JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, E/Zone, Namsai, in Sessions Case No. 4/93, convicting the accused Appellant under Sections 302/324/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, undergo a further term of 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story runs thus: On 31.12.1992, at 1200 hours, a telephonic information was received at Police Station, Roing, through constable Viresh Singh to the effect that the dead body of constable Purandar Gogoi was lying on the road suspected to have been murdered at New Colony. Accordingly, the S.I. Sri O. Gao, with other police staff rushed to the place of occurrence and conducted inquiry into the case. After visiting the place of occurrence, the said S.I. lodged a written Ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Roing Police Station, which was registered as Roing Police Station Case No. 78/92 under Sections302/325/34 IPC and the charge of investigation was taken by the Officer-in-Charge himself. During the course of investigation, it was found that on 31.12.1992, at 2000 hours, the deceased Purandar Gogoi of Anini Police Station and constable T.S. Hazarika of Roing Police Station went to the house of constable J. Ete at New Colony to have their dinner. After taking the dinner, the deceased Purandar Gogoi and constable T.S. Hazarika, were returning to their barrack. Suddenly, on the way near the New Colony Fair Price Shop, the accused Passang Lama appeared and asked them to wait. Accordingly, the said deceased and constable T.S. Hazarika, were waiting for the accused Appellant on the road. Then the accused Appellant Passang Lama called his friends who were available in the nearby house. His friends namely Guni Linggi, Rasup Tayu, Junu Tapo and Madan Singh Rana, Parimol Das and Gorge Bdr. Thapa rushed to the spot and started beating, kicking, punching, hitting and boxing on them. The accused Passang Lama hit the deceased constable Purandar Gogoi and T.S. Hazarika with a blunt bamboo as a result of which the constable Purandar Gogoi died at the spot due to head injury while constable T.S. Hazarika, sustained severe injuries and became unconscious. Thapa rushed to the spot and started beating, kicking, punching, hitting and boxing on them. The accused Passang Lama hit the deceased constable Purandar Gogoi and T.S. Hazarika with a blunt bamboo as a result of which the constable Purandar Gogoi died at the spot due to head injury while constable T.S. Hazarika, sustained severe injuries and became unconscious. The Investigating Officer prepared a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to Community Health Centre at Roing. All the accused persons made statements under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Magistrate confessing their guilt. The co-accused Guni Linggi being eyewitness assured to disclose full and whole circumstances and facts of the case during the course of the trial and he was treated as approver. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima-facie case against the accused Appellant Passang Lama, Rosup Tayu, Madan Singh Rana, Junu Tapo and Parimal Das and accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted against them under Sections 302/325/34 IPC. Charge was framed against all the above-mentioned accused persons under the aforesaid provisions of IPC. On being read-over and explained the charge against them, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Medical Officer. The defence examined none. After full-dress trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the present Appellant Passang Lama who has been convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 4. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing for the accused Appellant as amicus curiae. 5. Mr. Pertin, learned amicus curiae, submits that although the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 5 as eyewitnesses, no evidence is found to the effect that the aforesaid eyewitnesses had seen the accused Appellant Passang Lama hitting the deceased Purandar Gogoi with bamboo stick. The P.W.2 only stated that he saw the accused Appellant holding a bamboo stick and restraining two persons on the main road. He did not say that it was the accused Appellant Passang Lama and none else, who struck the bamboo blow, rather, it was stated that there were other persons and if there were other persons at the place of occurrence, it cannot be definitely said that it was the aforesaid accused Appellant who alone hit the deceased person. He did not say that it was the accused Appellant Passang Lama and none else, who struck the bamboo blow, rather, it was stated that there were other persons and if there were other persons at the place of occurrence, it cannot be definitely said that it was the aforesaid accused Appellant who alone hit the deceased person. There is nothing in the evidence on record that the accused Appellant used a bamboo stick in hitting the deceased and out of such hitting, the deceased received injury and succumbed to said injury. Placing the evidence of eyewitness P.W.5, Sri T.S. Hazarika, Mr. Pertin, learned amicus curiae, submits that this witness was all along with the deceased Purandar Gogoi and they were returning to their police barrack. This eyewitness also, according to the learned amicus curiae, did not say that the accused Passang Lama hit the deceased by the bamboo stick. Although he stated that the accused Appellant Passang Lama was standing on the road and directing them to stop. P.W.5 simply deposed that he was given fist blow by accused Appellant Passang Lama due to which he fell down and became unconscious. He does not know what happened thereafter and he regained consciousness at the barrack and came to know that the deceased Purandar Gogoi has been killed. 6. On the confessional statement made by the accused persons, Mr. Pertin, learned amicus curiae, submits that the Magistrate (P.W.7) who recorded the statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, put his signature on the confessional statement but his official seal was not put on the said statements. This, according to learned Counsel, is a serious irregularity and the learned trial Court committed serious illegality in accepting the aforesaid confessional statement inasmuch as the same has been used as the foundation for conviction. In this regard, he places the decision in Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 4 SCC 266 . Furthermore, it is submitted that the co-accused persons while making the confessional statements before the Magistrate tried to put the entire blame on the accused Appellant only. However, they have not denied their presence at the place of occurrence. The evidence clearly shows that there were as many as 6 persons present at the place of occurrence and all of them participated in the alleged offence. However, they have not denied their presence at the place of occurrence. The evidence clearly shows that there were as many as 6 persons present at the place of occurrence and all of them participated in the alleged offence. If the presence of all the co-accused persons are established, the chance of giving blows by them on the deceased person cannot be ruled-out and as such, it is submitted by Mr. Pertin, learned amicus curiae, that the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the accused Appellant alone and that too, without any clear evidence that the said accused Appellant alone caused injuries to the deceased Purandar Gogoi. The evidence, therefore, according to him, is not sufficient to record conviction and sentence against the accused Appellant alone. 7. Last of all, it is submitted by Mr. Pertin, learned amicus curiae, that there is no denial of the fact that the accused Appellant was present at the scene of occurrence and his participation in the offence but it is denied that the said accused Appellant gave the fatal blow on the body of the deceased person. In absence of clear evidence on it, the accused Appellant Passang Lama alone cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC and he can be convicted under Section 325 IPC. In this regard, Mr. Pertin, cites the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in 2000 Cri. LJ 2199. 8. Heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh who submits that the conviction and sentence has been ordered against the accused Appellant by the learned trial Court on the basis of sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence and as such, the same does not call for any interference and the same may be upheld by this Court. 9. I have carefully scanned the evidence on record particularly the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 who have been examined as eyewitnesses by the prosecution. P.W.2 stated that the incident took place on 31.12.2002 i.e. on the eve of New year and he alongwith other 4 accused persons went to the house of P.W.1 Smti. Majji Mepo to have local made drinks but there was shortage of alcoholic drinks on her house and so, they went to the house of one Peno Mepo (since deceased). After staying there for about 10 minutes, they left for their respective residence. Majji Mepo to have local made drinks but there was shortage of alcoholic drinks on her house and so, they went to the house of one Peno Mepo (since deceased). After staying there for about 10 minutes, they left for their respective residence. Suddenly, he heard accused Appellant Passang Lama calling Bhumi Linggi and when all of them rushed to the place, they saw Passang Lama holding a bamboo stick and restraining two persons on the main road and they all started beating, kicking with punches on the aforesaid two persons. This P.W.2 deposed that he made statement before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Roing and identified his signature put by him on the said statement. 10. P.W.5 Sri T.S. Hazarika, deposed that he was with the deceased Purandar Gogoi and they were returning to Police barrack. He stated that at the spot accused Appellant Passang Lama was standing and asking them to stop. The accused Appellant enquired from them as to why they were roaming and suddenly, he attacked both P.W.5 and the deceased Purandar Gogoi. The accused Appellant dealt fist blows and thereafter, some persons of the group overpowered them. P.W.5 identified accused Appellant Passang Lama and Bhumi Linggi. This witness then fell down and became unconscious after he received fist blows and he regained consciousness at the police barrack and then he came to know that Purandar Gogoi had been killed. 11. P.W.6, Sri A. Yirang, is the Medical Superintendent of Roing CHC who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 01.01.1993. In his deposition, he stated that he found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased Purandar Gogoi: 1. Abrasion in the midpoint of the forehead two inch above the bridge of the nose. 2. Abrasion on the forehead half towards once in the above supra ridge. 3. Scratch on the bridge on the nose one forth in length. 4. Abrasion on the right prathel prominent. 5. Abrasion over the right one inch medial to the wound mention in No. 4. 6. Abrasion over occipital protrugrance. According to him, all the above injuries are dangerous except injury No. 3 and out of these injuries, injury No. 6 is the most serious and all the injuries are ante-mortem. 4. Abrasion on the right prathel prominent. 5. Abrasion over the right one inch medial to the wound mention in No. 4. 6. Abrasion over occipital protrugrance. According to him, all the above injuries are dangerous except injury No. 3 and out of these injuries, injury No. 6 is the most serious and all the injuries are ante-mortem. He also deposed that the above injuries could be caused by a wooden stick or a bamboo and in his opinion, the cause of death was due to internal haemorrhage. 12. P.W.7, Sri R.K. Vaidya, was posted as Circle Officer-cum-Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class at Roing during 1993 and he was discharging the functions of 1st Class Magistrate. He deposed that he recorded the confessional statement of the accused persons. In cross-examination, he deposed that he warned and cautioned the accused persons before recording their confessional statements and he identified himself as a Magistrate but not as a Police Officer and they are at liberty to make any statement. 13. P.W.9 Sri O. Gao, S.I. of Police, is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his deposition, he stated that he went to the place of occurrence, drew the rough sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext. P/9) and examined witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. He also seized the crime weapon, a bamboo post and a Jean Jacket and prepared the seizure list (Ext. P/10) on which he put his signature. He conducted the inquest on the dead body and then sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. He also arrested all the accused persons and forwarded them for recording their confessional statements. However, in cross-examination, he deposed that there was no mark on the crime weapon and the materials seized were not sent for F.S.L. examination. He also deposed that he did not examine the other victim Phuleswar Hazarika. 14. The evidence of eyewitness P.W.2 is the main foundation for conviction and sentence of the accused Appellant. There is nothing specific in his evidence that he saw with his own eyes that the accused Appellant gave a blow/hit by a bamboo post but it was clearly stated by him that he saw accused Appellant holding the bamboo post and restraining other 2 persons on the main road. His evidence is that no other co-accused except the accused Appellant was holding any bamboo post. His evidence is that no other co-accused except the accused Appellant was holding any bamboo post. From the post-mortem report (Annexure-P/8), it is found that there are multiple abrasions over the head; 2(two) in the forehead, 2(two) over the right perital bone, one over the occipital protaburance. Haemotoma was found in the higher underneath the injury. Boney rest were intact. And, clotted blood found in both the occipital lobes, in the sub-arachnoid space. The bleeding was found to be from superior segital sinus, at the turning point at the level of internal occipital protobarece. The aforesaid post-mortem report has been testified by the Doctor (P.W.6) who conducted the post-mortem examination. In his evidence, he also stated that he found the aforesaid injuries on the dead body of the deceased person and in his opinion, the cause of death was due to intra-cranial haemorrhage, from superior segital sinuses due to head injury caused by healthy hard object or blow or kick. All the wounds are antimortem in nature; the approximate time since death is 12-24 hours. 15. The crime weapon recovered/seized from the accused Appellant, who was seen holding the same by the eyewitness P.W.2, fits into the injuries received by the deceased. The eyewitness although did not say that he saw the accused Appellant striking blow on the deceased with that particular crime weapon, a presumption can be drawn that the deceased was hit by the aforesaid crime weapon bamboo post. Some other presumption could have been drawn had there been any evidence to the effect that other co-accused persons or any of them were/was holding similar nature of weapon namely bamboo post/stick. Moreover, the accused Appellant has not denied his presence and holding of bamboo post at the time of occurrence. The accused Appellant has made a plea that he might have committed offence under Section 325 of IPC i.e. an offence punishable for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. If it is so, he has admitted that he caused grievous hurt/injury to the deceased. At one point of time, Mr. Pertin, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the death of the deceased was caused by the injury inflicted by the group of persons including the accused Appellant but for that the prosecution has to prove as to whose blow the deceased received serious injuries and succumbed to such injuries. At one point of time, Mr. Pertin, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the death of the deceased was caused by the injury inflicted by the group of persons including the accused Appellant but for that the prosecution has to prove as to whose blow the deceased received serious injuries and succumbed to such injuries. Such submission is of no help to the accused Appellant given the proved fact, that the cause of death of the deceased was due to intra-cranial haemorrhage, from superior segital sinuses due to head injury caused by healthy hard object or blow or kick. It is not necessary to prove who participated in dealing fist blows to the deceased. What is material is who struck the blow by bamboo post/stick on the deceased person. Evidence is clear that it was the accused Appellant alone and none else, who was holding the bamboo post/stick at the relevant time of commission of alleged offence. 16. Having considered the evidence on record carefully and appreciating the same, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been successful in proving the charge against the accused Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused Appellant made a statement to the effect that as he was under the influence of alcohol, on account of panic, he did not remember what had happened at the relevant time and he does not know the deceased Purandar Gogoi, constable P. Hazarika and constable J. Ete. The accused Appellant expressed no regret, repentance or remorse for the offence he has committed. The sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court is in the minimum side of punishment for offence under Section 302 IPC inasmuch as the accused Appellant has been awarded only 7 years rigorous imprisonment 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions and appreciation of evidence, I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused Appellant vide judgment and order dated 25.12.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, E/Zone, Namsai, in Sessions Case No. 4/93 and accordingly, the same is upheld. 18. The appeal stands dismissed. 19. Send down the LCRs to the court below forthwith. 20. Before parting with the matter, I record my sincere appreciation for rendering legal assistance by Mr. District and Sessions Judge, FTC, E/Zone, Namsai, in Sessions Case No. 4/93 and accordingly, the same is upheld. 18. The appeal stands dismissed. 19. Send down the LCRs to the court below forthwith. 20. Before parting with the matter, I record my sincere appreciation for rendering legal assistance by Mr. Pertin, learned Counsel, in disposing of this appeal. I hereby direct the State Government to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as professional fee to Mr. Pertin, learned Counsel, who appeared as amicus curiae in this case.