had gone to 'Namaz' towards the end of the night. It is in the evidence of P.W. 5 that her 'nani' (i.e., mother's mother) was present at the same house on the night of the occurrence, that she (P.W. 5) too sustained injury on her back as someone had beaten her in the room, where the dead body of her mother was lying and doctor examined her (P.W. 5). 19. It may be noted that P.W. 5 too was declared hostile by the prosecution. In her cross-examination by prosecution, P.W. 5 admitted that she had been living with her father and that she had come to the Court with her father. This, apart, notwithstanding the denial by P.W. 5 that she had seen the occurrence, the Investigative Officer has confirmed that this witness stated before the police that when her mother cried out, she woke up and found her father beating her mother and that though she did not see the weapon with which her father was beating her mother, her father had a weapon, somewhat long in size, in his hand, she exerted her father not to beat her mother and when she went forward, her father assaulted her too and threw her on the door and that her grand-mother too, who was present there, was seen by her crying. 20. While considering the veracity or otherwise of the evidence of P.W. 5, it is of immense importance to note that according to the evidence of P.W. 3 (Dr. R. Sarma), on 06.02.96, he examined Nilima (P.W. 4) and found one cut injury on her left scapular region transversely placed, the size being 3½"x1"x½" and the said injury being fresh, simple and caused by sharp weapon and that the said examination was conducted by him, when the injured was brought to him by her relative. The undisputed evidence of P.W. 3 is, thus, that he found a cut injury on the left scapular region of P.W. 5. The evidence of P.W. 5 does not explain as to how the said injury was sustained by her. Coupled with this fact, it is also important to emphasis that P.W. 5 who is a child witness, admittedly, lives with her father and she came to the Court along with her father, who himself was the accused. The evidence of P.W. 5 does not explain as to how the said injury was sustained by her. Coupled with this fact, it is also important to emphasis that P.W. 5 who is a child witness, admittedly, lives with her father and she came to the Court along with her father, who himself was the accused. Situated thus, it is not unnatural that though she stated before the police that her father had beaten and killed her mother, she resiled from her earlier statement, so given before the police, and projected before the Court that she dos not know as to how she sustained injuries on her back and how her mother died. Thus, though the previous statement of P.W. 5 made before the police may not be substantive evidence against the Appellant, yet when the evidence given by P.W. 5, in the Court, is considered in the light of the statement made by her before the police, it becomes transparent that she has given contradictory and conflicting versions of the occurrence and in the absence of any explanation in this regard, one has no option, but to hold that the evidence of P.W. 5 is not believable and though her evidence does not give clear indication that her father had killed her mother, yet the fact remains that admittedly, her father was sleeping in the same room in which the occurrence took place and that on the night of occurrence, P.W. 8, (i.e., the mother-in-law of the accused Appellant) was also present there. Thus, the evidence given by P.W. 5 can not, same as that of the evidence of P.W. 4, make this Court discard the evidence of P.W. 8 as unreliable. 21. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.W. 6 (Habibur Rahman) and P.W. 7 (Aliuddin Sheikh), it transpires that both these witnesses are co-villagers of the accused. According to the evidence of P.W. 6, on the night of the occurrence, when he was sleeping in his own house at about 5:30 am, he heard from the villagers, who were passing by his house, that Nesatullah's wife had been murdered, whereupon he came to the road and saw the accused strolling in front of the school at a little distance. This witness has also deposed hat he also saw Nabiullah, brother of the accused, at a little distance and he went near the accused and asked him whether his wife had been murdered, the accused replied confusingly arid said nothing properly. It is in the evidence of P.W. 6 that he (P.W. 6) then called Nabiullah (P.W. 4) and Nabiullah (P.W. 4) told him that the wife of the accused had been murdered. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 6 that he, then, telephoned Agamoni Police Outpost, a police personnel asked him to bring the accused to the thana, whereupon he (P.W. 6) and Nabiullah (P.W. 4) took the accused to the thana by a rickshaw and produced the accused there. At this stage, P.W. 6 was declared hostile and cross- examined by prosecution. In his Cross-examination by prosecution, though P.W. 6 denied, the Investigating Officer confirmed that in his statement recorded during the investigation, P.W. 6 stated that at about 7 a.m., Nabiullah (P.W. 4) came to his house and told him (P.W. 6) that is elder brother, accused Nesatullah Sheikh, murdered his wife, Moslema, by means of an axe, whereupon he (P.W. 6), accompanied by Nabiullah (P.W. 4) proceeded towards the house of the accused and while they were so proceeding, they met the accused, who carrying his daughter, Nilima, was coming towards the house of this witness (P.W. 6) and when he (P.W. 6) asked, the accused told this that on that day at 5.30 a.m., he (accused) had killed his wife by means of an axe and that while he was dealing blow with axe on his wife, his daughter, Nilima, also sustained injury on her back. 22. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 7 (Alimuddin), we notice that this witness has deposed that he was at the time of occurrence, his house being situated 150 cubits away from the house of the accused. As regards the occurrence, P.W. 7 has deposed that he heard hue and cry at the house of the accused before dawn and on hearing the cries of the two little daughters of the accused, he (P.W. 7) went to the house of the accused and met his brother, Nabiullah (P.W. 4) there. As regards the occurrence, P.W. 7 has deposed that he heard hue and cry at the house of the accused before dawn and on hearing the cries of the two little daughters of the accused, he (P.W. 7) went to the house of the accused and met his brother, Nabiullah (P.W. 4) there. The door of the house of the accused was closed, P.W. 4, managed to make a gape in the door, Nabiullah entered into the house, but he (P.W. 7) remained outside. P.W. 7 has also deposed that P.W. 4, immediately, informed him (P.W. 7) that the dead body of the wife of his elder brother was seen lying inside. P.W. 7 has claimed that he did not see the accused inside the said house, but the mother-in-law of the accused and the two daughters of the accused were present there. It is in the evidence of P.W. 7 that he left for the mosque and he did not know how Muslema died. At this stage, P.W. 7 was declared hostile and cross- examined by prosecution. Though P.W. 7, same as P.W. 6 denied, the Investigating Officer confirmed that P.W. 7 stated in his statement made during the investigation that when he (P.W. 7) asked Nabiullah (P.W. 4) as to what had happened inside the house, P.W. 4 said that Nesatullah i.e., the accused Appellant had killed his 'bhabi' (elder other's wife) by hacking her with an axe, that a little later many neighbouring people had gathered at the courtyard of the accused, the accused came out of the house by opening the lock of the same and that at that time, blood was sticking to the body of the accused and on throwing his glance inside, he (P.W. 7) could see that Muslema Bibi had been kept laid on the floor and there was blood on her body. 23. It is thus, clear that the evidence of P.W. 6 as well as of P.W. 7 stated before the police to the effect that the accused-had killed his wife and that the accused was present at his house, when they arrived there. But both these witnesses have, now, resiled from their previous statements so made before the police. 23. It is thus, clear that the evidence of P.W. 6 as well as of P.W. 7 stated before the police to the effect that the accused-had killed his wife and that the accused was present at his house, when they arrived there. But both these witnesses have, now, resiled from their previous statements so made before the police. The previous statements of these two witnesses cannot be regarded as substantive evidence; but in the light of what they had stated before the police, it is clear that none of these two witnesses can be regarded as trustworthy or reliable witness. The possibility that both these witnesses being co-villagers chose not to give evidence against the accused cannot, therefore, be boldly ruled out. 24. What, thus, crystallizes from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 cannot be regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Their evidence, however, clearly indicate that they have made contradictory and confecting statements at different stages and hence the possibility that they had, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, endeavoured to support the defence cannot be ruled out. The evidence of P.W. 5, however, clearly indicates that her father was sleeping in the same room in which the said occurrence took place and that P.W. 8 was also present in the same room on the night of the occurrence. Thus, the presence of the accused as well as P.W. 8 along with the said deceased and P.W. 5 stands well established from the evidence on record. The only questions, however, which remain to be answered are as to whether the accused was present in the said room at the time, when the occurrence took place and whether it was the accused, who had assaulted and killed Muslema. While discussing the evidence of P.W. 8, we have already indicated hereinabove that the evidence given by P.W. 8 has remained unshaken in material particulars inasmuch as her evidence clearly shows coupled with the evidence of the Dr. M.C. Goswami (P.W. 2) that while she (P.W. 8) tried to save her daughter, she (P.W. 8) sustained injury on her person and that it was the accused, who had assaulted and injured his wife, Muslema, which eventually led to Muslema's death. 25. M.C. Goswami (P.W. 2) that while she (P.W. 8) tried to save her daughter, she (P.W. 8) sustained injury on her person and that it was the accused, who had assaulted and injured his wife, Muslema, which eventually led to Muslema's death. 25. What logically follows from the above discussion is that it was the accused who was the assailant of his wife, Muslema. The number of injuries found on the dead body of Muslema, the vital parts of the body, such as neck, which was selected by the accused for assaulting Muslema, the force with which the blows were dealt with and the nature of the weapon, which was used, are all circumstances which, when considered together, go to show that the intention of the accused-Appellant was to bring complete end to the life of his wife, Muslema, and the accused-Appellant succeeded in his intention. There can, thus, be no escape from the conclusion that the accused-Appellant intentionally killed Muslema and committed thereby offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 26. We, see, therefore, no merit in this appeal and the appeal deserves dismissal. 27. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 28. Let the LCRs be sent back. Appeal dismissed.