JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, the learnedounsel for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, the learned P.P. Assam. 2. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cacher, Slichar in Sessions Case No. 79/99 whereby Appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short, 'R.I.') for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 302/34 IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month each for their conviction under Section447 IPC. Further the convicted accused Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for his conviction under Section 324 IPC. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short, is that on 13.3.1998, P.W. 1, the informant, Musstt. Rupban Bibi lodged and FIR with the Katigorah Police Station alleging that at around 7.30 pm on 12.3.98 while her son Intajul Hoque was coming to their house from Badarpur and reached the road adjacent to the pond to her homestead, all the accused persons namely (1) Abidur Rahman, (2) Jayadur Rahman, (3) Moina Mia, (4) Rajia Begum intercepted him on the way and then by dealing cut blows on him with the Dao's in their hands caused serious injuries at different places on the body of her son. Upon hearing her son's screaming, her husband Jahir Ali (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and their daughter Anowara Begum (P.W. 2) went out to rescue his son. Then Abidur Rahman dealt cut blows on her husband with dagger and caused serious injurieson various parts on his person of her husband/the deceased. When her daughter Anowara Begum (P.W. 2) offered resistance, the accused Appellant Md. Juwaidur Rahman dealt cult blow with dao thereby causing serious injuries in her right hand. Her neighbour eventually turned up and saved their lives. However, after sometimes of the happening of the occurrence, her husband succumbed to the injuries. 4. On the basis of the above information, the police started investigation and submitted charge-sheet against those four accused persons including the two Appellants herein. Her neighbour eventually turned up and saved their lives. However, after sometimes of the happening of the occurrence, her husband succumbed to the injuries. 4. On the basis of the above information, the police started investigation and submitted charge-sheet against those four accused persons including the two Appellants herein. However before framing of charges the accused Abidur Rahman and Moina Mia expired and consequently the charge was framed by the trial Court against the present two Appellants in this appeal. 5. The trial Court having evaluated and scrutinized the deposition of 12 witnesses so produced by the prosecution including P.W. 3 Dr. Homeswar Sarmah who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 5 Dr. Sidharth Snakar Bhattachaijee who examined injured Intazul Haque, son of the deceased and the informant (P.W. 1) and P.W. 11 Dr. Moinul Islam Borbhuyan who examined the injured Musstt. Anowara Begum (P.W. 2) as well as P.W. 12, the I.O. and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, found both the Appellants guilty of the commission of offence of killing the deceased and consequently handed over the conviction and sentence as already indicated above. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned conviction and sentence, both the Appellants moved this Court through this criminal appeal. 7. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence Mr. Goswami the learned Sr. Counsel has straightway taken us to the nature of injuries so found by P.W. 3, being the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased in his medical evidence. He has emphatically stated that all those eight injuries were stab injuries; meaning thereby those injuries were basically inflicted by dagger because stab injury can only occur if it is caused by piercing weapons like dagger and there was no incised injury which generally caused by shaip cutting weapon like dao so found on the person of the dead body. His basic thrust is that from the testimony particularly from P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 it transpires that it was only Abidur, who already expired, inflicted dagger injury. According to those witnesses, it was the Appellant No. 1 who was having his dao in his hand with which he assaulted the deceased. Since it was Abidur who had assaulted the deceased by dagger to cause the stab injuries, though the stab injuries were definitely not caused by Appellant No. 1. According to those witnesses, it was the Appellant No. 1 who was having his dao in his hand with which he assaulted the deceased. Since it was Abidur who had assaulted the deceased by dagger to cause the stab injuries, though the stab injuries were definitely not caused by Appellant No. 1. According to him, no such incised injury to be caused by dao was ever found on the dead body of the deceased on medical examination. 8. The learned P.P., in support of the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence of the Appellants, has vehemently contended that the testimony of prosecution witnesses particularly, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, projected as eyes witnesses read with the medical evidence adduced by P.W. 3, the doctor, would unerringly point the involvement of both the Appellants in the killing of the deceased and hence the prosecution would successfully prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such premises, no interference with the impugned conviction and sentence of the Appellants is called for. 9. For the sake of convenience let us have a look into the medical evidence of P.W. 3 and the injuries found thereof may be noticed as under: Injuries-1. Abrasions 5 x 5 cm. Sized on medical side of the right knee 2 numbers, left knee 1 number and middle of left leg 2 numbers. (2) Stabbed wound elliptical in shape 2 cm x 1 cm X thorasic gravity deep over left side of the thorax on back at level of 3rd thorasic spine and 5 cm away from mid line, placed vertically. (3) Stabbed wound place transversely and with prevailing from above downward below injury No. 2 at the leet of 4th thorasic spine and 4 cm away from midline measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x thorasic gravity deep. (4) Stab wound placed vertically over back of the thorax on right side at the level of 9th thorasic spine and 1 cm away from mid line measuring 2.5 cm x 5 cm x 1.5 cm deep upto the muscles. (5) Stab wound placed obliquely on right side back of the thorax at osterior auxiliary line level and 9th intercostals space measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm directed medically and downwards. (5) Stab wound placed obliquely on right side back of the thorax at osterior auxiliary line level and 9th intercostals space measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm directed medically and downwards. (6) The diaphragm stabbed on right dome measuring 2.5 x 1 cm under injury No. 5 (7) The liver is stabbed in the superior surface measuring 2.5 x 5 x 3.5 cm under injury No. 5. (8) The right lung is stabbed on its lower lobe on lateral surface extending upto inferior surface measuring 1.5 cm size and the lung is partly collapsed. The right clural cavity contains 1.3 liters of blood and the lung is eloating. Peritoneal clavity contains 200 ML blood. Themargine of all the stabbed wounds are clean cut. The injuries No. 5 upto 8 no injuries are caused by a single thrust. The Doctor, in his opinion, stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulted from the stabbed injuries described. All injuries are anti mortem and homicidal in nature. Time calculated since death approximately 12 to 24 hrs. 10. we have also gone through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6. 11. P.W. 1, the informant, Rupban Bibi, in her evidence, deposed that on the day of occurrence, hearing hulla of her son her husband (the deceased) went to the bank of their pond within their homestead. As soon as her husband reached their, the accused Abidur Rahman and Juwaidur Rahman assaulted her husband and her husband was caught hold on by other two accused persons and then the accused Abidur assaulted on her son Intajul Hoque by a dagger blow while the accused Juwaidur inflicted dao blows on the back side of her husband. She also deposed that the accused Abidur also assaulted her son Intajul Hoque by a dagger. She testified that Appllant No. 2 Rajina Begum being the sister of her husband caught held of her husband. On the same breath, P.W. 2, the daughter of the deceased, deposed that she saw the accused Abidur Rahman inflicting the dagger injury on the back of her father and Appellant No. 2 and Maina Mia who already expired, were catching held on her father. On the same breath, P.W. 2, the daughter of the deceased, deposed that she saw the accused Abidur Rahman inflicting the dagger injury on the back of her father and Appellant No. 2 and Maina Mia who already expired, were catching held on her father. According to her, she also noticed that the Appellant No. 1 was having a dao in his hand and when she tried to restrain him by holding the dao she sustained cut injury on the palm on her right hand. In her cross she also reiterated that the accused Abidur inflicted dagger blow on her brother Intajul and the Appellant No. 1 inflicted dao blow on her father. 12. another witness P.W. 4, Foijul Haque Ahmed, deposed that he saw accused Abidur Rahman, Jawaidur Rahman, Moina Miya and Rajina Begum were going away. Abidur was equipped with dagger, Jawaidur with a dao, Maina Miya was with a lathi. 13. P.W. 6, in his deposition, stated that he was told by Rupban Bibi (P.W. 1) that a marpit was going on at the bank of the pond of the deceased and immediately when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he heard the saying of the deceased that he was assaulted by Abidur. According to him, mean while he saw Intazul, son of P.W. 1 and deceased started fighting with Abidur. In cross, he reiterated that while Abidur and Intazul were fighting he did not notice the weapons they used and except their fighting he saw nothing. Even he mentioned that he saw injury on the Appellant, No. 1. 14. Having meticulously appreciated the evidence of the witnesses particularly P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6 vis-a-vis medical evidence as already noticed, it clearly transpires that initially there was a mutual marpit between the parties Abidur Rahman (since deceased) and Intazul and with the intention to stop marpit the deceased intervened and at that time, Abidur who, was also armed with dagger, attacked the son of the deceased and the Appellant No. 1 having his dao in his hand assaulted the deceased with the dao blows caused stab injury. 15. 15. As regards the involvement of the Appellant No. 1 in the alleged offence who was reported to be carrying a dao in his hand and assault was made by him on the person of the deceased, no such incised injuries caused by dao were found in the medical evidence. We are also not at all impressed by the deposition of P.Ws 1 and 2 as regards participation of Appellant No. 2 in the mar-pit which resulted in the death of the deceased. 16. Under Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) in Chapter 23 under the heading of "Injuries by Mechanical Violece," injuries caused by piercing weapons are called stab wounds. Medical Classification of Wounds are as follows (a) Blunt force injuries which can be abrasions, contusions, or lacerations. (b) Injuries caused by sharp cutting weapons are incised wounds. (c) Injuries caused by piercing weapons are called stab wounds. They are incised stab wounds caused by sharp pointed weapons like dagger, bitchuva and pen-knife, lacerated stab wounds are caused by blunt pointed weapons like cycle spokes, umbrella ribs, and screw drives. In a living patient, these wounds should not be casually probed. (d) Injuries cause by heavy cutting weapons are Chop wounds, cut lacerations, traumatic amputation and decapitation; they may be compete or partial. 17. It is seen from the above that the stab wounds were the injuries basically caused by piercing weapons and those were caused by sharp pointed weapons like dagger. In the instant case, all the eight injuries found by the doctors were the stab injuries, which according to us, were being caused by dagger. Since it has come from the evidence that dagger was used by the accused Abidur (since deceased) and there were no incised injuries caused by dao which were, according to the prosecution witnesses, caused by Appellant No. 1, we are of the view that the Appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt as there is element of doubt pertaining to their involvement in the killing of the deceased. Moreover, the dao which was seized by the police and exhibited as materials Ext. 4 did not contain any blood mark which finds support from the medical evidence as there were no incised wounds caused by dao. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 18. 4 did not contain any blood mark which finds support from the medical evidence as there were no incised wounds caused by dao. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Consequently the impugned conviction and sentence stand hereby set aside and quashed and the Appellant No. 1 be set at liberty forthwith if he is not otherwise connected with any other case. Since the Appellant No. 2, as stated, is already on bail, her bail bond stands discharged. 19. In the result, this appeal succeeds and stands allowed. 20. L.C.R. be send down immediately.