JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 15-06-2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded, at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: On 13-02-2002, at about 10.00 p.m., on being called by accused, Boloram Kurmi @ Petera, Gauranga Karmakar (since deceased) went out of his house and shortly thereafter, Gauranga's son, Nani Gopal Karmakar (PW 2), heard his father screaming. On hearing his father screaming, PW 2 came out of his house and saw accused Boloram Kurmi @ Petera, accused Budhu Bhuyan and accused Khagen Kurmi assaulting his father. Though PW 2 tried to intervene to save his father's life, the said three accused persons tried to assault PW 2, too, inasmuch as PW 2 was alone. PW 2, therefore, ran away from the place of occurrence. No sooner did PW 2 leave the place of occurrence, accused Gerela Bhuyan also came and joined the said three accused persons in assaulting Gauranga, who succumbed, to his injuries, whereupon his dead body was thrown by accused persons in the E&D drain. Though PW 2 went, on the very night of the occurrence, to their VDP Secretary so as to inform the police, the police could not be informed as the residential telephone of the said VDP Secretary was not in order. On the following day, PW 2 lodged a written ejahar at Sootea Police Station. Treating the said ejahar as First Information Report, Sootea Police Station Case No. 16 of 2002, under Section 304/34, IPC, was registered. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body and got autopsy performed. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against all the said four accused persons, namely, Boloram Kurmi @ Petera, Budhu Bhuyan, Khagen Kurmi and Gerela Bhuyan, under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. 2. During trial, when a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, was framed against all the said four accused persons, all the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 2. During trial, when a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, was framed against all the said four accused persons, all the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in their examinations aforementioned, they denied that they had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 4. Having found that there was no sufficient evidence bringing home the charge as against accused Budhu Bhuyan and accused Gerela Bhuyan, the learned Trial Court acquitted them accordingly; but convicted the present accused-appellants, Boloram Kurmi @ Petera and Khagen Kurmi, as mentioned above. Aggrieved, by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, the two convicted persons have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. I. Uddin, learned amicus curiae, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Before we enter into the discussion of the evidence, which is claimed to have been given by eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence of assault on Gauranga, we may briefly point out the findings of the doctor (PW 1), who had conducted the post-mortem examination on Gauranga's dead body on 14-02-2002, i.e., on the following day of the occurrence. 7. The findings of the doctor read as under: EXTERNAL APPEARANCE: 1. Dead body of a male person of average built. 2. Rigor Mortis was present. 3. Both the eyes and the mouth were found closed. 4. A penetrating injury was found on left lateral surface of the face just in front of the left ear. Size-2.5 cm. x 2 cm. A prob can be inserted through it to the brain. 5. A lacerated injury on the scalp 1 over the vault of the skull with fracture of the underlying bones found. Size-3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. Bleeding was present. 6. No other external injury was noticed on the deceased. 7. Internal injury- (i) The membrane inside the scalp was found congested and injured below the injury site. (ii) Accumulation of blood inside the brain matter found. The deceased sustained severe injury on his head. The injury was ante-mortem in nature. No other external injury was found. 8. 6. No other external injury was noticed on the deceased. 7. Internal injury- (i) The membrane inside the scalp was found congested and injured below the injury site. (ii) Accumulation of blood inside the brain matter found. The deceased sustained severe injury on his head. The injury was ante-mortem in nature. No other external injury was found. 8. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 1), the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. 9. Before proceeding further, it also needs to be borne in mind that the findings of the doctor were not disputed at the trial by the prosecution or the defence. This apart, we do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the findings, which had been reached by the doctor. We, therefore, see no reason to discard the findings of the doctor and his opinion with regard to the cause of death. 10. Keeping in view the medical evidence on record, when we proceed further, we notice that the conviction of the accused-appellants is based on the evidence of PW 2 (Noni Gopal Karmakar), who is the son of the said deceased, PW 4 (Mukeshwar Tanti), a neighbour of the deceased, in front of whose house, the dead body of the said deceased was found lying, and PW 5 (Bobita Tanti), who is wife of PW 4. 11. Let us, first, consider the evidence of PW 2. According to his evidence, accused Boloram called his father, Gauranga, from the backside of their house, whereupon his father went out and, shortly thereafter, he heard his father screaming and when he (PW 2) went out of his house, he saw accused Boloram Kurmi @ Petera, Budhu Bhuyan and Khagen Kurmi assaulting his father. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that though he tried to intervene in order to save his father's life, the accused persons, finding that he (PW 2) was alone, tried to assault him too and he (PW 2), therefore, ran away leaving behind his father, but he claims to have noticed that Gerela Bhuyan, had, in the meanwhile, come there and joined the said three accused persons in assaulting his father, Gauranga. 12. 12. Apart from the fact that the evidence of PW 2 gives no indication that there was any one other than PW 2, his father, Gauranga, and the accused persons were present either at the place of occurrence or at any place nearby the place of occurrence, what is strange enough to note is that PW 2 did not raise any alarm calling his neighbours to intervene. Much more surprising is the fact that PW 2 admits, in his cross-examination, that at the time of the occurrence, his mother and his brother, Rubul Karmakar, were present, but none of these two persons even came out of the house or raised alarm. 13. Coupled with the above, the investigating officer (PW 8) has confirmed that PW 2 did not claim before him, at the time, when his statement was recorded, that the accused persons had sought to assault him too. This omission is a vital omission inasmuch as it is, in the light of the evidence of PW 2, because of fear of assault that he left the place of occurrence. If it were because of the fear of assault on his person that PW 2 had left the place of occurrence, there was no reason for him to omit to state this fact before the investigating officer. This vital omission, therefore, cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence of PW 2 as regards his claim that he had witnessed the occurrence of assault on his father, particularly, when we have pointed out above that the evidence of PW 2 is absolutely silent that other than PW 2, his father (since deceased) and the accused-persons, anyone else were present. 14. What may, now, be noted is that broadly in tune with the evidence of each other, PW 4 and PW 5 have deposed to the effect that on being called by Boloram Kurmi @ Petera, Gauranga came out of his house and made it clear to accused Boloram Kurmi that he had no quarrel with Boloram and, therefore, both of them started shaking hands of friendship, but as they were shaking their hands, accused Khagen came there and gave a blow by means of a lathi on Gauranga's head and Gauranga fell down on the ground. This apart, according to PW 4, accused Boloram Kurmi dragged injured Gauranga towards the road near E & D drain, where Boloram Kurmi, Budhu Bhuyan and Khagen Kurmi assaulted Gauranga to death by giving him blows with lathi and, in the meanwhile, accused Gerela, too, came and though he picked up a bamboo stick, but on noticing that Gauranga was stained with blood, accused Gerela threw away the stick and left the place, where Gauranga died. 15. Thus, the evidence of PW 5 does not support the evidence of PW 2 and PW 4 that all the four accused, named by them, had assaulted Gauranga. 16. What can also not be ignored is that PW 2 did not state before the investigating officer (PW 8) that the accused-person had tried to assault him. Similarly, PW 4 did not state before the investigating officer that accused Khagen gave a blow with his lathi on the head of the deceased or that Boloram dragged Gauranga and/or assaulted him. Similarly, even PW 5 had not stated before the investigating officer that PW 2 had tried to intervene to rescue his father, but the accused-persons tried to assault him and PW 2, being scared, fled away. 17. The omissions, which we have pointed out above, are, undoubtedly, vital omissions and, in the absence of any explanation coming forth from the prosecution witnesses or any explanation discernible from the evidence on record, none of the three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 can be described as wholly reliable witness. Even if, therefore, the evidence of these three witnesses is not rejected outright as wholly unreliable, their evidence would fall, at best, in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and the witness of this category would require, before their evidence is relied upon, corroboration from independent evidence, direct or circumstantial. 18. Let us, now, turn to the medical evidence on record in order to determine if the evidence of the three alleged eye-witnesses can at all be- relied upon. 19. What is curious to note and cannot be ignored is that PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 are consistent, in their respective evidence, that Gauranga had been assaulted by, at least, three persons by means of lathis. 19. What is curious to note and cannot be ignored is that PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 are consistent, in their respective evidence, that Gauranga had been assaulted by, at least, three persons by means of lathis. If this description of the occurrence were true, there would have been multiple injuries on Gauranga's dead body; whereas the medical evidence on record, as already pointed out above, shows that there was only one penetrating wound on left lateral surface of the face just in front of the left ear and a lacerated injury on the scalp over the vault of the skull with fracture of the underlying bones. 20. Thus, the medical evidence wholly contradicts the description of the occurrence given by the persons, who claimed to be eye-witnesses. The evidence of the eyewitnesses, therefore, do not inspire confidence, particularly, when none of the alleged eye-witnesses claim that they raised any alarm to attract the attention of the neighbours, which is, in the absence of any explanation, either offered or discernable from the materials on record, make their evidence unsafe to place reliance upon. The quality of evidence given by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 are, therefore, not such, which can be confidently relied upon by ignoring the medical evidence on record. 21. Coupled with the above, on the basis of the evidence adduced by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5, while the learned Sessions Judge, as indicated above, acquitted the two of the accused, namely, Budhu Bhuyan and Gerela Bhuyan, the same evidence was made foundation for the convocation of the two accused-appellants. Why the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 were found to inspire confidence, as against the present two accused-appellants, has not been explained in the judgment and order under appeal. This apart, as already indicated above, the eye-witnesses' accounts of the occurrence, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not inspire confidence and cannot be treated as sufficiently safe to place reliance upon. 22. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order stand accordingly set aside. The two accused-appellants are held not guilty of the charge and acquitted of the same. 23. 22. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order stand accordingly set aside. The two accused-appellants are held not guilty of the charge and acquitted of the same. 23. Let the two accused-appellants be set at liberty, forthwith, unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. 24. Let the amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to this Court. Send back the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order. Appeal allowed.