JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 90(SC)/99 convicting the Appellant Sri Bidya Sagar Das under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. We have heard Ms. M. Dev, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. P.W. 1 Sri Gogon Chandra Gogoi lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Borhat Police Station on 13.11.94 informing that at about 9 p.m. that night while he alongwith some other persons were sitting at the shop of Sri Kamala Sonowal at Borhat, Sri Bhupen Gogoi, a resident of village Barpathar came and informed them that Sri Priyolal Chetia, a resident of the same village had been lying with grievous injuries on his body on the verandah of Sri Rahini Gogoi's shop. The informant along with others went there and saw Priyolal Chetia lying dead with injuries in different parts of his body. Later, he came to know that Sri Bidya Sagar Das, a resident of village Naram Pathar had killed Priyolal Chetia by hitting him with sharp weapon. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, police registered Borhat P.S. Case No. 122/94 Under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation and on completion thereof, submitted chargesheet against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC. 5. On commitment by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the Appellant Bidya Sagar Das under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused-Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of seven witnesses produced by the prosecution including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer and, eventually on completion of trial, convicted the Appellant Bidya Sagar Das as aforesaid. 6. P.W. 6 Dr. B.C. Saikia had performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Priyalal Chetia and found the following injuries: External appearance: Dead body of an average built male. Rigor-mortis present. Wounds: 1) One lacerated wound on the back in the left side of the sizes- 2.5 cms x.5 2) One lecerated wound just below the injury No. 1 of the same size. Rigor-mortis present. Wounds: 1) One lacerated wound on the back in the left side of the sizes- 2.5 cms x.5 2) One lecerated wound just below the injury No. 1 of the same size. 3) One lacerated wound on the right side of the back of the size- 2 cms x .5 cms x .5 cms 4) Multiple area of bruises of various sizes is seen on the whole body. 5) One cut injury on the left side of the upper part of the neck upto the mandible. 6) One penetrating injury on the middle of the chest of the size- 2 cms x 3 cms. 7) Another 3 penetrating injuries on the lower chest wall of the sizes - 2 cms. x .5 cms, 1.5 cms x .5 cms, and 1.5 cms. X .5 cms. 8) Pleura is perforated in 4 places corresponding to the chest injuries as described above. Pleurae contains blood. 9) Larynx and trachea and both the lungs are congested. 10) Pericarium - One perforated injury is seen. Heart- Perforation of the heart in the left atrium with blood in the thoracic cavity seen. Abdomen- One penetrating injury on the right upper abdomen with profusion of the intestine of the size- 2.5 cms. X .5 cms. Another penetrating injury is the lumber region enteriorly of the size- 2.5 cm x .5 cms. Another lacerated injury in the right public area extending upto the testis of the size- 3 cms x 5 cms. Peritonium is perforated in all the wound's area as described above. Stomach- There is perforation of the stomach. Small intestine is perforated in one place and large intestine is perforated in two places. Other organs are healthy. Disease or deformity-nil. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. The doctor further stated that the perforation of the heart itself is sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature and that the perforated injuries may be caused by a 'mit dao' like Mat. Exhibit - 1. 7. The evidence of the doctor read with the inquest report, exhibit-2 establish the initial version of the prosecution that Priyolal Chetia was killed. We would now like to examine the evidence of the witnesses to determine the complicity of the Appellant in the alleged crime. 8. Exhibit - 1. 7. The evidence of the doctor read with the inquest report, exhibit-2 establish the initial version of the prosecution that Priyolal Chetia was killed. We would now like to examine the evidence of the witnesses to determine the complicity of the Appellant in the alleged crime. 8. P.W. 1 Sri Gagan Gogoi stated that on the date of occurrence at about 9 p.m. while he was talking with Kiran Gogoi, Kamala Sonowal and Sarat Singh in the shop of Kamala Sonowal at Borhat Bazar, his brother Bhupen Gogoi came there and reported that Priyolal Chetia was lying in a seriously injured condition in the front verandah of the shop premises of Rohini Gogoi. All of them went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Priyolal Chetia. The witness further stated that his brother Bhupen Gogoi also told him that Bidyasagar had killed Priyolal. This witness then went to Borhat Police Station and lodged the FIR, Exhibit-1. In the FIR the witness has mentioned the name of Bidyasagar Das (Appellant) as the eliminator of Priyolal Chetia. 9. P.W. 1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He went to the place of occurrence on being reported about the occurrence by his brother Bhupen Gogoi, P.W. 2. However, from his evidence we find that P.W. 2 had reported to this witness and others about the occurrence indicting the Appellant as the assailant and having been informed, this witness lodged the FIR before the police. 10. P.W. 2 Bhupen Gogoi stated that the deceased was known to him. The accused-Appellant is also known to him. The Appellant had killed the deceased on 13.11.94 around 7/8 p.m. by cutting him with a sharp pointed mit dao. P.W. 2 further narrated that at the relevant time he was at the shop house of Rohini Gogoi. Deceased Priyolal was standing in the front verandah of Rohini's shop. The accused-Appellant was also there. Suddenly the Appellant assaulted the deceased from behind with a 'mit dao'. The deceased fell down. After the Appellant dealt with dao blows on the deceased, P.W. 2 and one Deba Chetia who was also present there ran away out of fear. The witness further stated that he reported the matter to his brother P.W. 1 who was sitting in the shop premises of Kamala Sonowal. The deceased fell down. After the Appellant dealt with dao blows on the deceased, P.W. 2 and one Deba Chetia who was also present there ran away out of fear. The witness further stated that he reported the matter to his brother P.W. 1 who was sitting in the shop premises of Kamala Sonowal. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had seen a pointed weapon in the hand of the accused- Appellant. P.W. 3 Deba Chetia also supported P.W. 2 by deposing that he was present at the back side of the shop premises of Rohini. Deceased Priyolal was also present there. The accused came from the back side with some pointed weapon in his hand and dealt a blow with the weapon on the back of Priyolal. Priyolal fell down. This witness along with P.W. 2 fled away out of fear and reported the matter to P.W. 1 and others. 11. P.W. 4 Ramani Borgohain stated that at the relevant time the deceased alongwith some others were playing cards behind the shop of Ruhini Gogoi and he along with Ajit Gogoi were standing nearby. They were watching the game. Suddenly the accused appeared there with a 'mit dao' in his hand and pierced the same on the back side of the deceased. The deceased sustained injury and fell down. The accused again assaulted the deceased with the same 'mit dao' and then they fled away out of fear. P.W. 5 also supported the aforementioned witnesses in the same vein indicating the Appellant as the assailant of the deceased. According to him, the Appellant appeared from the back side and assaulted the deceased with a 'mit dao' on his back. All the four witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but the cross-examination does not seem to be effective and, in fact, nothing could be elicited out of them which can be of any assistance to the defence. 12. Ms. Dev, learned amicus curiea argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. That apart, the dead body was not found at the place of occurrence and that there is no evidence to show that the weapon of offence was produced by the accused. The learned amicus curiae further submitted that the injuries found on the dead body could not have been caused by a 'mit dao'. 13. That apart, the dead body was not found at the place of occurrence and that there is no evidence to show that the weapon of offence was produced by the accused. The learned amicus curiae further submitted that the injuries found on the dead body could not have been caused by a 'mit dao'. 13. We have considered the above grounds raised by the learned amicus curiae. With regard to the discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses, it may be stated that the witnesses are consistent in their substantive allegation against the Appellant that he had appeared at the place of occurrence with a 'mit dao' in his hand and assaulted the deceased from the back side. The defence could not prove any omission or contradiction in order to render the evidence of the witnesses doubtful. In so far the question regarding dead body of the deceased is concerned, the witnesses have stated that the dead body was lying on the verandah of the shop premises of Rohini Gogoi. The inquest report, Exhibit-2 also clearly shows that the dead body was lying on the verandah of the shop premises of Rohini Gogoi. The inquest report has been attested by P.W. 1 Gagan Gogoi and Kiran Gogoi as witnesses. Therefore, the submission that the dead body was found somewhere else is not borne on record. In so far the seizure of the weapon of offence is concerned, the seizure list clearly shows that the accused led the police and others and identified the place where the weapon was kept and on being shown by the accused, it was picked up and handed over to the police by Manik Sonowal. The Medical Officer in his evidence has stated that the perforated injuries could have been caused by a 'mit dao' like Mat. Exhibit-1. A 'mit dao' has a pointed edge at the end and this weapon is capable of causing injuries of different nature. If the blunt side of dao is used, it may cause abrasion including fracture and the sharp side is capable of causing incised injuries as well. The witnesses who have evinced the murderous attack on the deceased fled away immediate after the first or second blow was dealt on the person of the deceased. Therefore, they had no occasion to witness how many blows altogether the accused had given on the person of the deceased. The witnesses who have evinced the murderous attack on the deceased fled away immediate after the first or second blow was dealt on the person of the deceased. Therefore, they had no occasion to witness how many blows altogether the accused had given on the person of the deceased. The number of injuries noticed by the Medical Officer is undoubtedly on the higher side but that cannot be a ground to overweigh and dis-believe the version of the eye witnesses who have consistently deposed that it is the Appellant who had assaulted the deceased. 14. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 16. The learned amicus curiae be paid a fees of Rs. 3,000/- for assisting the Court in the matter. Appeal dismissed