JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. This appeal from jail puts to challenge the judgment and order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 92(M)/2002, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter for short referred to as the IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life only. 2. We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The prosecution case unfolds with the First Information Report dated 13.4.2001, lodged by one Sri Jena Tamsoi with the Officer-in-Charge, Lekhapani Police Station, alleging that his son Suk Tamsoi had been killed by the accused-appellant on the very same date at about 7.00 p.m. by cutting him with a dao near the Siva Temple of Kathagaon. On the said FIR, Lekhapani P.S. Case No. 17/2001 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and on the completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant. The case being triable exclusively by a Court of Session, it was so committed to that Court and eventually the learned trial Court as above, framed charge against the accused-appellant under the above provision of the Code, to which he pleaded "not guilty". The prosecution, in all, examined nine witnesses including the Officer-in-Charge and the Doctor, who had performed the post mortem of the dead body. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae has emphatically argued that there is no eyewitness to the incident in the instant case and the purported extra judicial confession represented to have been made by the accused-appellant before some of the witnesses being wholly unreliable, his conviction is unsustainable in law. As the so called circumstantial evidence said to be implicating the accused-appellant does not unerringly point towards his guilt, the same is not cognizable in law, he urged. Mr. Choudhury contended that as the post mortem report does not disclose any incised wound on the dead body, the version to the contrary as contained in the FIR renders the prosecution case untrustworthy. Moreover, as the weapon of assault said to have been seized in course of the investigation had neither been forwarded for the forensic science examination nor produced in Court for identification, the prosecution, in all, had miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant and he is, thus, entitled to be acquitted. 5. Moreover, as the weapon of assault said to have been seized in course of the investigation had neither been forwarded for the forensic science examination nor produced in Court for identification, the prosecution, in all, had miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant and he is, thus, entitled to be acquitted. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, as against this has argued that though, there is no eye-witness to the incident, the extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before PW Nos. 1, 3 and 4 when juxtaposed with the other prevailing circumstantial evidence, it unmistakably identifies the accused-appellant to be the author of the offence. He having led the police to recover the dao i.e. the weapon of assault, which he visibly had thrown into the nearby bamboo grove immediately after the assault, there is no manner of doubt of his identity as the assailant. 6. A brief appraisal of the evidence would be essential at the outset. PW 1, Sri Gopi Krishna Upadhaye had testified that on the date of the occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. while he was in a shop in front of this house, he came out hearing a commotion outside and saw the accused-appellant throwing a dao in a banana plantation nearby. The witness stated to have seen the deceased lying on the road with injuries on his head, crying for water, which he offered. He further stated that they also apprehended the accused-appellant while he was in the process of disposing of the dao, as above. He stated that the police recovered and seized the said weapon from the side of the said plantation on being led thereto by the accused-appellant. He proved Ext. 1, the seizure list in that regard with Ext. 1 (1) as his signature thereon. In cross-examination, though, this witness admitted that the seized dao had not been produced in Court, he stated that the accused-appellant had disclosed before him and the other members of the public that he had killed the deceased by a dao. 7. PW 2, Sri Lakhiram Tapna has testified that on the date of the occurrence, while he was proceeding towards the shop, he found one dead body on the road. He also saw the accused-appellant near the dead body. The witness reiterated that the accused-appellant was apprehended by the public while he was throwing one dao near the banana plantation. 7. PW 2, Sri Lakhiram Tapna has testified that on the date of the occurrence, while he was proceeding towards the shop, he found one dead body on the road. He also saw the accused-appellant near the dead body. The witness reiterated that the accused-appellant was apprehended by the public while he was throwing one dao near the banana plantation. He also endorsed the factum of seizure of the dao by the police. In cross-examination, though, he conceded that he had not seen the actual assault, he affirmed that the accused-appellant had made a statement before the persons present that he had killed the deceased. Further, he affirmed to have seen the accused-appellant taking out the dao and handing it over to the police. 8. The version of PW 3, Sri Chandralal Giri is that on the date of the occurrence on hearing hue and cry he came to the road in front of the house of PW 1 and found the deceased lying there with the accused-appellant standing nearby. He stated that the members of the village defence party apprehended the accused-appellant and on being asked, he made a statement before the persons present that he had killed the deceased with a dao. In cross-examination, however, he conceded that at the time of such confession, police was also present at the place of occurrence. 9. The evidence of PW 4, Sri Indra Bahadur Thapa is substantially the same with regard to the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused-appellant. In cross-examination, he clarified that the police had not arrived at the place of occurrence when such confession had been made by the accused-appellant. 10. PW 5, Sri Jena Tamsoi is the father of the deceased as well as informant. He also stated to have heard the accused-appellant disclosing before the people gathered at the place of occurrence that he had killed the deceased. He stated that the police after examining the dead body at the place of occurrence had prepared the inquest report, Ext. 2, in which he put his signature as Ext. 2(1). He also proved the FIR Ext. 3 with his signature, Ext. 3(1). 11. The evidence of PW 6, Sri Lakhiram Mura, who is reported witness is of no significance. 12. PW 7, Dr. 2, in which he put his signature as Ext. 2(1). He also proved the FIR Ext. 3 with his signature, Ext. 3(1). 11. The evidence of PW 6, Sri Lakhiram Mura, who is reported witness is of no significance. 12. PW 7, Dr. R. Chaliha, who had performed the post mortem examination of the dead body in his evidence stated to have detected the following injuries: Injury.-An abrasion over the left maler region measuring 3 x 1 cm, 2. Swelling of the face in the thorax. The thoracic organs are congested in the abdomen. Abdominal organs are healthy; stomach is healthy and contains rice. In the cranium and spinal canal scalp is contused in the right temporal and occipital regions. Skull and vertebra are healthy. Membrains are congested sub-arachnoid hummerrage is present over the right occipital region. Brain is congested. In his opinion death had occurred due to coma as a result of the injuries on the head, which according to him, were anti mortem and caused by blunt force impact. He proved the post mortem report Ext. 7 with his signature thereon Ext. 7(1). 13. PW 8 and 9, Sri Lahit Chandra Kalita and Sri Prakash Ch. Hazarika are the police officers, the who had in phases conducted the investigation. While PW 9, Sri Prakash Ch. Hazarika took the preliminary steps in connection with the investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was finally submitted by Sri Lahit Chandra Kalita. PW 9, affirmed the factum of the seizure of the dao being led and shown by the accused appellant from a banana plantation in presence of witnesses. He proved the seizure list Ext. 1 and also identified the seized weapon as material Ext. A. He deposed of the steps taken by him for forwarding the dead body to the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh for post mortem examination. In cross-examination he, inter alia testified to have recorded the statement of the accused-appellant with regard to the leading to the discovery of the incriminating weapon and testified to have taken his signature on the seizure list. He, however, admitted that the seized weapon had not been sent for any chemical examination. In course of his examination under Section 313 , Cr PC, he (accused-appellant) denied to have made any confession. He also disowned the seized dao to be his. He, however, declined to adduce any evidence. 14. He, however, admitted that the seized weapon had not been sent for any chemical examination. In course of his examination under Section 313 , Cr PC, he (accused-appellant) denied to have made any confession. He also disowned the seized dao to be his. He, however, declined to adduce any evidence. 14. While marshalling the evidence on record, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the testimony of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is sufficient in law to establish the charge brought against the accused-appellant. The witnesses abovenamed, have consistently reiterated to have identified the accused-appellant to be present in the immediate proximity of the deceased lying on the road with injuries on his head. They have been unambiguous to have seen the accused-appellant throwing the dao (the weapon of assault) in the nearby banana grove, while he was in the process of being apprehended by them. These witnesses are also unequivocal with regard to the seizure of the said weapon from the banana plantation into which the same was sought to be disposed of by the accused-appellant. They affirmed that the seizure thereof, had been effected by the police being led to the weapon by the accused-appellant himself. The witnesses aforementioned, have also in unison asserted that the accused-appellant had stated before them and other members of the public that he had killed the deceased by the dao. The seizure of the dao is evidenced by Ext. 1 and the said weapon has been identified as Material Ext. A by the Investigating Officer, PW 9. The ocular evidence of PW 1 about the injuries on the head of the deceased stands corroborated by the findings to that effect recorded in the post mortem report, Ext. 7 proved by the doctor. In the opinion of the said medical witness, death had occurred due to coma as result of the head injuries, which were ante mortem. On an evaluation of the substance and tenor of the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 read with that of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer in the case, we have no manner of doubt that the accused-appellant had been the perpetrator of the crime with which he has been charged. There is a noticeable consistency in the testimony of these witnesses. No convincing or persuasive reason is decipherable to reject their versions as untrustworthy. There is a noticeable consistency in the testimony of these witnesses. No convincing or persuasive reason is decipherable to reject their versions as untrustworthy. These witnesses have corroborated each other on material particulars and are not liable to be disbelieved. The plea to the contrary taken on behalf of the defence is, therefore unacceptable. We also cannot lend our concurrence to the contention of contradiction between the post mortem report and the FIR. In absence of any cross-examination of the informant, PW 5, Sri Jena Tamsoi on the aspect that though the FIR mentions cutting of the deceased with dao, no incised or cut injury was detected on the dead body, we are not inclined to discredit the prosecution case on this count. 15. On a cumulative consideration of the above findings, we, therefore, see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence. The judgment and order assailed in the appeal is, therefore sustained. The appeal, as a result is hereby dismissed. The learned Amicus Curiae would be entitled to his fees of Rs. 2500. Appeal dismissed