D. BISWAS, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 76/2003. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants u/s 3027 149IPC and sentenced each of them to R/ I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, further R/I for one year each. That apart, the learned Sessions Judge also convicted them u/s 148/149 IPC and on such conviction, sentenced each of them to undergo R/I for six months. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment on various grounds. 2. We have heard Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Munir, learned PP, Assam. 3. The genesis of the prosecution case is traceable to the FIR lodged by one Md. Asad Ali before the Officer-in-Charge of Jamira Police Patrol Post at around 8.00 A.M. on 25th September, 2000. The prosecution story unfurled in the FIR is that on that day at about 8.00 A.M. the deceased Md. Rasab Ali, younger brother of the informant, went to a local shop to buy provisions with his son aged 13/14 years. On his way back home after about 10 minutes, in front of the house of one Faizul, the appellants suddenly appeared from a hideout and started assaulting Rasab Ali with dao, falchira, axe, spear etc. The accused persons chopped off both the hands of Rasab. The accused persons left the place of occurrence on arrival of the villagers. Rasab died on his way to hospital. 4. On receipt of the ejahar, Jamira P/P Case No. 325 and Katlicherra PS Case No. 128/2000 u/s 147/148/149/341/326/302 IPC were registered. 5. PW6 Sri Abdur Rahman Choudhury, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was the In-charge of Jamira Police Patrol Post at the relevant time. He received the ejahar (Ext. 1), made GD entry and forwarded the same to Katlicherra P.S. for registration of a case. He visited Jamira P.H.C. and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ext. 2 is the inquest report. He also visited the place of occurrence, drew up sketch map (Ext. 3) and eventually on completion of investigation submitted the Case Diary to Sri H. C. Das, Sub-Inspector of Police who ultimately submitted the Charge-sheet. 6. He visited Jamira P.H.C. and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ext. 2 is the inquest report. He also visited the place of occurrence, drew up sketch map (Ext. 3) and eventually on completion of investigation submitted the Case Diary to Sri H. C. Das, Sub-Inspector of Police who ultimately submitted the Charge-sheet. 6. On receipt of the case on commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge initially against six accused persons, namely, Saraf Uddin, Taz Uddin, Nurul Islam, Fakrul Islam, Kamrul Islam and Sikai Mia Barbhuiyan u/s 148/149/302 IPC. During the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge summoned accused Safique Uddin under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the charges were recast and reframed against all the seven appellants under Section 148/149/302 I.P.C. The newly impleaded accused Safique Uddin through his appointed counsel declined to cross-examine P.W. 1 and 2. This is reflected in the order dated 4.4.2005. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned above. 7. The appellants have been charged for causing death of Rasab Ali in furtherance of their common object around 8.00 A.M. on 25.9.2000. We may, therefore at the first instance, refer to the evidences of PW 8 Dr. D. K. Mukherjee who had performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Rasab Ali. The doctor, in his evidence, stated that he had found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased Rasab Ali. "1. The left fore-arm is amputed 4 inches below the left elbow joint. The amputed part is available for comparison. Cut surfaces of the amputed ends are cleanly incised with presence of clotted blood. 2. The right fore-arm is amputed 7 inches below the right elbow joint. The amputed part is available with the body for comparison. The cut surfaces of the amputed ends are found cleanly incised with clotted blood. 3. The dorsal surface of the hand of the amputed right fore-arm bears an incised wound which is 2 Cm. Distal to wrist joint. All the metacarpel bones are cleanly incised. The injuries were of size 31/2 inches x 11/2 inches x 1 1/2 inches. Only palmar skin remained. The right index finger was found amputed at the level of middle phalanx. The amputed part is missing. Distal to wrist joint. All the metacarpel bones are cleanly incised. The injuries were of size 31/2 inches x 11/2 inches x 1 1/2 inches. Only palmar skin remained. The right index finger was found amputed at the level of middle phalanx. The amputed part is missing. The injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 are fresh, grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting object. 4. One incised wound on right parietal region of head of size 1 1/2 inches x 1 inch, x scalp deep. The injury was simple, fresh and cut by sharp cut weapon. 5. One incised on the lower part of the back of size 2 inches x 1 inch x 2 inches in depth. The injury was simple, fresh and caused by sharp weapon." 8. The doctor was of the opinion that the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the anti-mortem injuries sustained by the victim. Ext. 4 is the post mortem report prepared by him. The evidence of this witness read with the inquest report (Ext. 2) establish that Rasab Ali died of the injuries caused on his person, as alleged by the prosecution. 9. We would now like to examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in order to determine the involvement of the accused persons with the alleged crime. 10. PW1 Jahiruddin Laskar is the son of the deceased Rasab Ali. He was examined by the learned Sessions Judge on 14.9.2004 i.e. after 4 years from the date of occurrence. On the date of his examination he was 14 years old. Therefore, he was 10 years old on the date of occurrence. This witness in his evidence stated that 4 years back in the morning hours, he along with his father Rasab Ali (deceased) went to the shop of one Putul Master. On their way back home, in front of the house of one Fazal, the accused persons namely, Kamrul, Sokai, Saraf, Fakoi, Tazu, Safiq and Nur Islam attacked his father with Huja , dao, Balsira, axe and lathi. Kamrul assaulted his father with Huja; Sikai with Balchira; Saraf with sikling dao; Fakoi with axe; Tazu with Bhujali; Nur Islam with dao and Safi with lathi. His father fell down on the ground. Tazu chopped off the left arm of his father with Bhujali and Saraf inflicted a dao blow on the neck. Kamrul assaulted his father with Huja; Sikai with Balchira; Saraf with sikling dao; Fakoi with axe; Tazu with Bhujali; Nur Islam with dao and Safi with lathi. His father fell down on the ground. Tazu chopped off the left arm of his father with Bhujali and Saraf inflicted a dao blow on the neck. Fakoi assaulted below the navel with an axe. The witness raised alarm. On his crying, his uncles Moyub Ali, Asad Ali and some neighbours came to the place of occurrence. Accused Saraf made an attempt to assault Moyub Ali with a dao. Thereafter, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. His father died on way to Jamira Hospital. 11. P.W. 1 is the lone eye-witness in the instant case. He was 10 years old at the time of occurrence. He claimed that he had been to the shop of one Putul Master along with his father and the occurrence took place on their way back. He has also named all the accused persons as the assailants of his father. The question is whether P.W. 1 can be relied upon and on his evidence alone the conviction of the appellants could be sustained? 12. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel argued that P.W. 1 was not present at the time of occurrence as he was in the house of his maternal uncle and that he has been procured by the Investigating Officer to depose against the accused persons. According to Mr. Mazumdar, the occurrence took place in September, 2000 and four years thereafter, P.W. 1 was examined by the Court. The evidence of this witness would show that he has in a parrotlike manner reiterated what he had stated before the police. This suggest that the witness has been tutored all along to depose against the appellants. Besides, Mr. Mazumdar submitted that at least two of the appellants were juvenile at the time of occurrence and therefore, the trial by the Sessions Judge stood vitiated so far the juvenile accused persons are concerned. 13. PW 6, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination stated that PW 1 told him that on return from the shop, he saw Kamrul, Nurul, Fokai and Saraf armed with Huja in their hands. Kamrul assaulted his father by means of Huja and he fell down on the ground. At that time, Chikai gave a kick on his father. 13. PW 6, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination stated that PW 1 told him that on return from the shop, he saw Kamrul, Nurul, Fokai and Saraf armed with Huja in their hands. Kamrul assaulted his father by means of Huja and he fell down on the ground. At that time, Chikai gave a kick on his father. The witness further stated that PW 1 told him that Saraf assaulted his father with Balchira and Fokai with a dao. The contradiction sought to be proved by the defence is with regard to the weapons used by the accused persons at the time of occurrence. It is worthwhile to note here that the statement of PW 1 was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the day of occurrence around II 2.30 P.M. i.e. within 4/5 hours of the incident. The contradictions are not of much significance. The witness deposing after four years of the occurrence is likely to err in reproducing the entire episode in its correct sequence. The witness has in clear terms made incriminating statement against all the accused persons. The minor variations with regard to the weapons used cannot be a ground for rejection of the evidence of this witness in toto. The variations also suggest that P.W. 1 has not been tutored as argued by Mr. Mazumdar. The decision in Chhagan Dame Vs. State of Gujarat, 1994 CRL. L.J. 56 has been relied upon by Shri Mazumdar to show that where there is possibility of tutoring a child witness, it would not be safe to base conviction on such evidence without corroboration. In the instant case, the statement of P.W. 1 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. within 5/6 hours. He has named all the accused persons before the Investigating Officer as stated in the Court. The period between the occurrence and the examination of this witness by the I.O. was too short for making any false statement against the appellants. That apart, the evi-. dence of this witness was recorded after four years in the Court. The minor contradictions in his evidence are bound to occur. These variations cannot be a ground for rejection of his evidence. 14. The other aspect of the case is that in his evidence P.W. 1 has stated that he along with his father went to the shop of Putul Master. The minor contradictions in his evidence are bound to occur. These variations cannot be a ground for rejection of his evidence. 14. The other aspect of the case is that in his evidence P.W. 1 has stated that he along with his father went to the shop of Putul Master. P.W. 4 Mohibur Rahman stated that he has a grocery shop/and on the day of occurrence the deceased along with his son (PW 1) came to his shop and purchased some articles immediate before the occurrence. Mr. Mazumdar argued that there is nothing on record to show that P.W. 4 Mohibur Rahman is the Putul Master as stated by P.W. 1. Though the master has not been clarified by any of the witnesses, the fact remains that P.W. 1 along with his father went to the shop of P.W. 4 to buy provisions immediately before the occurrence. P.W. 4, an independent witness, has no reason to make false statement in this regard. We are unable to discern any infirmity in his evidence. 15. PW 2 Moyub Ali in his evidence stated that he went to the place of occurrence after being attracted by a commotion. He saw the accused Kamrul, Sokai, , Saraf, Fakoi, Tazu, Safiq and Nur Islam assaulting his brother Rasab Ali with dao, Huja etc. He further stated that the accused Sikai chopped off the right hand of his brother while Tazu chopped off the left arm with Bhujali. This witness was also threatened by Saraf when he tried to approach his brother. This witness has been subjected to long cross-examination by the defence. It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 that P.W. 2 did not tell him specifically that accused Tazu severed the left hand of the deceased with a dao, but stated that accused Sikai severed both the hands of the deceased by Balchira. We have cross-checked this with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We find that the-witness has made incriminating statement against accused Tazu as well as Sikai. Therefore, we are of the opinion that P.W. 2 corroborates the evidence of PW 1 in all material aspects. 16. P.W. 3 Asad Ali has been declared hostile. He denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that he had seen accused Safique Uddin and Fakrul washing the Balchira in a ditch. Therefore, we are of the opinion that P.W. 2 corroborates the evidence of PW 1 in all material aspects. 16. P.W. 3 Asad Ali has been declared hostile. He denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that he had seen accused Safique Uddin and Fakrul washing the Balchira in a ditch. But P.W. 6 in his evidence stated that P.W. 3 made the above statement. Any way, the evidence of P.W. 3 does not help the prosecution. Long before his examination, P.W. 2 in his evidence stated that P.W. 3 was own over by the accused persons. The evidence of P.W. 3 is of no help either for the prosecution or the defence. 17. The evidence of P.W. 1 against the accused persons is corroborated by P.W. 2 who claimed to have seen Sikai, Tazu, Kamrul, Khakai @ Fakrul Islam, Nur Islam and Safi assaulting his brother Rasab All with dao, lathi etc. He also stated that he had seen Sikai cutting off the right hand of his brother with a dao and accused Tazu his left hand with a Bhojali. In our considered opinion, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 read together establish the prosecution charge against the accused persons that they had in pursuance of their common intention assaulted Rasab Ali with deadly weapons and caused his death. Therefore, they have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the verdict of guilt impugned in this appeal. 18. So far Saraf Uddin is concerned; it appears that he was 14 years old on the day of occurrence. He was Juvenile and ought to have been referred to a Juvenile Court for trial. Trial of Saraf Uddin by the Sessions Judge stood vitiated for violation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. For that reason, while sustaining the conviction, we would like to set aside the sentence imposed upon him. At this belated stage, it would serve no purpose to refer him for retrial by the appropriate Court. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants namely, Taj Uddin, Nurul Islam, Fakrul Islam, Kamrul Islam, Sikai Mia Barbhuiya and Safique Uddin are confirmed. The conviction of accused Saraf Uddin is also confirmed, but the sentence imposed upon him is set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants namely, Taj Uddin, Nurul Islam, Fakrul Islam, Kamrul Islam, Sikai Mia Barbhuiya and Safique Uddin are confirmed. The conviction of accused Saraf Uddin is also confirmed, but the sentence imposed upon him is set aside. Saraf Uddin be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case. 20. Before parting with the record, it may be mentioned here that accused Safique Uddin was summoned by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to stand trial in view of the incriminating evidence given by P.Ws. 1 and 2. After his appearance, charges were reframed and he was given the opportunity to cross-examine the P.Ws. 1 and 2. By a petition, the accused Safique Uddin declined to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 and thereby waived his right available under Section 319 Cr. P.C. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the trial so far accused Safique Uddin is concerned.