JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. These appeals from the jail are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.3.2000, passed by the learned Session Judge, Karimganj, in Session Case No. 40 of 1997 convicting the Appellants in both the appeals under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. Both the appeals having arisen from the same judgment of conviction those are taken up for hearing and disposal together. Since the appeals were from the jail, learned Counsel Mr. Goutam Baishya, was appointed as amicus curiae. 3. On the basis of the information given by Rajesh Nath, son of Naresh Nath of village Paschim Singla No. 5, Ratabari Police Station made General Diary Entry No. 421 dated 17.7.1995 to the effect that Parendra Nath was seriously injured by the accused Sajal Nath and Mufajjil Ali and others and when the villagers wanted to take the injured to the hospital the accused person prevented them from doing so. The police on receipt of the said information started investigation. On the next day of occurrence i.e. on 18.7.1995 a written ejahar was lodged by the wife of the deceased Parendra Nath in Ratabari police station intimating that on 17.7.1995 at about 3 p.m. when her husband went out to attend the nature's call in a drain, the accused persons including the present Appellants assaulted him with sharp weapon and on hearing the alarm raised by her husband she came out of the house and saw the occurrence and thereafter the accused persons injured her eldest son Pranil Ranjan Nath grievously by assaulting with lathi and spear. It has further been stated that her husband succumbed to the injury caused to him by the accused persons on his head, abdomen, legs, and hands and in other parts of the body. The investigating agency upon completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against all the accused persons including present Appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. Accordingly the charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by the learned Session judge, Karimganj on 25.9.97, which when explained to the accused they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Accordingly the charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by the learned Session judge, Karimganj on 25.9.97, which when explained to the accused they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the Appellants and four others examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses, which includes the informant, wife of the deceased as P.W-1, eldest son of the deceased Pranil Ranjan Nath as P.W.-5, daughter of the deceased suparna Rani Nath as P.W.-6, Dr. Anup Daitary who held autopsy on the dead body of the Parendra Nath as P.W.-7, Chandra Babu Singh, Satya Ranjan Nath and Samiran Chandra Nath co-villagers, who were witnesses to the inquest done by the police as P.Ws-2, 3 and 11 respectively, Barindra Nath another co-villager as P.W.-4, Sailesh Chandra Nath and Digandra Nath, who are the witnesses to the seizure memo, Exhibit No. 5, seizing the spear on being produced by accused Mufajjil Ali as P.Ws-9 and 10, Jayanta Das a co-villager, who is witness to the seizure memo exhibit-6 seizing wooden handle of the spear on being produced by the accused Sajal Nath as P.W.-12, Shri Krishna Gopal Nath another co-villager as P.W.-15, Sri Kamaleshwar Kakati, the Investigating Officer as P.W.-13, Basir Uddin Barbhuiya, Asstt. sub-Inspector of police who proved the G.D. Entry as P.W.-14 and Binod chandra Das, the learned Magistrate, who recorded the statement of Krishna Gopal Nath (P.W.-15) and Barindra Nath (P.W.-4) under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure as P.W.-16. The learned session Judge on the basis of materials available on record and on appreciation of the evidences on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction convicting the present Appellants Mufajjil Ali and Sajal Nath and acquitting the others accused namely Sukumar Nath, Badal Nath, Rabindra Nath and Chitta Nath. Hence the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. Gutam Baishya, learned Amicus curiae and Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and perused the judgment of conviction dated 28.3,2000 as well as the evidences on record both oral and documentary. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Hence the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. Gutam Baishya, learned Amicus curiae and Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and perused the judgment of conviction dated 28.3,2000 as well as the evidences on record both oral and documentary. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Baishya has submitted that as there are material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.-1, Rina Rani Nath, the witness to the occurrence as well as Suparna Rani Nath, the daughter of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.-6, no conviction can be recorded against the Appellants on the basis of such testimony. It has further been argued by the learned amicus Curiae that it is evident from the post mortem report as well as the deposition of Dr. Anup Daitary P.W-7, that the injuries found on the body of the deceased Parendra Nath was caused by the sharp cutting weapon and the weapons which were recovered being not sharp cutting weapons those injuries cannot be caused by the accused persons and therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the Appellants. Mr. Baishya, learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that it is evident from the deposition of the P.W.-1 Rina Rani Nath and other prosecution witnesses that there was some enemity between the two groups and incident occurred on the previous date i.e. on 16th July 1995 and continued till 17th July 1995 and therefore, there being no pre-determined move on the part of the Appellants to kill the deceased, they ought not to have been convicted under Section302 IPC. 7. Mr. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor supporting the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Session Judge has submitted that the prosecution witnesses more particularly the P.W.-1 Rina Rani Nath, P.W.-6 Suparna Rani Nath have vividly described the incident and also the involvement of the Appellants with the commission of the offence. It has further been contended that as it is in evidence that the exhibit-5, spear, which was recovered at the instance of the accused Mufajjil Ali has sharp cutting edge and the doctor P.W.-7 has found that the injuries on the body of the deceased can be caused by sharp cutting weapon, it cannot be said that the those injuries were not caused by the spear. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that it evident from the deposition of P.W.-4, Barindra Nath that the accused persons threatened him for extending help to Parendra Nath and asked him not to assist them and the said conduct of the Appellants will definitely go against them and prove their involvement in the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor therefore, submits that the learned Session Judge has rightly convicted the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. 8. P.W.-1, Rina Rani Nath, the wife of the deceased, who lodged the written Ejahar in the police station has stated about the injuries caused on the body of the Parendra Nath by the accused Appellants. In her deposition P.W.-1 has stated that on. the previous day there was an incident when Sailesh Nath, the father of the accused Sajal Nath had a quarrel with her elder son relating to the release of the water from the Nala, for which her husband (Parendra) reported the matter to the Ratabari police station, which angered Sajal Nath and threatened them that they will teach them a good lesson for informing the police. On the next day i.e. on 17.7.1995 at about 3 p.m. when her husband went to attend the nature's call by the side of the Nala, she suddenly heard hue and cry of her husband and went out towards the Nala running where she saw the accused Sajal hitting her, husband with a dao and accused Mufajjil Ali giving a blow on her husband with a jata/ballam. When she raised alarm both the accused persons chased her to their house and when the accused person left she again came out with her daughter Suparna (P.W.-6) and Aparna and found Parendra lying with bleeding injuries on his stomach and head. At that time Barindra Nath (P.W.-4) came to help them. This witness has further deposed that, thereafter, her son Pranil Ranjan Nath (P.W.-5), who was attending cattle near the shop of one Kanta Singh was also assaulted by the accused persons causing injuries on right side of his forehead and while Pranil was taken to her house the accused persons Sajal and Mufajjil followed him and again chased her with a view to assault. To save herself she ran to the house of Krishna Nath (P.W.-15) and thereafter accused person left the place. To save herself she ran to the house of Krishna Nath (P.W.-15) and thereafter accused person left the place. P.W.-1 in her deposition has also stated that after the accused persons left the place she came back from the house of Krishna Nath and found that her husband has already succumbed to the injuries. P.W.-1 Rina Rani Nath has stated in her evidence that as out of fear they could not come out from their house they asked Rajesh Nath (P.W.-8) to inform the police about the incident. Though the defence cross-examined this witness at length no material contradiction could be brought out. The defence in fact did not cross-examine the witness on the injuries caused on the body of Parendra. The defence case as it appears from the cross examination of this witness was that the Nala (drain) was 6 to 7ft. in depth and the incident having occurred inside the Nala there is no question of P.W.-1 seeing the incident from her house. This witness in her deposition has made a categorical statement that the occurrence took place on the side of the Nala and not inside the Nala. The said position has also been clarified by the witness on being asked by the court. 9. The injuries caused on the person of Parendra was also testified by P.W.-6 Suparna Rani Nath as well as P.W.-4 Barindra Nath. The Dr. Anup Daitary, P.W.-7 who held the autopsy on the dead body of Parendra also described the injuries found on the body of the deceased, which are as follows: An average built Male, Hindu, about 55 years having Lagoon in the neck had lost rigor mortis, puterous smelling from lower body lids, mouth (face) conjunctive swollen, abdomen swollen incised looking wound in the abdomen around (eight) Cm. transversely above the umbilicus, intestinal loop about 15 cm. expelled through wound. There is transverse incised wound left lower lid 2" in length, laceration chest lineary 3" x 2" over the left Nipple transverse cut injury back side of mid chest 6 cm x 1 cm. Transverse cut injury left elbow in the back 3 cm. x 1cm. The said witness was not cross-examined by the defence on the point of the injuries found on the body of the deceased. The doctor has also opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and Visural shock. Transverse cut injury left elbow in the back 3 cm. x 1cm. The said witness was not cross-examined by the defence on the point of the injuries found on the body of the deceased. The doctor has also opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and Visural shock. Though the doctor was examined as P.W-7, there was no challenge either to the injuries found on the body or to the opinion of the doctor by the defence. Therefore, the learned Session Judge has rightly held that it was a case of homicide. 10. Sri Barindra Nath, P.W.-4 in his deposition has stated that on hearing the alarm, he went to the place of occurrence where the wife of the deceased reported him that the accused Appellants along with others assaulted her husband. They then removed the injured person inside his house and at that time accused Sajal and Mufajjil called him from out side and charged him as to why he helped the injured and also threatened to kill him for extending such help. This witness has further stated that out of fear he left the place and went running to the house of Arup. This witness though was cross examined by the defence nothing has been put to him challenging the statement relating to the threatening given by the accused Appellants to him for helping the injured. The post occurrence conduct of the accused Appellants therefore, has to be taken into consideration while scrutinizing the role played by the Appellants and also while considering as to whether the accused Appellants committed the crime. 11. P.W.-5 Pranil Ranjan Nath, the son of the deceased also narrated as to how accused Appellants Sajal and Mufajjil forcibly dragged him from the house of Kanta Singh and assaulted him on 7.7.1995. This witness during cross-examination has stated that the accused Sajal had a dao with him and Mufajjil had a ballam. P.W.-6 Suparna Rani Nath, daughter of the deceased has deposed before the court that on hearing some cries from the side of the Nala, they went out towards the place of occurrence but before reaching the nala they were encountered by the accused Sajal and Mufajjil, who told them that they have finished their father and was looking for brother Pranil. This witness has also deposed that they found their father lying seriously injured and they raised cries. This witness has also deposed that they found their father lying seriously injured and they raised cries. Barindra Nath P.W.-4 came to the place of occurrence, who helped them to take the injured to the house. This witness has also stated that while they were attending their father in courtyard of their house they saw Sajal and Mufajjil assaulted their brother with dao and ballam. This witness was also thoroughly cross-examined by the defence but no material contradictions could be elicited. 12. Shri Krishna Gopal Nath, P.W.-15, has also corroborated the statement of the P.W.-1 Rina Rani Nath, the wife of the deceased by deposing before the court about the injuries found on the body of Parendra Nath and also about chasing of Rina Rani P.W.-1 by the accused and taking shelter in his house. P.W.-12, Jayanta Das, who is the witness to the seizure memo exhibit-6 seizing wooden handle of the spear has deposed about recovery of wooden handle of the spear from the house of Bidya Singh on being shown by the accused Sajal and Mufajjil. The defence has not cross-examined this witness on the point of leading the police to recover the weapon of assault. P.W.-9, Sailesh Ch. Nath, who is witness to the seizure memo exhibit-5 has stated in his evidence about the accused Mufajjil leading the police to recover the sulphi (spear) from inside his dwelling house. This witness has also stated in his evidence that the accused Mufajjil told him in presence of police that he killed Parendra with the help of that sulphi: The defence during cross examination could not bring out anything to discredit the version of this witness relating that the accused leading the police to recover the sulphi, the weapon of assault. 13. From the aforesaid discussion of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted as it has clearly been established by the evidence of the eye witness P.W.-1 Rina Rani Nath that the accused Appellants, have caused the injuries on the person of parendra Nath. It is also evident from the deposition of the P.W.-7, the Dr. Anup Daitary as well as the post mortem report that the death was caused because of those injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. It is also evident from the deposition of the P.W.-7, the Dr. Anup Daitary as well as the post mortem report that the death was caused because of those injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the injuries found on the body of the Parendra cannot be caused by spear also cannot be accepted as it appears from the seizure memo exhibit-5 that iron 'sulphi', which was recovered on being lead by Mufajjil has sharp edge. Therefore, such injuries can be caused by the said iron 'sulphi' recovered at the instance of the accused Appellant Mufajjil. Move over conduct of the accused Appellants in threatening P.W.-4, immediately after the occurrence for helping P.W-1 to bring parendra to his house and chasing of P.W.-1, also proves their involvement in the occurrence. The fact that both the accused had a pre-planned and common intention to commit the crime is evident by their conduct as well as their assaulting Pranil (P.W.-5) and also from the fact that they were annoyed with the deceased for lodging complaint before the police about the previous day incident. 14. From the discussion of the evidences on record, there is no doubt what so ever that it is the accused Appellants who inflicted the injury on the person of Parendra, who died because of such injuries inflicted on him. The prosecution, therefore, could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the learned Session Judge has rightly convicted accused Appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further term of three months. Hence the appeals filed by the accused Appellants are dismissed. 16. The fee of the learned Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs. 2500/- 17. The Registry is directed to send down the records immediately. Appeal dismissed