JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The accused-Appellant, who is in jail, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2003, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Adhoc (FTC), Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 5 (JJ)/01, convicting him under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as the 'Code') and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. 2. We have heard Mr. B.K. Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-Appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor. Assam. 3. On an FIR lodged by Smti. Aroti Mahili on 14.10.1999 with the Officer-in-Charge, Lahdoigarh Police Out Post alleging that the accused-Appellant along with one Shri Budhuram Mahili had cut her husband, Hari Mahali (since deceased) to death with a dao at No. 5, line of Rajoi, Teok PS Case No. 109/99 Under Section 302/34 of the Code was registered. On the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against both the accused persons named in the FIR under the above provisions of the Code. The case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, whereafter, he transmitted the same to the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of the said Sessions Division for trial. Charge was framed against the accused-Appellant and Shri Budhuram Mahili under Section302/34 of the Code, to which they pleaded "not guilty". In course of trial, however, Budhuram Mahili absconded, which, thereafter, proceeded only against the accused-Appellant. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused-Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He declined to adduce evidence. One court witness was. however, examined. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the accused-Appellant was convicted, eventually, and sentenced as hereinabove. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae, has argued that the testimony of the only so called eyewitness, PW-2, Smti. Gita Mahili being deficient in material particulars, the conviction of the accused-Appellant based thereon, is faulty in law and is liable to be interfered with. The prosecution having failed to examine any independent witness inspite of availability of several households in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, on that ground alone its case is liable to be rejected as unworthy of any credit, Mr. Singh urged. The prosecution having failed to examine any independent witness inspite of availability of several households in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, on that ground alone its case is liable to be rejected as unworthy of any credit, Mr. Singh urged. The learned Amicus Curiae contended that as the involvement of the accused-Appellant in the offence is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment and order is, on the face of the records, illegal and unsustainable in law. 5. Mr. Kamar, to the contrary, has urged that the evidence of PW-2, Smti. Gita Mahili is clinching in nature and as is apparent therefrom that the accused-Appellant in collaboration with Shri Budhuram Mahili had dealt a murderous blow on the neck of the deceased with dao, the impugned judgment and order needs to be sustained in the interest of justice. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is evident from the materials on record that the heinous crime was perpetrated by the accused-Appellant sharing a common intention with Budhuram Mahili in order to liquidate the deceased, who insisted for re-payment of the amount loaned out by him. It being a clear case where the accused-Appellant along with Shri Budhuram Mahili had subjected the deceased to deadly assault with a sharp cutting weapon without any provocation whatsoever, the determination made by the learned court below, is unassailable in law and ought to be upheld in this appeal, he urged. 6. A brief resume of the evidence on record is necessary before adverting to the competing arguments. 7. PW-1, Smti. Arati Mahili, the wife of the deceased deposed in categorical terms that in the night of the occurrence at about 8/9 p.m., while she was sitting in her gumti, her husband, who was on his way for duty came to her for a betel nut. The deceased had two wives, the younger name Gita Mahili, was at home at that point of time. According to this witness, the accused-Appellant at that time also visited the gumti and called away her husband with him. The witness stated that the accused Budhuram Mahili was also with him (Dhanu Mahili). Being suspicious, the witness endeavoured to keep a track of her husband and his companions. According to this witness, the accused-Appellant at that time also visited the gumti and called away her husband with him. The witness stated that the accused Budhuram Mahili was also with him (Dhanu Mahili). Being suspicious, the witness endeavoured to keep a track of her husband and his companions. She testified that after they had proceeded to a certain distance, she saw the accused Budhuram Mahili dealing a blow on her husband's neck with a naga dao with Dhanu Mahili, the accused-Appellant holding him (husband). According to her, the incident took place about 100 or 150 feet away from her gumti shop. The injured husband having raised alarm, she rushed to the place of occurrence, whereafter, the accused persons left the spot. Feeling helpless, the witness cried for Gita Mahili, who immediately scampered to the place of occurrence. They, thereafter, lifted the injured on a bicycle and took him to a garden hospital however, the injured was, by then, dead. The witness stated that at the point of time when she reached the place of occurrence, her husband, in view of the injuries sustained by him, was not in a state to speak and his body was smeared with blood. She proved the FIR stated to have been filed on the next date bearing her thumb impression. The witness stated that the police recovered the dao. In clear terms, the witness deposed that in the light of a torch, she had seen the incident. She also confirmed that her husband was to receive Rs. 1200/from Dhanu Mahili and he had been insisting for repayment of the amount. In cross-examination, the witness disclosed the existence of the house of Faram Orang and Mohi Guala near the place of occurrence. She, however, explained that as at that hour of the night people were preparing to sleep, nobody was present near the fateful site. She denied the suggestion that she had omitted to state before the police that she had seen Budhuram Mahili dealing a dao blow on her husband and the accused-Appellant Dhanu Mahili holding him. 8. PW-2, Smti. Gita Mahili, the co-wife of the deceased stated that about 9.00 p. m. in the night of the occurrence her husband after taking dinner left the house for duty stating that on the way he would pick a betel nut from the gumti of PW-1, Smti. Arati Mahili. 8. PW-2, Smti. Gita Mahili, the co-wife of the deceased stated that about 9.00 p. m. in the night of the occurrence her husband after taking dinner left the house for duty stating that on the way he would pick a betel nut from the gumti of PW-1, Smti. Arati Mahili. After some time, thereafter, PW-1 raised hue and cry, and on reaching the spot, the witness found her husband lying on the ground. She also confirmed to have seen the accused Budhuram Mahili and Dhanu Mahili leaving the place of occurrence and that Budhuram Mahili was holding a dao in hand. According to her, PW-1 told her about the assault by Budhuram Mahili on her husband. She also affirmed that her husband in the injured state, when she visited the spot, was not in a position to speak. None of the witnesses, PW-3, 4, 5 & 6 have claimed to have seen the incident, but in substance, have corroborated the time and the place of occurrence as well as the factum of death of the injured at the hospital. 9. In cross-examination, PW-3, Shri Ajit Mahili, however, confirmed about some strained relationship between the deceased and the accused Budhuram Mahili over money related matters. PW-4, 5, 6 & 7 in particular, have been examined to prove the inquest report Ext. 1. 10. PW-8, Dr. Probin Borah after conducting the post mortem on the dead body stated to have found the following injuries: (1) A deep cut injury was present on the neck below the head, extending from the outer border of the steromastored to the lower part of the chin. Size of the wound - 3" x 1" x 1". (ii) Another cut injury was found present size - 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the chin. (iii) Another injury size - 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" was present over the right shoulder. (iv) Another cut injury, size - 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" was found over the left shoulder. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injury sustained by the deceased. 11. PW-9, Shri Loten Mahili stated about the discovery of the weapon of assault, the dao under the bed in the house of Kanhai Mahili by the police on being led by the accused Budhuram Mahili. He also proved the seizure list of the dao vide Ext. 11. PW-9, Shri Loten Mahili stated about the discovery of the weapon of assault, the dao under the bed in the house of Kanhai Mahili by the police on being led by the accused Budhuram Mahili. He also proved the seizure list of the dao vide Ext. 2 with his signature vide Ext. 2(1) thereon. He identified in cross-examination the seized weapon as material Ext. 1. PW-10, the investigating officer, while generally narrating the facts pertaining to the investigation, the inquest report, the sketch map and the seizure also mentioned about a recorded statement made by the accused Budhuram Mahili vide Ext. 6, undertaking to produce the dao. Cross-examination of this witness as well as that of the PW-8, Dr. Probin Borah was declined by the defence. 12. Court witness No. 1, Dharmeswar Chetia was examined in order to prove the steps taken for serving the writ of attachment and proclamation vis-a-vis the accused Budhuram Mahili. The witness confirmed that the said accused was absconding. 13. A scrutiny of the statement made by the accused-Appellant in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reveals that the incriminating circumstances bearing on the evidence, had been brought to his notice. While, he persistently claimed to be innocent, he admitted to have taken a loan of Rs. 1200/- from the deceased Hari Mahili. 14. Evidence of PW-2, Smti. Gita Mahili, if marshaled in details, in our opinion leaves no manner of doubt about the involvement of the accused-Appellant in the commission of the offence of which he has been charged. Having regard to the progression of events before the actual incident, we find no reason to doubt her testimony in material particulars. Her unequivocal statement regarding identity of the accused-Appellant and Budhuram Mahili to be the perpetrator of the crime, has remained unshaken in course of her cross-examination. She is categorically clear vis-a-vis the role of the accused-Appellant. According to her, while he (accused-Appellant) held her husband, Budhuram Mahili dealt the deadly blow on his husband's neck, as a result whereof, he (deceased) fell down with profusely bleeding injuries. The fact that the accused-Appellant at that point of time was in debt of Rs. 1200/- to the deceased, has also been proved. But PW-1 & 2 have stated that the injured on being assaulted, was not in a state to speak. The fact that the accused-Appellant at that point of time was in debt of Rs. 1200/- to the deceased, has also been proved. But PW-1 & 2 have stated that the injured on being assaulted, was not in a state to speak. This unambiguously indicates the seriousness of his condition so much so that he breathed his last on his way to the hospital. Absence of the neighbours, considering the hour of night, also per se, does not discredit the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, having regard to the established fact that at the relevant time, the accused-Appellant was in debt to the deceased and that the latter had been insisting for repayment thereof, in our estimate discloses a motive for the offence. The role of the accused-Appellant in holding the deceased so as to facilitate the assault on him by his partner in the offence, namely, Budhuram Mahili brings the case squarely within the purview of Section 34 of the IPC. The number of injuries disclosed in the post mortem report, also evidence the brutality of the offence committed. The dead body, according to the findings of the doctor bore 4 (four) cut injuries, out of which one was on the head and the other on the chin. The omission of the defence to confront the investigating officer with the so-called omission (s) of the PW-2 in her statement before the police incriminating the accused-Appellant in the offence, therefore, leaves her statement, on oath, unscathed. 15. On a consideration of all above, we, therefore, are not convinced to sustain the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused-Appellant. The learned trial Court on a correct evaluation of evidence on record, has rightly convicted the accused-Appellant of the offence charged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we also do not feel inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Before we part, we record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in this appeal and hereby order payment of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) as his fee to be disbursed forthwith. Appeal dismissed