JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Counsel who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in place of Mr. A. Sharma, the earlier appointed Amicus Curiae who has been found to be absent, when this Criminal Appeal has been taken up for hearing. 2. Also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P. P, Assam. 3. Brief facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution need, at the very outset, to be narrated. 4. P.W-2 Smt. Vyjayanti Tanti on 25.06.2001 lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Karimganj Police Station alleging that yesterday on 24.6.2001 at about 11 p.m. the accused/appellant suddenly attacked her husband Paresh Tanti and her father Motilal Tanti with a dao and started assaulting them randomly. At the time of assault, her father and husband were sitting unarmed and could not resist such sudden attack and as a result of which her father died and her husband having sustained grievous injuries, was put in a very critical stage. 5. On completion of investigation so initiated on the basis of the above FIR, police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 302/326 IPC. 6. During the trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Official witnesses namely, P.W-1, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Baidya, who examined the injured Paresh Tanti, P.W-3 the husband, of P.W-2 the informant, P.W-7, Dr. Monotosh Das, who held postmortem on the person of Motilal (hereinafter referred to as, ('the deceased') and P.W-10, Shri Jawaharlal Deb, the Investigating Officer (for short, 'the I.O'). 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj on appreciation of the evidence on record so examined by the prosecution including the materials so exhibited and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, six months rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC ordering both the sentences to run concurrently. 8. P.W-2, the informant Smt. Vyjayanti Tanti and P.W-3, Paresh Tanti, husband of the informant who was also injured, was projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. 9. 8. P.W-2, the informant Smt. Vyjayanti Tanti and P.W-3, Paresh Tanti, husband of the informant who was also injured, was projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. 9. Before scrutiny of the materials available on record, the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased and P.W-3 Paresh Tanti, need to be looked into. 10. P.W-1, Dr. Ranjit Kr. Baidya while examining P.W-3, Paresh Tanti found the following injuries on his person. (1) Incised wound 6" × 1 × 1" cutting muscles and bones over the left parietal region. X-ray skull shows fracture left parietal bone. 11. Another Doctor, Dr. Monotosh Das, P.W-7, found the following injuries at the time of holding postmortem on the person of the deceased Motilal. (1) One sharp injury of size 3" × 2" found in his forehead with bone depth of frontal bone with accumulation of blood inside cavity. (2) Sharp cut injury over right ear making it into two pieces and which continuous over zygomatic bone making it to open the antrum, size about 4" × ½" (3) Cut injury over left arm in its dorsal aspect with avulsions of skin and muscle, size about 3" × 3" (4) Sharp cut injury of size 3" × 3" over right shoulder region. (5) Sharp cut injury of size 2" × 1" over left hand in dorsal aspect. (6) Sharp cut injury of size 5" × 1" over left shoulder region in its dorsal aspect. Scalp : Sharp cut injury over forehead. Skull: Fracture over forehead present. Vertebrae-: Healthy. Membrane : Turn over frontal region. Brain: Accumulation of blood over frontal lobe and temporal lobe of brain matter. Spinal Cord: Healthy. Thorax : Sharp cut injury over right scapular region. 12. Doctor in his opinion opined that death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries sustained leading to cardiorespiratory failure. 13. The injuries on the person of the deceased would manifestly reflect that the deceased was caused to suffer all those injuries with the intention to kill him and perpetrator while inflicting such injuries had the knowledge that such injuries would likely to cause death. 14. Now let us meticulously scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses including the ocular evidence displayed by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 15. 14. Now let us meticulously scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses including the ocular evidence displayed by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 15. P.W.-2, Smt. Vyjayanti Tanti, in her evidence, deposed that on the day of occurrence, being a Sunday night, her husband P.W., Paresh, her brother-in-law Paltu and her father Motilal (since deceased) were at their house. Her father Motilal came to their house in the evening on that day. While she was preparing meal and her father was sleeping, both the brothers i.e. her husband and brother-in-law Paltu Were talking over monetary matter and her husband was asking his brother-accused Paltu to pay money from his daily earnings as Paltu lived in her house. Paltu then hacked her husband with a dao in the hand and the head. Her father died on the bed on being hacked in his entire person by Paltu with a dao. Paltu went away. When she raised alarm, one Subodh Dutta (P.W. 4) of the adjacent house came. She went to the thana and came with police. Police saw the injured persons. Police asked Amal Tanti (P.W. 6) and Yadu Tanti (P.W. 5) to stay at their house. Police made arrangement for the treatment of the husband. On the following day her husband was sent to the Karimganj hospital. Police took away the dead body of her father. Her husband remained in the hospital for 25 days. 16. P.W.-3, the injured, husband of P.W.2, consistently corroborated the testimony so adduced by P.W. 2. In his evidence, this witness deposed that on the fateful day his father-in-law had come to his house from his home and on the relevant time all of them, he along with his wife, father-in-law (since deceased) and accused-appellant were at home. Since Paltu did not pay money out of his day earnings and on being asked the appellant also asked for money from him. Since he did not pay the money, Paltu hacked him with a dao in his hand and head. He hacked him below the right arm. After being hacked he went out of the house and sat down in bleeding state. When he returned, he saw Paltu was holding in one hand of his milk feeding child and the dao in another hand. When he requested Paltu not to kill his baby he dealt that dao blow in my right hand and leaving the baby he went out. When he returned, he saw Paltu was holding in one hand of his milk feeding child and the dao in another hand. When he requested Paltu not to kill his baby he dealt that dao blow in my right hand and leaving the baby he went out. When father-in-law called him out, he went to see him taking a lamp and found him lying in the back side of the house. It was stated by deceased that Paltu wanted to finished him while he was sleeping on the bed and his wife fled away. Subodh Dutta (P.W. 4) came and saw the blood. 17. Having thoroughly analyzed the evidence of the above two witnesses P.W.2 and P.W. 3, we find that P.W.-2 can be accepted as solitary eye-witness when according to us, P.W.3, the victim and husband of P.W. 2, did not see the assault on the deceased because though he had suffered injuries inflicted by the appellant in his hand and head and after such injuries, he immediately went out of the house and sat down in a bleeding condition. So, under such circumstances, the conviction appears to be based on the solitary eye-witness P.W.-2., 18. Another witness P.W. 4 (Subodh Dutta) stated that on being informed by P.W. 2 that Paltu hid injured her husband and father By hacking them, he came to the place of occurrence and when he reached there Paresh opened the door. He saw the blood injuries in his person. Paresh told him that Paltu assaulted him. Meanwhile, Paresh's father-in-law called him in. In the flash of torch light he saw that Paresh's father-in-law lying injured on the bed in a pool of blood. The deceased told him that Paltu assaulted him. Vyjayanti went to call police and he went to his house. In the next morning going there he found Paresh's father-in-law died and Paresh was taken to Karimganj hospital. 19. This witness was examined as independent witness and in his cross-examination he reiterated that it was Paresh's father-in-law himself who told him about the incident. He saw the injuries in the right leg and in other places by flashing the torch. He did not look at the other injuries put of fear. 20. Both P.W.-5, Yadu Tanti and P.W-6, Amal Tanti were declared hostile. He saw the injuries in the right leg and in other places by flashing the torch. He did not look at the other injuries put of fear. 20. Both P.W.-5, Yadu Tanti and P.W-6, Amal Tanti were declared hostile. In their deposition they stated that on the day of occurrence while they were sleeping, the police came to their house and told that Paltu had injured his brother Paresh and had killed his father-in-law and asked to go there and going to the place of occurrence found Paresh was sitting inside on a 'Machang' (a raised platform made of bamboos) with bleeding injuries in the head and hand and deceased was lying on the ground inside the house with injuries. 21. We have also scrutinized the examination of the statements of the accused-appellant so recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 22. The testimony of the solitary and related eye-witness (P.W-2) is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Nothing on record to show as to why despite relationship between the parties, the appellant would be falsely implicated. Besides, merely because P.W-2 was the solitary and related witness who claimed to have seen the occurrence that cannot be a ground to discard her evidence. 23. Taking into account the six numbers of injuries on the person of the deceased and the ocular evidence of P.W-2 and the deposition of P.W-3 the victim-injured, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant inflicted those multiple injuries on the person of the deceased with the intention to cause such injuries with the knowledge that such injuries would likely to cause death to the deceased and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appellant was involved in killing of 1 the deceased and causing injuries to P.W-3 and accordingly, we do agree with the, views expressed and findings recorded by the leaped Sessions Judge in entirety and consequently we uphold the impugned conviction and sentence so handed down to the appellant: 24. In the result, appeal fails and stands dismissed. Send down the LCR forthwith. 25. Before parting with the record, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. M. Nath, the learned Amicus Curiae, for his valuable assistance rendered in arriving at a conclusion as indicated above. Appeal dismissed.