JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae representing the Appellant as well as Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned PP, Assam appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This jail appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 37(S)/2002 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), FTC, Bongaigaon, whereby the Appellant was found guilty of commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The Appellant is also convicted under Sections 448/ 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 3 years and RI for 1 year respectively. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.11.1994 at about 7 p.m., while Smt. Mose Soren (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and her husband Jharia Besra were taking meal, the Appellant armed with a dagger entered their room (also used as a kitchen), and stabbed the deceased, as a result of which, she died instantly. While leaving the house the Appellant also gave dagger blow to Lakhiram Soren's wife, Smt. Niru Mardi (PW 6) in the courtyard of the deceased's house, causing injuries in the right hand of Niru Mardi. 4. Alleging the above facts an FIR was lodged with Sidli Police Station on 10.11.1994 itself by one Bhator Mardi (PW 5). Having completed the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant under Sections 448/ 302/ 326/ 307, IPC showing the Appellant as absconder. However, the Appellant was subsequently arrested on 9.7.2002 and he faced the trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including PW 8, SI Saifulla, Investigating Officer (IO) and PW 9 Dr. T.K. Bhowmick, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The trial Court having appreciated the evidence on record of all the material witnesses, came to the conclusion that the Appellant was involved in killing the deceased and injuring the PW 6 and convicted and sentenced the Appellant accordingly. 6. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae has forcefully submitted that the entire case is basically based on circumstantial evidence. 6. Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae has forcefully submitted that the entire case is basically based on circumstantial evidence. He has further contended that the requirements for reaching a guilty verdict on the basis of circumstantial evidence as stipulated in the case of Shared Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 are not satisfied in the present case and accordingly the Appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC is not sustainable. 7. The learned Counsel contends that evidence of PW 6 Smt. Niru Mardi cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy because according to the learned Amicus Curiae, she failed to prove the circumstances to conclusively prove the guilt of the Appellant. It is submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidences, which is required to be pieced together, to prove the guilt are missing in the instant case and as such, the conviction under Section 302, IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves interference from this Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned PP, Assam has submitted that the circumstances so narrated by PW 6, who was present at the spot at the time of occurrence and who also was assaulted by the Appellant soon after the deceased was hit, cannot be brushed aside and ignored. It is also submitted that the Appellant immediately after commission of the offence had fled from the scene for which the police had to submit the charge-sheet showing him to be an absconder and the Appellant could ultimately be arrested only on 9.7.2002 (after a gap of 8 years) and this conduct of the Appellant can also be relied upon to sustain the conviction. 9. We have carefully perused and analysed the testimony of the witnesses including that of PW 6 (Smt. Niru Mardi) and PW 9 (Dr. T.K. Bhowmick). We have also given our anxious consideration to the extensive arguments and submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned PP. 10. PW 6 Niru Mardi in her deposition stated that on the day of occurrence she was present at her home. She also stated that the deceased (being her husband's sister) along with her husband Jharia Besra, lived in a separate room in the same residential compound. On that day at around 7 p.m., the deceased called out loudly shouting that she was dying. She also stated that the deceased (being her husband's sister) along with her husband Jharia Besra, lived in a separate room in the same residential compound. On that day at around 7 p.m., the deceased called out loudly shouting that she was dying. Then the witness rushed out of her house and went to the room of the deceased. This witness saw the deceased in injured condition and also saw the Appellant running away with a dagger in his hand, from the kitchen room of the deceased. PW 6 could recognize the Appellant/accused in the light of the moon. While the Appellant was fleeing away, he gave a dagger blow on PW 6, causing injury in her wrist joint. A little later the deceased died. During cross-examination this witness reiterated her statement made in her examination-in-chief. PW 6 stated during cross-examination that, on hearing the commotion raised by the deceased, she rushed to the kitchen of the deceased. She then saw the Appellant going out of deceased's house. Then after injuring the witness the Appellant fled away towards the northwest. Since PW 6 was herself assaulted and injured, she was sent for treatment by the police. Her such statement on her injuries and treatment, was proved by prosecution by Ext. 8 which is a medical certificate issued by one Dr. U.C. Sarma, an Ayurvedic Physician posted at the Public Health Center, Sidli, who certified that PW 6 was suffering from cut injuries by sharp weapon. The size and shape of the injury was 3" length and 1/2" deep in the right hand and the nature of injury was opined to be grievous. 11. PW 9 Dr. T.K. Bhowmick having performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries: (1) A female dead body of 22 years of age. Rigor mortis was found present. Eyes were found closed. Mouth was found open. There was a stab wound of size 2" x 1/4" x 3" on the left side of chest at forth intra-costal space 2" lateral to the midclavicular line. Dried mark of blood seen around the wound. (2) Incised wound (one) seen on the palm of left hand at the level of meta carpo phallangeal joint. The wound was transversely placed. The size of the wound was 3" x 1/2" x 1/2". The wound were ante-mortem in nature. Dried mark of blood seen around the wound. (2) Incised wound (one) seen on the palm of left hand at the level of meta carpo phallangeal joint. The wound was transversely placed. The size of the wound was 3" x 1/2" x 1/2". The wound were ante-mortem in nature. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased and injury No. 1 caused to the left lung resulted in collapse of the left lung and resulted in instant death of the victim. From the medical evidence it appears to us that the 2 injuries on the victim, perhaps were caused by a single blow of the dagger. 12. No motive of the Appellant can be gathered for causing such injuries to the deceased resulting in her instant death and also injuries caused to PW 6. 13. Now the question is whether such circumstantial evidence as noticed in this case, can be the basis for conviction of the Appellant. 14. From the evidence of PW 6 we find the following circumstances: (i) PW 6 came out from her house after hearing the mortal cry of the deceased who shouted that she was dying; (ii) When PW 6 came out from her house she saw the Appellant running away from the room of the deceased, where she was assaulted, carrying a dagger in his hand; (iii) While fleeing from the place of occurrence, the Appellant with the same weapon, injured PW 6 on her wrist joint; (iv) When this witness went to the deceased's room she saw the deceased in injured condition, (v) She thereafter saw the deceased dying. 15. Let us also note the five golden principles commonly known as 'panchsheel' as postulated by the Supreme Court and extracted by our High Court in Phokan Sonowal v. State of Assam reported in 2008 (1) GLT 665: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) The should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human capability the act must have been done by the accused. 16. Having regard to the above principles, we find herein that all the five circumstances mentioned above are fully established to sustain the guilty conclusion of the Appellant. The facts so established from the evidence in the case shows that those are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for a conclusion, about the innocence of the accused. The guilty conclusion is further supported by the conduct of the Appellant who, immediately after the incident, fled the scene and remained as an absconder for 8 years. 17. That being so, we are fully in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the Appellant was involved in the killing of the deceased. 18. Now the question is whether under such circumstances, Section 302, IPC can be attributed for the action of the Appellant. We have already noticed from the medical evidence that a single fatal blow resulting in 2 injuries was found by the Doctor on the dead body of the deceased. This is duly corroborated by the witnesses PW 6 and other witnesses i.e. PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 who saw the injuries on the deceased. 19. Since one single blow was administered to the deceased and no motive of the Appellant being reflected through the evidence on record, it is difficult on our part to hold the Appellant guilty for an offence under Section 302, IPC. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the act attributed to the Appellant should not be considered as murder attracting the provisions of Section 302, IPC. Instead, it is our considered opinion, the present case falls within the purview of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the act attributed to the Appellant should not be considered as murder attracting the provisions of Section 302, IPC. Instead, it is our considered opinion, the present case falls within the purview of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Accordingly we convert the conviction from Section 302 , IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment stands modified to Rigorous Imprisonment 10 years. 20. As regards the conviction of the Appellant under Section 448/ 324, IPC we do not find any cogent and convincing ground to disturb the same as it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW 6 was injured by the Appellant by a dagger soon after the dagger assault on the deceased. Accordingly we uphold the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Sections 448/ 304, IPC. The sentence indicated above shall run concurrently. 21. In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed to the extent of modification of sentence and conviction as indicated. Send back the LCRs forthwith. 22. Send down LCR immediately. 23. Before parting with the judgment we would like to record our appreciation for Mr. P.K. Deka, the learned Amicus Curiae for his valuable assistance in arriving at the decision in this appeal. Accordingly we order that he is entitled to get his professional fees quantified at Rs. 5000/-. Appeal allowed