JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 14.07.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No. 36 (NL)/1995, the accused-Appellant, namely, Mangra Kharia, stands convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default to pay the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On 09.08.1993, at about 4.00 p.m., when Bogiram Daijee was returning home, accompanied by Man Bahadur Daijee, after laying fishing-traps in his field, the accused-Appellant came from behind and gave blows with "biriya" (i.e., a split bamboo with pointed edges on both sides used for carrying bundles of paddy on shoulder) on Bogiram. The said blows fell on the head, legs, etc. of Bogiram, his head got cracked and brain matters came out. On witnessing the occurrence, Man Bahadur, out of fear, fled away. Bogiram's wife, Harkamaya Daijee, witnessed the whole occurrence from the court-yard of her house. She raised hue and cry, neighbouring people came and brought her husband to the house, her husband having succumbed to the injuries at the very place of occurrence. The accused-Appellant came to Silanibari Out Post and the information given by him was entered into the form of GD Entry No. 112, dated 09.08.1993, at 6.45 p.m. there. The accused-Appellant was also arrested and, acting upon the information so furnished to the police by the accused-Appellant, the police arrived at the house of the deceased and held inquest over his dead body. During investigation, the police also seized the said "biriya' (Mat. Ext. 1) by seizure list (Ext. 4). On completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused-Appellant under Section 302, IPC. 3. During trial, the accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 302, IPC. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure and in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found the accused-Appellant guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 302, IPC. The accused-Appellant was accordingly convicted and the sentence, as indicated hereinabove, was passed against him. 4. We have heard Mr. Saumitra Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellant, and Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 5. Dr. Sonaram Saikia (P.W. 8) is the doctor, who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bogiram Darjee, and his findings are as follows: There was fracture of both the bones of left leg and the right petal was absent. There was multiple wounds over scalp posterior by with blood clot of there was one penetrating wound posterior by over scalp size 6"x2"x2" with blood clot present and the brain matter exposed. One sharp cut wound posteriority was over the right ear 4"x1" upto the bone-deep and blood clot was present. Another sharp cut wound below the right ear upto bone-deep size 21/2"x1" (upto bone deep) 6. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that the fracture of the scalp could have been caused by a weapon like Mat. Ext. 1. 7. In his cross-examination by the defence, P.W. 8 deposed that there were three head injuries found on the said dead body and these injuries could have been caused by a sharp weapon like dao. P.W. 8 asserted that those three injuries on the head could not have been caused by Mat. Ext. 1 (biriya). To the question, however, put to this witness by the learned trial Court, P.W. 8 admitted that the three injuries aforementioned could have been caused by bamboo lathi if the same had sharp edges. As regards Mat. Ext. 1, P.W. 8, deposed that it was neither too sharp nor too blunt. 8. Ext. 1 (biriya). To the question, however, put to this witness by the learned trial Court, P.W. 8 admitted that the three injuries aforementioned could have been caused by bamboo lathi if the same had sharp edges. As regards Mat. Ext. 1, P.W. 8, deposed that it was neither too sharp nor too blunt. 8. On a careful consideration of the above evidence on record, we find that the penetrating wound found by P.W. 8 could have been caused by a sharp pointed substance like 'biriya' and for the purpose of causing cut injury of the kind which was found on the said dead body, a sharp cutting weapon was not necessary and even sharp edges of 'biriya' can cause such injuries. Considered thus, we are of the view that notwithstanding what P.W. 8 has opined, the injuries found on the said dead body could have been caused by Mat. Ext. 1. 9. Bearing in mind the above medical evidence on record, when we proceed further, we notice that there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Harkamaya Daijee (P.W. 1), wife of the said deceased, and P.W. 2 (Monbahadur Darjee). 10. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, his evidence is that he was with Bogiram in the field and while they were returning home, the accused came running with a 'biriya' in his hand and assaulted Bogiram on his head and foot, Bogiram's head got broken (fractured) and feeling frightened, he (P.W. 2) fled away, the place of occurrence being about 100 metres away from the house of Bogiram and that the place of occurrence was visible from Bogiram's house. 11. We have scrutinized the cross-examination of P.W. 2 at the hands of the defence, but we find that nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to show that his evidence as to how Bogiram sustained injuries is false or untrue. His evidence also clearly shows that the place of occurrence was visible from the house of Bogiram. 12. Mr. 11. We have scrutinized the cross-examination of P.W. 2 at the hands of the defence, but we find that nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to show that his evidence as to how Bogiram sustained injuries is false or untrue. His evidence also clearly shows that the place of occurrence was visible from the house of Bogiram. 12. Mr. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, has pointed out that in his statement made under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, P.W. 2 had stated that blow was given by the accused on the leg of Bogiram and, on seeing the said assault, P.W. 2 had fled away, but in his evidence in the Court, P.W. 2 has deposed that the assault took place on the head of Bogiram and also on foot. It is pointed out by Mr. Saikia that in his statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, P.W. 2, nowhere, stated about the assault on the head of the deceased. While considering the submission so made, on behalf of the accused-Appellant, it needs to be borne in mind that the attention or P.W. 2 was not drawn to the contradiction, which has, now, been pointed out on behalf of the accused-Appellant, when P.W. 2 was, under cross-examination by the defence. Having not drawn the attention of the witness to his previous statement said to have been made under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure and without giving him any opportunity to explain the said contradiction/commission so pointed out, the same cannot, now, in out firm view, be taken into account in order to override the specific and clear evidence given by P.W. 2 that the accused-Appellant had given blows with 'biriya' (M. Ext. 1) on the head and foot of Bogiram. This apart, the contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 2, which has, now, been pointed out, on behalf of the accused-Appellant, is not very material inasmuch as even the statement made by P.W. 2 under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure makes it more than abundantly clear that it was the accused-Appellant, who had assaulted Bogiram with 'biriya' (M. Ext. 1). 13. 1). 13. Coupled with the above, when we come to the evidence of P.W. 1, wife of the deceased, we notice from her evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 4.00/5.00 p.m. when she was standing in her court-yard, she saw her husband, who was returning home along with P.W. 2, being assaulted by the accused with a 'biriya'. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 1 that on seeing the assault, she raised hue and cry, people came running from the neighbourhood, her husband's head was found to have cracked and blood and brain matters had come out and her husband having died at the very spot, she brought her husband home. P.W. 1 has also deposed that the distance of the place of occurrence from her house was 10 nals, i.e., approximately 120 feet. 14. We notice that in the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has observed to the effect that P.W. 1 might not have seen the occurrence. For the conclusion so reached, the learned trial Court has assigned absolutely no reason. 15. In view of the fact that the unshaken evidence of P W 2 is that the place of occurrence was visible from the house of the deceased and that the evidence of P.W. 2 has not been disputed in his cross-examination by the defence. We see no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of P.W. 2 that the place of occurrence was visible from the house of the said deceased. It logically follows that it was not impossible, on the part of P.W. 1, to have witnessed the assault on her husband at the hands of the accused-Appellant. 16. Thus, the combined effect of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is that it was the accused-Appellant, who had assaulted Bogiram with a 'biriya' and caused the injuries, which led to his death. When the eye witnesses' account of the occurrence, as discussed above, is found to be natural, consistent, coherent, unshaken and trustworthy, the same cannot be discarded on the basis of the shaky medical evidence, particularly, when the medical evidence on record, as already discussed above, does not, strictly speaking, rule the possibility of Bogiram having sustained the injuries from Mat. Ext. 1. 17. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that there is evidence of the neighbouring witness, namely, P.W. 4 (Norman Daijee). Ext. 1. 17. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that there is evidence of the neighbouring witness, namely, P.W. 4 (Norman Daijee). The evidence of this witness indicates that on hearing hue and cry, he rushed to the field, where the alleged occurrence had taken place and on his arrival there he found Bogiram lying dead with injuries on his head and his leg broken. It is the evidence of P.W. 4 that P.W. 1, whom he (P.W.-4) found present at the said field, reported to him that it was the accused, Mangra Kharia, who had killed her husband. This shows that immediately after the occurrence, the name of the accused-Appellant surfaced as the assailant of the said deceased. 18. We have also noticed that according to the unshaken evidence of P.W. 9 (Investigating Officer), the accused-Appellant had surrendered at the police outpost and it was on the strength of the information given by him that the police visited the house of the deceased and also the place of occurrence and obtained from there a written Ejahar from P.W. 1. Since the investigation, as transpires from the evidence of P.W. 9, commenced on the strength of the oral information given by the accused, Ext. 1, which has been treated as FIR, is not really an FIR in the present case. It is, rather, a statement made under Section 101 Code of Criminal Procedure and is, therefore, inadmissible under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure Though the prosecution has not proved the oral information, which the accused had given, the fact remains that following the information given by the accused to the police regarding the occurrence that the police came to the place of occurrence. 19. What crystallizes from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that Bogiram sustained injuries on his head and leg at the hands of the accused in the manner as has been described by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the injuries so sustained by Bogiram led to his instantaneous death. 20. In view of the above, the findings of the learned trial Court that the accused-Appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 302 , IPC, cannot be said to be incorrect. 21. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-Appellant. 20. In view of the above, the findings of the learned trial Court that the accused-Appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 302 , IPC, cannot be said to be incorrect. 21. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-Appellant. The sentence passed against the accused-Appellant also needs, in our firm opinion, no interference. 22. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal falls and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 23. Send down the LCRs. Appeal dismissed