JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.04, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ad hoc) Sibsagar, in Sessions Case No. 32 (S-C)/ 2003. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellants have carried the appeal to this Court. 2. We have heard Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The prosecution case can be compendiously stated thus: On 4.1.02 at about 6.30 p.m., while Sri Somora Tantubai (P.W. 2)and Sri Ramkumar alias Siba Charan (hereinafter called 'the deceased') were proceeding towards their houses, at a place near the ONGC oil dril site in village Rangapathar, the Appellants, namely, Sri Suhag Kalandi, who was armed with a dao and Sri Pichu Kalindi appeared on the road and Sri Pichu Kalandi ckised Sri Somora Tantubai making him to run away and the Appellant Sri Suhag Kalindi gave dao blows on the neck of the deceased. Sri Somora Tantubai (P.W. 2) rushed to inform the wife of the deceased. On being so informed, Smt. Pranati Kumari (P.W. 1), wife of the deceased, arrived in the place of occurrence. The wife of the deceased, after her (P.W. 1) arrival in the place of occurrence found her husband lying in injured condition. Leaving the wife of the deceased, in the place of occurrence, Sri Somora Tantubai (P.W. 2) proceeded to inform Lai Babu Kumar (P.W. 7), Tulsi Tantubai (P.W. 6) and Premnath Tantubai (P.W. 5). After about 15 to 20 minutes of her arrival there at place of occurrence the accused-Appellants arrived in the place of occurrence, and accused- Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi took away the head of the deceased after severing the same. Thereafter, P.W. 2, being accompanied by the persons, informed by him, arrived at the place of occurrence and found the headless dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W. 2, being accompanied by the persons, informed by him, arrived at the place of occurrence and found the headless dead body of the deceased. On the same evening, at about 8.40 p.m., the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared in the Suffiy Police Outpost carrying a blood stained dao and severed head of a male person and introduced himself, to the Officer-in-charge (P.W. 14) of the police outpost, as Sri Suhag Kalandi and informed that he had killed a person, namely, Ramkumar @ Shibcharan Kumar, whose severed head he had carried to the police outpost. Accordingly, P.W. 14 entered the said information as G.D. Entry No. 52 of 2002 dated 4.1.02 (Exbt.7) and took the said accused into custody. The said police officer seized the dao (mechi dao), brought by the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi and the blood stained trouser used by him. Thereafter, P.W. 14 proceeded towards the place of occurrence, at Rangapathar village, and found the beheaded dead body of the deceased, which was identified by the wife of the deceased. Accordingly, police registered a case and launched investigation into the matter. During the investigation, police prepared a sketch map, brought the beheaded dead body to the police station, held inquest in respect of the dead body as well as the served head, got the autopsy done and examined the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-Appellants under Sections302/34 IPC and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned SDJM, Charaideo, Sonari committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302/34 IPC and explained the contents of the same, to which the accused- Appellants pleaded not guilty. Their plea was a denial one and they claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy and the Investigating Officer. At the conclusion of examination of the prosecution witnesses the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy and the Investigating Officer. At the conclusion of examination of the prosecution witnesses the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Sri Pichu Kalandi denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence, whereas accused Sri Suhag Kalandi admitted that he had killed the deceased with a sharp weapon, that he had surrendered to the police outpost with the severed head of the deceased and a mechi dao. He admitted the seizure of the dao and blood stained trouser from his possession by the police. He also declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused-Appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and recorded their conviction and sentence as indicated above. 6. Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellants, taking us through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the charge brought against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting the Appellants without sufficient cogent and reliable evidence. It is also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence against the accused-Appellant, namely, Sri Pichu Kalindi alias Kalandi and as such his conviction was bad for want of sufficient evidence. Relying on the decision held in the case of Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. reported in (2002) 10 SCC 236 and (1997) 4 SCC 161 reported in Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the examination of the accused- Appellants was not proper and as such the impugned conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside for improper examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Refitting the argument, advanced on behalf of the Appellants, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient substantive evidence on record to show that the Appellants, more particularly, Sri Suhag Kalandi had committed the murder of the deceased. 7. Refitting the argument, advanced on behalf of the Appellants, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient substantive evidence on record to show that the Appellants, more particularly, Sri Suhag Kalandi had committed the murder of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously argued that the evidence of the two eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, coupled with the fact that the Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared before the police officer, immediately after the occurrence, carrying a blood stained dao and the severed head of the deceased sufficiently and beyond all reasonable doubt proved that none other than the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi had committed the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that all the incriminating materials, revealed by the witnesses, against the Appellants were brought to the notice of the Appellants, during their examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and that there was no irregularity in their examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking us through the questions, put to the Appellants and the answers given by them, more particularly by Sri Suhag Kalandi, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Sri Suhag Kalandi admitted that he had killed the deceased with a sharp weapon and that he had surrendered in the police outpost with the dao and severed head. The said admission made by the accused, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, lends sufficient support in favour of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, in favour of the evidence given by the eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment needs no interference. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the decisions held in the case of State of U.P. v. Lakhmi reported in (1998) 4 SCC 336 , State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Onong Ratan and Ors. reported in 2009 (3) GLT 417, Baiju Baby v. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in 2009 (1) GLT 405and Ajit Boraik v. State of Assam reported in 2010 (2) GLT 826. 8. In view of the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to briefly re-capitulate the evidence on record as follows: 9. 8. In view of the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to briefly re-capitulate the evidence on record as follows: 9. Smt. Pranati Kumari, wife of the deceased deposed as P.W. 1. On being informed by Somora Tantuba (P.W. 2), she rushed to place of occurrence and found that her husband was lying in injured condition. She noticed cut injury on the neck and left hand fingers of her husband. She stated that after about 15 to 20 minutes, from her arrival in the place of occurrence, the accused-Appellants again appeared with dao in their hands and, despite resistance given by her, accused-Appellant Suhag Kalandi took away the head of her husband after severing the same. According to this witness, after removal of the head of her husband by the said appellant, she returned to her village to inform the VDP Secretary, Prem Kanta Tantubai (P.W. 8), Sitaram Kumar, Prem Nath Tantubai (P.W. 5) and Tulsi Tantubai (P.W. 6). She further stated that the said persons went to police station to inform the police and that the ejahar was written as per her dictation, on which she put her thumb impression. In her cross- examination, P.W. 1 stated that Sri Somora Tantubai, at the time of giving her the information regarding the assault made on her husband, did not mention the names of the assailants. She further stated that it was a dark night, but she could see the dead body of her husband in the light of the lamp. She denied the suggestion that due to darkness, she did not go to the place of occurrence. Denying the said suggestion, she clearly stated that she was accompanied to the place of occurrence by P.W. 2. During her re-examination, this witness clearly stated that she saw the severed head of her husband, next morning, in the police station. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. Denying the said suggestion, she clearly stated that she was accompanied to the place of occurrence by P.W. 2. During her re-examination, this witness clearly stated that she saw the severed head of her husband, next morning, in the police station. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. Her evidence, that she was informed by P.W. 2, that she along with P.W. 2 had gone to the place of occurrence and that she had seen the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi taking away the severed head of her husband, that she saw the severed head of her husband in the police station, on the following morning, could not be demolished. No contradiction could be elicited to render her evidence unbelievable on material point. Of course, P.W. 1 did not state anything incriminating against the Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi. 10. In tune with the evidence of P.W. 1, Mr. Somora Tantubai, who deposed as P.W. 2, stated that, on the fateful evening, when he along with the deceased was returning home, the accused-Appellants appeared on the road and chased him away. He stated that the Appellant Suhag Kalandi gave dao blows on the neck of the deceased and that he (P.W. 2) had rushed to the house of the deceased to inform his wife i.e. P.W. 1. Supporting the evidence of P.W. 1, he stated that he again came back to the place of occurrence with P.W. 1 and leaving the P.W. 1 in the place of occurrence, he went to inform Sri Lai Babu Kumar, Prem Nath Tantubai and Tulsi Tantubai. He further stated that, after arriving in the place of occurrence, along with the said persons, he found the headless dead body of the deceased, corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1, he stated that P.W. 1 had informed him that the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had severed and taken away the head of the deceased. He further stated that he came to know from Ors. that the accused had surrendered in the police station with the severed head. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 denied the suggestion that he did not see as to who had caused the injury to the deceased. He clearly stated that the accused-Appellants were known to him and that he could recognize them as soon as he saw them. that the accused had surrendered in the police station with the severed head. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 denied the suggestion that he did not see as to who had caused the injury to the deceased. He clearly stated that the accused-Appellants were known to him and that he could recognize them as soon as he saw them. He stoutly denied the suggestion that he failed to recognize the person, who had attacked the deceased. Though this witness was cross- examined on behalf of the defence, nothing could be brought out to make his evidence unbelievable. From his forceful evidence, it is found that he was present with the deceased at the time of attacking the latter by the Appellants. He clearly stated that accused Suhag Kalandi had assaulted the deceased by giving dao blows on his neck in his presence and on his return to the place of occurrence after informing the villagers, he found the headless dead body of the deceased lying thereon. Accumulative reading of the uncontroverted evidence of the said two eye witnesses safely lead to believe that Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi had given dao blows on the neck of the deceased and that he had taken away the head after severing the same from the body of the deceased. 11. P.W. 3 Mr. Titu Baruah stated that, at about 7.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence, he saw a headless dead body and could recognize that the same to be the dead body of the deceased. He was a witness to the inquest made by police. He exhibited the inquest report and his signature thereon was exhibit No. 1/1. 12. Mr. Bapukan Kalindi (P.W. 4) stated that the Appellants were his nephews. He heard that the deceased was killed. He further stated that on the next day, he could know from the villagers that, the Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi had severed the dead body of the deceased and that he had surrendered before the police. 13. Mr. Prem Nath Tantubai (P.W. 5) supporting the evidence of P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 1 was the wife of the deceased and that she had informed them that the head of her husband was severed and taken away by the accused Suhag Kalandi. 14. Mr. 13. Mr. Prem Nath Tantubai (P.W. 5) supporting the evidence of P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 1 was the wife of the deceased and that she had informed them that the head of her husband was severed and taken away by the accused Suhag Kalandi. 14. Mr. Tulshi Tantubai (P.W. 6) stated that he was informed by the v^e of the deceased that the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had severed and taken away the head of her hushed. 15. Mr. Lai Babu Kumar (P.W. 7) stated that he was informed by Tulshi Tantubai (P.W. 6) that the deceased Ram Kumar was killed, near the ONGC oil drill site, and on being so informed, he along with Tulshi Tantubai went to the place of occurrence and found the beheaded dead body of the deceased. In his cross-examination, this witness also stated that the wife of the deceased had informed him that accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had taken away the head of her husband by severing the same. 16. Mr. Prem Kanta Tantubai (P.W. 8) stated that he saw the beheaded dead body of the deceased and that proceeding to the police station he came to know that Sri Suhag Kalandi had severed the head of the deceased. This witness stated that he saw the severed head of the deceased in the verandah of the police outpost and accused Sri Suhag Kalani also sitting there in the verandah. He further stated that a 'mechi dao' was seized by the police from the possession of the said accused vide Exbt.2. He was a witness to the seizure of the mechi dao. He was also present as witness at the time of inquest. He exhibited the inquest report as Exbt.3 and his signature thereon as Exbt.3/1. 17. P.W. 9 Mr. Dhani Konwar stated that he saw a severed head and the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi in the verandah of the police outpost. He was also a witness to the seizure of the dao. He exhibited his signature in the seizure list as Exbt.2(2). 18. P.W. 10 Mr. Bhuban Thapa in tune with the evidence of P.W. 9 stated that he saw the severed head of the deceased in the verandah of the police outpost and the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi holding amechi dao in his hand. He exhibited his signature in the seizure list as Exbt.2(2). 18. P.W. 10 Mr. Bhuban Thapa in tune with the evidence of P.W. 9 stated that he saw the severed head of the deceased in the verandah of the police outpost and the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi holding amechi dao in his hand. According to this witness, the Officer-in-Charge of the police outpost seized the dao from the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi vide Exbt.2. He exhibited his signature thereon as Exbt.2/3, he has also exhibited the dao as Mat.exbt. 1. 19. Mr. Jayanta Hazarika (P.W. 11), a constable of the Suffry Police Outpost stated that, on 4.1.02, while he was performing sentry duty, at about 8.45 to 9 p.m., in the police outpost, the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared in the police station holding a severed head of a male person in his right hand and a 'mechi dao' in his left hand. According to this witness, the said person had stated that he had severed the head by cutting it off. He further stated that the Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 14) of the outpost had seized the dao and the long pant (trouser) used by Sri Suhag Kalandi. He exhibited his signature on the seizure list (Exbt. No. 2) as Exbt. 2/4 and the seized dao as Mat.exbt. 1. 20. Though the said witnesses, i.e. P.Ws. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, their evidence regarding seizure of the dao and the trouser from the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi in the police outpost by P.W. 14, and the availability of the severed head of the deceased remained unshaken. From their evidence, more particularly, the evidence of P.W. 11, it stood established that the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared in the police station with the severed head of the deceased and a mechi dao in his hand and that the police had seized the said mechi dao and the blood stained trouser of the accused in the police outpost. 21. Dr. Rajib Kr. Baruah, who performed the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, deposed as P.W. 12. His findings and opinion were as follows: (1) External appearance-One beheaded stout body of average built. Neck portion is also absent. A sharp cut would from left side to right side at the root of the neck. Separated the body from the head. His findings and opinion were as follows: (1) External appearance-One beheaded stout body of average built. Neck portion is also absent. A sharp cut would from left side to right side at the root of the neck. Separated the body from the head. Rigor mortis present. Injuries-One sharp cut injury on the right hand at the level of mato-phalyngal joint cut the 4 middle fingers. Only the skin portion is intact. On head detached from the body at the level of root of the neck. The head is reconstructed with the beheaded body and it was matched well. So the head was belonged to the dead body beheaded. One cut injury size 2 " x " x scalp deep. Over right temporeal region. Underlying bone was intact. Another cut injury size 1 " X " X Scalp deep on left side of temporeal region. Underlying bone was intact. (2) Cranium and spinal canal two cut injuries found on right temporeal region and left temporeal region which were described in external appearance. (3) Thorax (i) Larynx and trachea are cut at the level of root of the neck. (ii) The great vessels of neck are cut at the level of the root of the neck. (iii) Heart-right side of the heart is full of blood and the left side of the heart is empty. (4) Abdomen Mouth, pharynx, oesophagus are cut at the level of root of the neck. Stomach is empty. 22. The said Medical Officer further stated that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and that the cause of death was shock and haemontage as a result of cut injury, sustained by the deceased, on his neck. He denied the suggestion that the cut injuries, sustained by the deceased, could not have been caused by a sharp weapon like that of the Mat. exbt. 1. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 12, it transpires that the injuries were caused by a weapon like the Matexbt. 1: The said medical evidence duly supported the prosecution version that the head of the deceased was severed by a sharp cutting weapon i.e. a dao and that the death of the deceased was caused by inflicting dao blows followed by severing of the head. 23. Mr. Jintu Roy, who deposed as P.W. 13, stated that police seized a blood stained 'trouser' and a 'dao' from Sri Suhag Kalandi. 23. Mr. Jintu Roy, who deposed as P.W. 13, stated that police seized a blood stained 'trouser' and a 'dao' from Sri Suhag Kalandi. He exhibited the seizure list as Exbt.5(2) and his signature thereon as Exbt.2. The defence, despite due cross-examination, could not demolish his evidence regarding seizure of the dao and the trouser from the accused, in the police outpost. 24. Mr. Naren Dhekial Phukan, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed as P.W. 14. He stated that, on 4.1.02 at about 8.40 p.m., accused Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared in the police outpost carrying a blood stained dao and a severed head of a male person and that the said accused disclosed that he had severed the head of the deceased. Accordingly, on being so informed, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) made a G.D. entry and took the accused-Appellant into custody. He further stated that he had seized the dao, vide Exbt.2, in presence of witnesses. At the time of giving evidence, on oath in the Court, P.W. 14 exhibited the seized dao as Mat. Exbt. 1. He also stated that he had seized the blood stained trouser of the accused vide Exbt. 5. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not send the blood stained dao and the trouser to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Though the I.O. was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence no material contradiction, to negate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, could be elicited. The unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 14 substantiated the prosecution version that the accused had appeared in the police outpost with the severed head and a blood stained dao i.e. the weapon allegedly used in severing the head. 25. In the backdrop of the above, evidence on record, it is found that none of the witnesses stated anything incriminating regarding involvement of the accused-Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi. According to P.W. 2, accused Sri Suhag and Sri Pichu appeared on the road and Suhag had a dao in his hand. This witness further stated that he was chased away by the accused Sri Pichu Kalandi and accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had given dao blows on the neck of the deceased. As stated by P.W. 2, only Suhag Kalandi was armed with a dao and Sri Pichu Kalandi was unarmed. This witness further stated that he was chased away by the accused Sri Pichu Kalandi and accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had given dao blows on the neck of the deceased. As stated by P.W. 2, only Suhag Kalandi was armed with a dao and Sri Pichu Kalandi was unarmed. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 2, it cannot be held that the accused-Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi had done anything to the deceased. P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased, also stated that she had seen the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi taking away the head of her husband after severing it from the body. She did not state anything regarding the role played by the accused Sri Pichu Kalandi. Therefore, from the above evidence on record, it cannot be safely concluded that the accused-Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi had any intention to cause the death of the deceased or that he had caused anything towards the killing of the deceased. In the light of the above evidence, in our considered opinion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi. Therefore, we do not find sufficient evidence to hold him guilty of the offence of causing the death of the deceased. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi cannot stand and therefore, he is entitled to get acquittal. 26. With regard to the guilt of the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi, as revealed from above discussion, there is sufficient direct as well as circumstantial incriminating evidence. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence fully corroborated each other's evidence on material ground indicating the involvement of the said Appellant in causing the death of the deceased. As indicated earlier, P.W. 2 was present at the place of occurrence with the deceased when the latter was given dao blows on his neck by accused Sri Suhag Kalandi. P.W. 1, on being informed by P.W. 2, rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the accused-Appellant Suhag taking away the head of her husband by severing the same. The evidence of the said two eye witnesses, despite their cross examination, remained unshaken. Therefore, the prosecution could successfully substantiate from the evidence of the said eye witnesses that the accused Suhag Kalandi had severed the head of the deceased by inflicting dao blows. The evidence of the said two eye witnesses, despite their cross examination, remained unshaken. Therefore, the prosecution could successfully substantiate from the evidence of the said eye witnesses that the accused Suhag Kalandi had severed the head of the deceased by inflicting dao blows. According to the Medical Officer (P.W. 12), who performed the post mortem examination, the head of the deceased was severed by sharp cutting weapon i.e. weapon like Mat.exbt. 1. The Mat. exbt. 1 was a dao. P.W. 11 and P.W. 14, who were in the police outpost on 4.1.02, clearly stated that in between 8 to 9 p.m. on the date of occurrence, the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi appeared in the police station with a severed head of a male person and a dao in his hand. The Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 14, who took the accused into custody in the police outpost on such appearance, seized the dao and the blood stained trouser from the possession of the deceased, in presence of the witnesses. The evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 14 that the accused Suhag Kalandi had appeared in the police station with the severed head and a dao could not be demolished. Rather, P.Ws. 8, 9, 10 and 13, who were witnesses to the seizure supported the evidence of both P.W. 11 and P.W. 14 regarding the said seizure, the presence of the said Appellant and the availability of the severed head m the police outpost. Therefore, there is sufficient corroboration in favour of the evidence of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to believe that Sri Suhag Kalandi had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting dao blows and severing his dead. In support of her challenge to the correctness of recording the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Amicus Curiae referred to the decision held in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) and Ratan Singh (supra). In the case of Mohan Singh (supra) it was observed: The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. (See Nishit Kant Jha v. State of Bihar (1969) 1 SCC 347 : AIR 1969 SC 422 ). 27. In the case of Rattan Singh (supra), it was held that examination of the accused under Section313 of the Code is not a mere formality. The Apex Court in the above referred case observed: Answers given by the accused to the questions put to him during such examination have a practical utility for Criminal Courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the delinquent to explain incriminating circumstances against him, they would help the Court in appearing the entire evidence adduced in the Court during trial. 28. Par contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case, the learned trial Judge brought all the incriminating materials disclosed by the witnesses, against the Appellants and the Appellants were given sufficient opportunity to answer their questions. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused persons. Proper notice of the evidence revealed against them and gave appropriate reply to the questions put to them. It is contended that accused Sri Suhag Kalandi, in clear terms admitted the guilt. 29. In the case of Baiju Baby (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while discussing the evidentiary value of the statement made under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure referred to the case of State of Maharastra v. Sukhdeo Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 2100 . 29. In the case of Baiju Baby (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while discussing the evidentiary value of the statement made under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure referred to the case of State of Maharastra v. Sukhdeo Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 2100 . In the above referred case, it was observed: It further logically follows from what have been observed and laid down, in Sukhdeo Singji (supra), that an admission of a piece of evidence, which an accused may voluntarily make, at the stage of his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, can be relied upon and there is no impediment, in law, in convicting an accused on such admission made in the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, if such statement, taken in its entirety, in the light of the other evidence on record, proves beyond doubt that the accused is the one, who has committed the offence. 30. In the case of State of U.P. (supra), the Apex Court observed- If an accused admits any incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him there is no warrant that those admissions should altogether be ignored merely on the ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy. Time and again, this Court has pointed out that such answers of the accused can well be taken into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution evidence can be relied on, and whether the accused is liable to be convicted of the offence charged against him; vide Sampath Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( (1969) 1 SCC 367 : AIR 1969 SC 956 ); Jethamal Pithaji v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay (1974) 3 SCC 393 : ( AIR 1974 SC 699 ); Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997) 4 SCC 161 : (1997 AIR SCW 587). We make it clear that answers of the accused, when they contain admission of circumstances against him are not by themselves, de-linked from the evidence, be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the offence. 31. We make it clear that answers of the accused, when they contain admission of circumstances against him are not by themselves, de-linked from the evidence, be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the offence. 31. In the case of Onong Ratan (supra), the Apex Court observed: Before proceeding any further what is important to bear in mind is that though a statement, recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a statement made on oath and is not, strictly speaking, evidence, yet the statement, so made, can, indeed, be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In no uncertain words made the Apex Court clear this position of law, when it observed and held, in the State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100 as follows: That brings us to the question whether such a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code can constitute the sole basis for conviction. Since no oath is administered to the accused, the statements made by the accused will not be evidence stricto sensu. That is why Sub-section (3) says that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he gives false answer. Then comes Sub-section (4), which reads: "313(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed." Thus, the answers given by the accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading of the above Sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, Sub-section (4) permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial. See State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari (1967) 3 SCR 708 : AIR 1968 SC 110 : 1968 CriLJ 95). This Court, in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of M.B. (1953 Cri LJ 1933 : AIR 1953 SC 468 ) held that an answer given by an accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. This Court, in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of M.B. (1953 Cri LJ 1933 : AIR 1953 SC 468 ) held that an answer given by an accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In Narain Singh v. State of Punjab (1963) 3 SCR 678 : (1964) 1 Cril 730), this Court held that if the accused confesses to the commission of the offence with which he is charged, the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him. To State the exact language in which the three Judge Bench answered the question, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observations at page 684-685: Under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first Sub-section, insofar as it is material, the Court may, at any stage of the enquiry or trial and after the witnesses for prosecution have been examined and before the accused is called upon for his defence, shall put questions to the accused person for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing, in the evidence, against him. Examination under Section 342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation, if any, of the incident, which forms the subject matter of the charge and his defence. By Sub-section (3), the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his examination under Section 342 confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him, the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him; but if he does not confess and, explaining circumstance, appearing in the evidence against him, sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into consideration in its entirety. Sub-section (1) of Section 313 corresponds to Sub-section (1) of Section 342 of the old Code except that it, now, stands bifurcated in two parts with the proviso added thereto clarifying that in summons case, where the presence of the accused is dispensed with, his examination under Clause (b) may also be dispensed with. Sub-section (1) of Section 313 corresponds to Sub-section (1) of Section 342 of the old Code except that it, now, stands bifurcated in two parts with the proviso added thereto clarifying that in summons case, where the presence of the accused is dispensed with, his examination under Clause (b) may also be dispensed with. Sub-section (2) of Section 313reproduces the old Sub-section (4) and the present Sub-section (3) corresponds to the old Sub-section (2) except for the change necessitated on account of the abolition of the jury system. The present Sub-section (4) with which we are concerned is a verbatim reproduction of the old Sub-section (3). Therefore, the aforestated observations apply with equal force. From what have been observed and laid down in Sukhdeo Singh (supra), it becomes transparent that if an accused person, in his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, confesses to the commission of the offence(s) charges with, the Court may, relying upon such confession, proceed to convict the accused and it is only when the accused does not confess and/or the accused chooses to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him or sets up his own version of the occurrence claiming to the effect that he had committed no offence, the statement of the accused, made during the course of examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, can be considered in its entirety along with other pieces of evidence on record. To put it a little differently, there is no impediment in law for a Court to found conviction of an accused on his confession made by him during his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or to rely upon an admission of facts made by an accused during his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it a little differently, there is no impediment in law for a Court to found conviction of an accused on his confession made by him during his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or to rely upon an admission of facts made by an accused during his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. It further logically follows from what have been observed and laid down, in Sukhdeo Singh (supra) that an admission of a piece of evidence, which an accused may voluntarily make, at the stage of his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, can be relied upon and there is no impediment, in law, in convicting an accused on such admission made in the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, if such statement, taken in its entirety, in the light of the other evidence on record, proves beyond doubt that the accused is the one, who has committed the offence. 32. From the above principles of law, it can be concluded that the requirement of examination under Section 313 is a statutory provision, which is the fundamental piece of fair trial based on the 'maxim audi alteram partem', that attention of the accused must be specifically invited to inculpatory evidence or circumstances, found in the record, with a view to afford an opportunity to the accused person to put forward his examination in respect of the incriminating evidence/circumstances revealed against him during the trial. However, the accused person is at liberty to give explanation to incriminating evidence/circumstance brought against him. The incriminating part of the evidence/circumstance, if not brought to the accused at the time of his examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be used against him to base the conviction or to keep silent. It is the duty of the trial Court to seek response of the accused person with regard to the every piece of incriminating circumstance/evidence, which may surface against him. Sub-section (4) of Section 313 of the code indicates that answers given by the accused, during his examination under Section 313, may be considered by the Court. The words "may be taken into consideration" in such enquiry or trial as appearing in Sub-section (4) indicates that the legislature laid down the guideline for the Court to give due weight to such answers. The words "may be taken into consideration" in such enquiry or trial as appearing in Sub-section (4) indicates that the legislature laid down the guideline for the Court to give due weight to such answers. Therefore, the basic purpose of examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to bring all the incriminating materials, which may be used against the accused person, to his notice liereby giving him an opportunity to explain his stand in defence. 33. The following were the material questions amongst Ors. , put to Sri Suhag Kalandi and the answers given by him: Question: Did you along with the accused persons, at 6.30 pm, on 4.1.2000, kill Ram Kinnar @ Siva Kumar hacking him with sharp weapon? Answer: It is true that I killed Ram Kumar @ Siva Charan by cutting him with a sharp weapon. Question: P.W. 1 Pranati Kumari has averred that at about 6.30 pm, on 4.1.2002, Somora Tantubai had informed her that, you along with Pichu Kalandi had killed Siva Charan Kumar by cutting him with a dao, near its ONGC oil drill site. What is your answer? Answer: Pichu Kalandi was not present at the place of occurrence. It is true that I killed Ram Kumar by cutting him with a dao. Question: P.W. 11 Sri Jayanta Hazarika has averred that at about 8.45/9 p.m., on 4.1.2002, you appeared at the police outpost holding a severed head (male human being) in your right hand and a 'mechi dao' in your left hand and informed that you had killed a person by hacking him. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 11 Jayanta Hazarika has averred that the person whom you had killed was Ram Kumar of Suffry Rangapathar village. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 11 Sri Jayanta Hazarika has averred that Sri Naren Dhekial Phukan, officer-in-charge of the outpost seized the dao and the trousers (long pant) which you were wearing, through ext. 2 and 5 respectively. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 11 Sri Jayanta Hazarika has averred that police seized ext. 1, the mechi dao through ext. 2, the seizure list, in front of him. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 12 Dr. 2 and 5 respectively. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 11 Sri Jayanta Hazarika has averred that police seized ext. 1, the mechi dao through ext. 2, the seizure list, in front of him. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 12 Dr. Rajiv Kumar Baruah has averred that on 5.1.2002 he held post mortem examination on the beheaded body and severed head of Ram Kumar and found the head, detached from the body, at the neck; sharp cut injuries in the 4 fingers of the right hand at the level of mato-phalyngal joint; two cut injuries on the head. The witness opined that Siva Charan died because of the cut injury in the neck. P.W. 1 Pranati Kumari has averred in evidence that you had severed Siba Charan's head. What is your answer? Answer: Yes, I severed Siba Charan's head at the neck. Question: P.W. 13 Sri Jintu Rai has averred that at around 8 p.m. about 1*1*1/2 years ago police seized a blood stained trousers from your possession, through ext. 5 seizure list in front of him and that at that time he also saw a dao near the trousers. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 14 Sri Naren Dhekial Phukan, the Investigating Officer, has averred that at about 8.40 p.m. on 4.1.2002, you appeared at the Suffry Police Outpost, holding a blood stained dao and a severed head (of a male person), introduced yourself to be Suhag Kalandi and told him that you had killed one Ram Kumar @ Siva Charan Kumar by hacking with a dao and brought the severed head with you. What is your answer? Answer: Yes. Question: P.W. 14 Sri Naren Dhekial Phukan has averred that upon receipt of the information from you, he entered the information as GD. Entry No. 52/2000 dated 4.1.2002 of the outpost and that Ext.7 is the certified copy of the said GD. Entry. What is your answer? Answer: I don't have anything to say. 34. On the backdrop of the above principle of law, carefully perusing the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, we find that all the incriminating materials revealed against the accused persons were brought to their notice inviting their response. Accused Sri Pichu Kalandi denied all the allegations brought against him. 34. On the backdrop of the above principle of law, carefully perusing the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, we find that all the incriminating materials revealed against the accused persons were brought to their notice inviting their response. Accused Sri Pichu Kalandi denied all the allegations brought against him. But accused Sri Suhag Kalandi, while denying some of the allegations brought against him, admitted that he had killed the deceased and appeared in the police outpost with the dao and the severed head of the deceased. 35. Therefore, from the above discussion, we find that the accused persons had understood the incriminating part of the evidence used against them and as such no irregularity was committed in their examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure causing prejudice to them. Hence, we find no force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the examination under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure was not as per requirement. The admission of guilt by the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi is supported by the evidence of the eye witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) and other witnesses, more particularly the P.W. 1 land P.W. 14. Hence, there is sufficient corroboration in favour of the prosecution version that the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had killed the deceased and appeared in the police outpost carrying the said severed head and the weapon used in committing the said offence. 36. It is settled law that conviction can be based on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the same is found to be reliable and conclusively pointing to the guilty of the accused person, to the exclusion of the hypothesis regarding his/their innocence. The circumstances from which inferences as to the guilt of the accused can be drawn should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the same should conclusively connect the accused with the alleged crime. 37. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 it was observed thus: It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 38. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , while dealing with circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court laid down that the following conditions precedent must be fully established before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence. The conditions are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the 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; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) 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 himian jH-obability the act must have been done by the accused. 39. In the light of the above principles of law, laid down by the Supreme Court, with regard to proving of the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence, we are required to examine if the circumstantial evidence, dnaging from the evidence on record, in our present case, are sufficient to safely conclude that the Appellants had caused the death of the deceased. 40. The evidence on record reveals the Mowing circumstantial evidence: (i) On the fateful evening at about 6.30 p.m., P.W. 2 and the deceased were proceeding towards their home and the accused persons appeared on the road. (ii) Accused Sri Pichu Kalandi chased away P.W. 2 and the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi gave dao blows on the neck of the deceased causing the deceased fell down on the road. (ii) Accused Sri Pichu Kalandi chased away P.W. 2 and the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi gave dao blows on the neck of the deceased causing the deceased fell down on the road. (iii) Immediately after the said occurrence P.W. 2 who saw the said incidence rushed to inform P.W. 1 i.e. the wife of the deceased. (iv) P.W. 1 on being informed by P.W. 2, and up on her arrival in the place of occurrence, saw the dead body of her husband with cut injury on his neck and left hand fingers. (v) P.W. 2, leaving the P.W. 1 in the place of occurrence went to inform the villagers. (vi) After about 15 minutes of her (P.W. 1) arrival in the place of occurrence, accused Sri Suhag Kalandi defying the resistance given by P.W. 1 took away the head of the deceased by severing the same. (vii) P.W. 2 and other witnesses, who subsequently appeared in the place of occurrence, found the headless dead body of the deceased. (viii) P.W. 11, who was performing sentry duty in the police outpost and P.W. 14 who was the Officer-in-Charge of the Suffri Police Outpost found the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi to have appeared in the police out post with a blood stained dao and a severed head of a male person. His trouser was found to be stained with blood. (ix) Police seized the blood stained dao and the blood stained trouser in the police outpost from the accused in presence of witnesses and took the said accused into custody. (x) The Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) and other witnesses found the headless dead body of the deceased. (xi) The Medical Officer (P.W. 12) who performed autopsy found that the head of the deceased was severed by a sharp weapon, like that of the Mat.exbt. 1 i.e. a dao. (xii) The accused Sri Suhag Kalandi, in his statement given under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 admitted that he had killed the deceased with a sharp weapon and that he had appeared in the police outpost with the severed head of the deceased. He stated that the co-accused Sri Pichu Kalandi was not present with him. His statement was inculpatory statement excluding the involvement of the other accused-Appellant. 41. He stated that the co-accused Sri Pichu Kalandi was not present with him. His statement was inculpatory statement excluding the involvement of the other accused-Appellant. 41. The above circumstantial evidence in our considered opinion are found to form a complete chain of events conclusively indicating involvement of the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi and fully supporting the evidence of P W 1 and P.W. 2, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 2 who was the star witness in this case clearly stated that the accused Sri Suhag Kalandi had given the dao blows on the neck of the deceased. There is nothing on record to find that he had any reason or grudge to falsely implicate the said accused-Appellant. P.W. 1 saw the accused Suhag Kalandi severing the head of the deceased. P.W. 11 and P.W. 14 duly corroborated each other's evidence regarding surrender of the said accused in the police outpost with the severed head and the dao. 42. In the light of the above discussion, we find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to believe that the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi had caused the death of the deceased by giving dao blows on his neck and thus severed the head of the deceased causing his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution could establish the chaise against the accused-Appellant Suhag Kalandi by adducing sufficient substantive and reliable evidence. 43. In view of what has been discussed above, we hold that the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi was guilty of the evidence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned conviction aid sentence recorded against the accused-Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi. Accordingly, we uphold and confirm the conviction and the sentence passed against Appellant Sri Suhag Kalandi. 44. In view of our earlier discussion, we do not find the Appellant Sri Pichu Kalandi guilty of the offence charged in this case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against Sri Pichu Kalandi and order his acquittal. The said Appellant, namely, Sri Pichu Kalandi is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 45. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. 46. Send down the lower Court records. 47. Before we part with the record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, Amicus Curiae. The said Appellant, namely, Sri Pichu Kalandi is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 45. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. 46. Send down the lower Court records. 47. Before we part with the record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, Amicus Curiae. As a token thereof, we order payment of her professional fees which we quantify at Rs. 3,500/- (rupees three thousand and five hundred) only. The payment would be made forthwith. Appeal partly allowed.