Amitava Roy, J.- The appellants convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC) Court No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 270(K) 2006 seek redress. By the decision impugned they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short as re­ferred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) each in default to undergo Rigorous Impris­onment for further one month. 2. We have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury and Mr. A. Choudhury, Advocates for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2011 and Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011. Mr. K. A. Majumder, learned Public Prosecu­tor of Assam appeared for the State. 3. The genesis of the prosecution case lies in the FIR lodged by one Latifa Bibi on 24.03.2004 with the Officer-in-Charge of Hazo P.S. alleging that on the previous day i.e. on 23.03.2004 at about 5 p.m. there was a quarrel between her sister-in-law Daria Begam and the persons named therein in con­nection with concealment of three ducks of her following which she was assaulted as well. The informant alleged that when she wanted to intervene the persons named in the FIR also wanted to assault her and threatened to eliminate her family members. The FIR further disclosed that at about 7 p.m. the same evening while the informant's husband Faijur Rahaman and her brother-in-law Nazimuddin were returning from the market, they were attacked by the persons named near Doloitola Chowk with Dao, lathi, Hulabari etc. as a result of which, the two victims succumbed to the injuries sustained and died at the spot. The FIR named the accused-appellants as well as Monser Ali, Mrs. Roja Bibi and Miss Marina Begam to be assailants. 4. Hazo Police Station case No. 40 of 2004 was registered on this information un­der Sections 147/148/149/304IPC. On the conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants only under the above provisions of the IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed accordingly and charge was framed under Section 302/34 of EPC against the accused-appellants, which the accused-appellants denied. 5. On the conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants only under the above provisions of the IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed accordingly and charge was framed under Section 302/34 of EPC against the accused-appellants, which the accused-appellants denied. 5. The prosecution examined thirteen wit­nesses including the doctors who had per­formed the post mortem examination on the dead bodies as well as the Investigating Of­ficer. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in course of which, they maintained the same stand and claimed to be innocent. They also examined two witnesses namely, Md. lal Man (DW. 1) and Md. Monser Ali (DW.2). 6. The learned trial Court on a consider­ation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sen­tenced the appellants as above. 7. Before adverting to the rival submis­sions, it would be appropriate to cause a survey of the salient features of the evidence adduced at the trial. 8. The accusations made against the ap­pellants in the FIR have already been briefly noted. PW. 1 Latifa Bibi, the informant, is the wife of the deceased, Faizur Rahman and the sis­ter-in-law of the other namely, Nazimuddin. On oath, she identified the accused-appel­lants on the dock and stated that their houses were in the neighborhood of hers. She stated that the place of occurrence was on village road and about 1 furlong away from her house. She deposed that the time of the occurrence was about 6.30 in the evening. According to her, prior to the incident, the accused-appel­lants had stealthily taken away three ducks belonging to her sister-in-law Dariya Begam and had concealed those by butchering them. She stated that as Dariya Begam went in search of the said ducks and raised objection on coming to learn about their fate, the mother of the accused-appellants Ratul and Sariful as well as their sister assaulted her and turned her out from their premises. Altercations fol­lowed between the womenfolk of both the families thereafter. According to the witness, at that point of time, the deceased persons were not at home and were off to the market. She stated that while they were returning home in the same evening, they were intercepted by the accused-appellants near the house of one Mannan and heated altercations followed. Altercations fol­lowed between the womenfolk of both the families thereafter. According to the witness, at that point of time, the deceased persons were not at home and were off to the market. She stated that while they were returning home in the same evening, they were intercepted by the accused-appellants near the house of one Mannan and heated altercations followed. She claimed to have heard her husband of­fering to resolve the controversy and imme­diately heard him cry that he was being killed. The witness on hearing this rushed out of the house and reached the place of occurrence to see her husband being assaulted by the accused-apellants with the spear, lathi, hullabari etc. She further stated that the ap­pellants Tomiz Ali and Bhogi hurled a Dao towards her brother-in-law Nizamuddin and as it hit on rear of his head, he fell down and then the accused-appellant Intaz Ali slit his throat. The witness testified that as she tried to resist the appellants, Sariful shot a hullabari towards her which however she could avoid. The witness then out of fear hid herself be­hind the paddy stack. She claimed that at that time she was accompanied by the wife of the deceased Nazim Uddin, her two sons and her nephew. According to her, after the incident, the appellants left the place of occurrence with the hullabari and the dao. The Gaon Bura of the village and others thereafter arrived at the place of occurrence and informed the police. According to the witness the police visited the place of occurrence in the very same night and lifted the dead bodies. She stated to have lodged the FIR on the next date. 9. In the cross-examination this witness stated in particular that her husband had gone to the market on the date of the incident in a bicycle. She admitted to have omitted to men­tion about the killing of the ducks in the FIR. She admitted to have lost her sense at the place of occurrence. She reiterated that the house of Mannan was very near the place of occurrence and that a little away was that of Barul. She further mentioned about the pres­ence of electric light in a shop near the place of occurrence. The evidence of the PW.2 Rajat Ali, PW.3 Md. She reiterated that the house of Mannan was very near the place of occurrence and that a little away was that of Barul. She further mentioned about the pres­ence of electric light in a shop near the place of occurrence. The evidence of the PW.2 Rajat Ali, PW.3 Md. Firoj Ali, PW.5 Sajnur Ali and PW.6 Alkesh Ali is not essential to be dilated upon vis-a-vis the actual occurrence as they have presented themselves as the witness of the seizure of the weapons of assault and the in­quest done on the dead bodies. Whereas the evidence of the PW 8 Dariya Begam is con­fined to the incident over the three ducks, the testimony of PW 7 Karpo Bibi clearly dem­onstrate that she is not an eye witness to the incident though she had visited the place of occurrence thereafter. In her statement at the trial this witness, however, mentioned about the presence of the appellants Thakur Ali, Intaz Ali and Sriful, Roja Bibi and Marina at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. In cross-examination this witness also admitted of not having seen the actual assault on the deceased. 10. The evidence of the PW 12 Juwel Ali and PW.13 Faruk Ali sons of the deceased Faizul Rahaman is substantially in the same lines as that of their mother. According to them at the time of the incident they were present in the pump house near the place of occur­rence from where they could hear her shouts that her husband was being killed. They then rushed to the place of occurrence and found the appellants assaulting their father and their uncle Nizamuddin. According to them they were killed by being assaulted by sharp as well as blunt weapons, hi specific terms they deposed that their father and uncle were chopped and battered to death. In cross-ex­amination P W. 12 admitted that at the time of occurrence he was a student of Class V. He stated that the place of occurrence was about 2 furlong from their house and that in the said village there were about 150 families. This witness in particular stated that the night was a moonlit night. As observed hereinabove, the evidence of the PW. 13 is in identical lines. 11. PW.9 Dr. Kanak Chandra Das and PW.11 Dr. B.C. Roymedhi had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Md. This witness in particular stated that the night was a moonlit night. As observed hereinabove, the evidence of the PW. 13 is in identical lines. 11. PW.9 Dr. Kanak Chandra Das and PW.11 Dr. B.C. Roymedhi had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Md. Faizur Rahaman and Nazimu-ddin respectively. PW.9 in his deposition re­ferred to the following injuries :- "1. Lacerated injuries in size 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on front of right leg middle part. 2. Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm present on left forearm. 3. Contusion present on skull near the vault of the skull. Size 15 cm x 10 cm underneath both parietal bones and fractured. Fracture was de­pressed. Comminuted fracture with multiple frag­ment and one linear fractures line extent up to the base of the skull through left temporal bone. Extra-dural hematoma present over the left tem­poral lobe of the brain. Defused sub-dural haemorrhage present all over the brain. Whole brain congested." 12. He proved the examination of the re­port Ext.3 and claimed that the injury was homicidal in nature caused by blunt weapon and that it was due to coma as a result of head injury. 13. PW. 11 Dr. B.C. Roymedhi at the trial referred to the following injuries found on the dead body of Nizamuddin in course of post mortem examination. Lacerated injury of scalp of size 6 cm x 3 cm X brain deep present over the vault of the skull underneath the injury fracture of bones of skull found. Brain found lacerated. Brain matter comes out through the wound. Blood clot found adherent in the wound. 2. Depressed comminuted fracture of size 8 cm x 6 cm found over the vault of the skull. 3. Diffused contusion of scalp present over the both parietal region. The Membrane found lacerated. Extradural hematoma of size 10 cm x 8 cm x 1 cm found below the fracture of skull. Sub-dural hemor­rhage present on both sides of cerebral hemi­sphere. He also opined that death was due to coma resulting from head injury. 14. PW.10 Sri Khagen Chandra Das is the Investigating Officer and he deposed about the steps taken by him in course of the investigation. He proved inter alia the seizure of the weapons of assault by the seizure list Ext.2. He also proved the inquest report Ext. 1, FIR Ext. 14. PW.10 Sri Khagen Chandra Das is the Investigating Officer and he deposed about the steps taken by him in course of the investigation. He proved inter alia the seizure of the weapons of assault by the seizure list Ext.2. He also proved the inquest report Ext. 1, FIR Ext. 6 and sketch map-Ext. 5. He admitted of having received an information about the incident from the Goanbora of Doloitola village at about 8.30 p.m. on 23.03.2004 and stated that in response thereto he visited the place of occurrence, performed the inquest on the dead bodies, prepared the sketch map and seized the weapons of assault, whereafter, he submitted charge sheet, Ext.6 under Sections 147/1487 149/302IPC against the accussed-appellants. The evidence of DW 1, Lalmon and DW 2, Md. Meser AH is to the effect that it was dark at the place of occurrence and that the wife of the deceased had arrived threat after the incident. 15. Mr. Choudhury has argued that so called eye witnesses PWs. 1,12 and 13 not having been able to attribute specific acts of assault on the deceased with the identity of the assailants, the learned trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants. While contending that the examination of the PWs. 12 and 13 who had not been cited as the witness in the charge sheet has prejudiced the defence of the appellants in absence of their statements under Section 161 CrPC., the learned counsel has urged that the testi­mony of the PW 7 projected by the prosecu­tion to be an eye witnesses being wholly in­compatible with that of PWs. 1,12 and 13, the learned Court below ought to have ac­quitted the accused-appellants. Referring to the evidence of PW. 1 in particular that the accused-appellant, Intaz Ali had slit the throat of Nizam Uddin, Mr. Choudhury has urged that in absence of any incised or sharp wound of any of the dead bodies as disclosed by the post mortem reports, the prosecution case is untrustworthy as a whole and ought to have been rejected by the learned trial Court. The .so called ocular and medical evidence being mutilative of each other, the very foundation of the charge against the accused-appellants has been rendered non-est and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with, he pleaded. Mr. The .so called ocular and medical evidence being mutilative of each other, the very foundation of the charge against the accused-appellants has been rendered non-est and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with, he pleaded. Mr. Choudhury 4 has maintained that having regard to the dis­tance between the house of the informant and the place of occurrence it was impossible for her to hear the deliberations thereat (place of occurrence) and the clarion calls of her hus­band there from and that as the evidence of the PW.1, PW.12 and PW.13 stand thor­oughly discredited by the medical evidence, the conviction and sentence of the appellants unless set aside would result in travesty of justice. He also questioned the veracity of the prosecution case on the ground of absence of independent witnesses though the area was sufficiently populated with such inhabitants. The learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2011 has fully adopted these arguments. 16. The learned Public Prosecutor in re­ply has argued that a conjoint reading of the evidence of the PW.1, PW.12 and PW.13 would reveal that the charge against the ap­pellants has been proved beyond doubt. The testimony of these witnesses being amply sup­ported by the other materials on record namely, the inquest, seizure and the statements of other witnesses, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted, he maintained. According to Mr. Majumdar, mere absence of any incised wound on the dead bodies does not disprove the case of the prosecution in the face of otherwise over­whelming and reliable evidence of the eye witnesses namely, PW. 1, P W. 12 and PW. 13. 17. The evidence on record and the rival arguments have received our anxious consid­eration. To start with, the First Information Report categorically named the appellants as the assailants. The evidence of PW 1, PW12 and PW 13, if believed, the complicity of the accused-appellants in the acts of assaults stands proved. These witnesses not only have corroborated each other with regard to the distance of the place of occurrence from their house, they have in categorical terms stated to have seen by themselves the assaults made by the accused-appellants on the deceased. These witnesses not only have corroborated each other with regard to the distance of the place of occurrence from their house, they have in categorical terms stated to have seen by themselves the assaults made by the accused-appellants on the deceased. The evidence of these witnesses also suggest that not only it was a moonlight night, but also there was a source of light from a shop lo­cated near the place of occurrence. These witnesses have involved the accused-appel­lants in overt acts of assault with different weapons in a body collectively. The incident over the ducks of Ms. Daria Begum, the sis­ter-in-law of the informant and involving the women folk of the families of the accused-appellants' preceding the murderous assaults is of considerable significance. According to the testimony of the P W1, the deliberations between the deceased and the accused-ap­pellants before the actual occurrence had an animated reference to this confrontation over the duck episode. That the husband of the informant as well as her brother-in-law had met homicidal death is a fact proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Though, the post mortem reports, as such, do not disclose any cut injury on the deceased, the same, per se, is not extinctive of the pros­ecution case. According to the medical opin­ion, death occurred due to head injury dis­closing fracture of the skull. It is not unlikely that P W1 in a dazed state might have had an impression in the melee that the accused-ap­pellant Md. Imtaz Ali had slit the throat of Nazimuddin with a dao. The prosecution has proved as well, the seizure of a dao, a hullabari and two bamboo lathis from the place of occurrence on the very date of the incident 18. The evidence of PW1, PW 12 & PW 13 has remained unshaken in cross-exami­nation. Though no specific act of assault has been attributed by these witnesses to any of the accused-appellants, the very fact that they in a body had attacked the deceased with le­thal weapons resulting in fatal injuries on a vital portion of their body, namely, head is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case to prove the charge against them. The plea of want of intention to kill, having regard to the weapons wielded by the accused-ap­pellants lacks persuasion. The plea of want of intention to kill, having regard to the weapons wielded by the accused-ap­pellants lacks persuasion. Omission on the part of the prosecution to examine the inde­pendent witnesses also ipso facto does not entitle the accused-appellants to the benefit of doubt in the faee of the well knit and co­herent testimony of PW 1, PW 12 and PW 13 about the incriminating involvement in the assaults resulting in fatal injuries to which the injured eventually succumbed. The evidence of PW 1, PW 12 and PW 13 when judged as a whole, the contention of inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence also does not appeal to this Court. The cavil of prejudice based on examina­tion of PW 12 & PW 13 at the trial though not in course of the investigation is of no avail. 19. On a totality of the circumstances nar­rated hereinabove, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the accused-appellants had shared a common intention of attacking the deceased in a body with lethal weapons and to effect assaults on them therewith for elimi­nating them. PW 1, PW 12 and PW 13 in our estimate has proved the charge against the accused-appellant under Section 302/34 of the IPC. We have perused the judgment and order and are in full agreement with the reasonings and the conclusions recorded therein. The appeals are thus, without merit and are dismissed.