JUDGMENT Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 19.07.2007, passed, in Sessions Case No. 213 of 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2, 000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The case of the prosecution, as emerged at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The accused, Bana Das, had inimical relation with Lakhan Das. On 18.08.2004, at about 5:00 pm, when Lakhan Das was returning home by bicycle, he happen to pass, in the process, by the side of the house of the accused, Bana Das, accused Bana Das caught hold of the handle of the bicycle and stabbed into the chest of Lakhan Das by khukri/dagger. The stabbing of Lakhan Das by the accused was seen by Narayan Kakati and others. On receiving the blow on his chest by the dagger, Lakhan cried out and, on hearing his cries, Jaganath Kakati came running out of his house and saw Lakhan Das being stabbed by Bana Das, by a dagger, on the road, and, on seeing them, Bana Das fled away. Jaganath Kakati helped Lakhan in coming to Jaganath's house and, on reaching the veranda of the house, Lakhan died. A written Ejahar was lodged, with regard to the occurrence, on 18.08.2004, i.e., on the day of the occurrence itself, at Behali Police Station. Based on this Ejahar and treating the same as First Information Report (in short 'FIR'), Behali P.S. Case No. 111/04, under Section 302 IPC, was registered, at 8:30 pm, against the accused, the distance between the said Police Station and the place of occurrence being about 15 km. 2. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the said dead body and same was subjected to post-mortem examination. The doctor opined that it was the penetrating wound, found on the lower part of the mid chest of Lakhan Das, which caused his death, because of the shock and hemorrhage, which resulted by the injuries so sustained. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused. 3. To the charge framed, at the trial, under Section 302 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused. 3. To the charge framed, at the trial, under Section 302 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. PC and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, his case being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. 6. We have heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned amicus curiae, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that PW 1, who is the informant of this case, and whose son-in-law was deceased Lakhan Das, has deposed that before the occurrence, which caused Lakhan Das' death, Lakhan Das was beaten by accused Bana Das, and though, a meeting was called, in this regard, in the village, the villagers did not respond and it was, thereafter, that one evening, Lakhan Das while coming from the house of Siranjit Bora, after attending to his work there, was injured by the accused by stabbing on his chest. 8. Before entering into the discussion of the question as to whether it was the accused-appellant, Bana Das, who had injured and killed Lakhan Das, what is relevant to note is that the defence has not disputed that accused Bana Das had assaulted Lakhan Das and that, in this regard, a meeting had been called in the village. Thus, the relationship between accused-appellant, Bana Das, on the one hand, and the deceased Lakhan Das and his family, on the other, was, admittedly, far from cordial; rather, they had inimical relationship. Such enmity functions as a double-edged weapon. While it may provide motive for causing Lakhan's death, it may provide a motive for falsely implicating the accused-appellant. 9. Bearing what has been indicated above in mind, we, first, turn to evidence of PW 2, who is son of PW 4. The evidence of PW 2 was recorded on 24.01.2006; whereas the occurrence had taken place on 18.08.2004. While it may provide motive for causing Lakhan's death, it may provide a motive for falsely implicating the accused-appellant. 9. Bearing what has been indicated above in mind, we, first, turn to evidence of PW 2, who is son of PW 4. The evidence of PW 2 was recorded on 24.01.2006; whereas the occurrence had taken place on 18.08.2004. This shows that PW 2 gave evidence, at the trial, after about 2 (two) years of the occurrence and, at the time, when he gave his evidence, he was aged about 16 (sixteen) years meaning thereby that at the time of the alleged occurrence, PW 2 was merely 14 (fourteen) years old. This is an aspect, which one has to keep in mind, while appreciating the evidence of PW 2, whose evidence is to the effect that accused Bana Das is their neighbour, on the day of the occurrence, at about 5:00 pm, he (PW 2) was in front of his house and his mother was with him and they were proceeding to fetch water. 10. Describing the occurrence, PW 2 has deposed that, on the day of the occurrence, in the evening, Lakhan Das was coming home, on his bicycle and, as he reached near the house of the accused, the accused stopped Lakhan Das by catching hold of the handle of Lakhan's bicycle and stabbed Lakhan Das, by a dagger, on his chest and fled away with the dagger. PW 2 has also deposed that he helped Lakhan Das come to their house along with his father (PW 4). Badal and Balika arrived their soon after the occurrence, though PW 2 has clarified, in his evidence, that he did not know as to whether Badal and Balika had or had not witnessed the occurrence. 11. PW 2 has further deposed that though Ext. 1 is the seizure list whereby the khukri was seized by the police from beneath the bed of the accused, the accused had actually used a dagger, which he (accused) carried away with him, while fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 12. 11. PW 2 has further deposed that though Ext. 1 is the seizure list whereby the khukri was seized by the police from beneath the bed of the accused, the accused had actually used a dagger, which he (accused) carried away with him, while fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 12. While cross-examining PW 2, the defence elicited that PW 2 had not stated, in his previous statement, made to the police, that his mother was not present at the time of the occurrence and that PW 2 had said that the weapon of offence was either dagger/khukri and that he had not stated, in his said previous statement, that he had, along with his father, helped Lakhan Das come to their house. 13. While considering the omissions, which have been so elicited by the defence by cross-examining PW 2, it needs to be noted, as pointed out above, that PW 2 was barely 14 (fourteen) years old at the time of the occurrence; and there is nothing in the evidence on record, nor was it elicited by the defence from the investigating officer (PW 10), when PW 10 was cross-examined by the defence, if PW 10 had asked PW 2 as to who else, if any, was present with him (PW 2) at the time, when he (PW 2) had witnessed the occurrence. In such circumstances, the omission to state before the police the fact, that his mother was with him at the time of the occurrence, can be attributed no importance at all. Similarly, though PW 2 did not state before the police that he along with his father (PW 4) had helped the deceased to come to their house and, then, the deceased died at their veranda, this omission, too, is a minor omission and is not of such vital importance that this omission shall be treated as a serious contradiction. 14. Above all, with regard to the weapon of offence, PW 2 has clarified that, in his opinion, a dagger or khukri is the same kind of weapon and, hence, he had stated, at some places, that the weapon was a khukri and, at some places, he had described the weapon to be a dagger. This assertion of PW 2 went unchallenged by the defence. This assertion of PW 2 went unchallenged by the defence. For a 14 (fourteen) years old child, otherwise also, it is reasonable to infer and describe a dagger as a khukri or a khukri as a dagger. It is equally important to note, in this regard, that in his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that though it was dark at the time of the occurrence, the darkness was still descending and it was not completely dark. Thus, the evening had not fully set and it was, therefore, not impossible to witness the occurrence of assault of the deceased at the hands on the accused-appellant. 15. Except the omissions, which we have pointed out above, nothing could be elicited by the defence from the cross-examination of PW 2 to show that his evidence is unbelievable or unsafe to place reliance upon. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2. Since we find the evidence of PW 2 to be natural, coherent and consistent and the omissions, pointed out hereinbefore, are insignificant, particularly, when the investigating officer had not asked him (PW 2) as to whether anyone else was present at the time, when the occurrence had taken place, we find the evidence of PW 2 wholly reliable. 16. Keeping in view the evidence of PW 2, when we come to the evidence of PW 4, father of PW 2, we notice that, according to his evidence, Lakhan Das was his son-in-law and, on the day of the occurrence, he was at home and, at the time, when the sun was yet to set, he heard the cry, "I am killed", and when he, along with his son, went running out of his house, he saw Bana Das stabbing Lakhan Das by a dagger and, then, running away from the place of occurrence and he (PW 4) along with his son, Narayan, took Lakhan Das to their house and, on reaching their house, Lakhan died. 17. From the evidence of PW 4, it appears that, according to him, he, his wife and his son were at home at the time, when the occurrence had taken place. PW 4 also stated before the police that Lakhan Das reached their veranda putting his hands on his chest and crying, "I am killed" and, then, he (PW 4) came out and when Lakhan was being given water to drink, he died. PW 4 also stated before the police that Lakhan Das reached their veranda putting his hands on his chest and crying, "I am killed" and, then, he (PW 4) came out and when Lakhan was being given water to drink, he died. PW 4 has further asserted that he had heard the cry of Lakhan and, when he went out, he saw Bana Das stabbing Lakhan. 18. The investigating officer has confirmed that PW 4 had not stated before him that when he (PW 4) came out from his house, he saw the accused. 19. In view of the fact that before the police, PW 4 had stated that on hearing the cry of Lakhan when he came out, he saw Lakhan in injured condition. The evidence, given by PW 4, that he had witnessed the occurrence of stabbing of Lakhan by the accused-appellant, cannot be safely believed in or relied upon. While, therefore, we do not place any reliance on the evidence of PW 4, we make it clear that the fact that we find the evidence of PW 4 unsafe to place reliance upon, it cannot be taken to have shaken the credibility of the evidence of PW 2, whose evidence has, otherwise, remained unshaken and whose evidence did not show that his father (PW 4) had witnessed the occurrence or was present on the road at the time, when Lakhan was stabbed as claimed by PW 2. PW 2 has merely stated in his evidence that he along with his father had helped Lakhan reach their house. 20. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW 2, PW 1, who is the informant of the case, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, in the evening, when Lakhan was coming from the house of Siranjit Bora after work, Bana Das inflicted injury on the person of Lakhan by dagger and, then, Bana Das ran away and Lakhan died in front of the house of Bana Das. PW 1 has also deposed that Lakhan was on a bicycle at that time. PW 1 has claimed that the stabbing of Lakhan was seen by her husband (PW 4) and one Balika Das. 21. PW 1 has also deposed that Lakhan was on a bicycle at that time. PW 1 has claimed that the stabbing of Lakhan was seen by her husband (PW 4) and one Balika Das. 21. In the absence of any assertion, on the part of PW 1, that she has witnessed the accused-appellant stabbing Lakhan, her evidence is not of much use and even her evidence does not dilute or adversely affect the credibility of the evidence of PW 2, whose evidence, we find, for the reasons already assigned, wholly reliable. 22. So far as PW 3 (Balika Das) is concerned, her evidence is that Bana Das is a neighbour and when she was lighting chaki (earthen lamp), she heard someone crying on the road by saying "I am killed", and when she came out, she saw Lakhan lying in front of the house of Jaganath (PW 4) and, at that time, she could see Jaganath and Lakhan, Lakhan bleeding from his chest. PW 3 has deposed that she had not gone to the injured Lakhan; she has deposed, in her cross-examination by the defence, that she had not seen PW 1 and her son (PW 2) with Lakhan, but saw Jaganath only with Lakhan. 23. Considering the fact that PW 3 has claimed to have not witnessed as to who had injured Lakhan, her evidence is not of at much help to the prosecution. Though PW 3 has deposed that she had not seen PW 1 and PW 4 with Lakhan, the fact remains, for the reasons that we have already assigned, we find the evidence of PW 2 as completely reliable, particularly, when we have noticed that the defence had not even suggested to PW 2 that he had not witnessed the accused-appellant stabbing Lakhan, though, their suggestion was that Lakhan was stabbed elsewhere and, it was because of animosity that they had filed this case. The possibility of Lakhan having been stabbed somewhere other than the place, which had been described by PW 2, can be safely ruled out inasmuch as even the evidence of PW 3 shows that the place of occurrence was the road, which passes from in front of the house of the accused-appellant. 24. The possibility of Lakhan having been stabbed somewhere other than the place, which had been described by PW 2, can be safely ruled out inasmuch as even the evidence of PW 3 shows that the place of occurrence was the road, which passes from in front of the house of the accused-appellant. 24. As far as Badal Das (PW 6) is concerned, his evidence is to the effect that on hearing commotion at the house of PW 4, he entered into the house and saw Lakhan lying with bleeding from his chest and PW 4 was trying to stop the bleeding from the chest of the deceased with a piece of cloth and, on making enquiry, PW 4 told him that the accused Bana Das had caused the injury. Considering the fact that PW 4 has not made any statement to the effect that he had told PW 6, upon PW 6 making enquiry, that it was the accused, who had caused death of Lakhan, the evidence given by PW 6 as to what he had been reported by PW 4 is nothing, but hearsay and we keep the evidence, so given by PW 6, excluded from the purview of our consideration. 25. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the evidence of PW 2 stands unimpeached from his cross-examination and his evidence clearly proves that it was the accused-appellant, who had stabbed Lakhan by either a khukri or a dagger on the latter's chest and Lakhan died almost instantly. 26. That Lakhan had died, because of penetrating wound, which could have been caused by a dagger or a khukri, is wholly supported by the medical evidence on record inasmuch the doctor (PW 7), who had, admittedly, conducted the post-mortem examination on 19.08.2004, found, according to his evidence, as follows: External Appearance: Average built male person whose Rigor Mortis present, eyes closed, mouth half opened. At the time of examination it was found that the deceased was wearing and old white sporting shirt and a green coloured half pant. There was blood stain on the shirt. One penetrating injury over the lower part of the mid chest. Penetrating injury through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, sternum and left costal cartilage, pleurae pericardium and right ventricle of the heard. The wound margin was clear cut and regular and oblique in direction. Cranium and spinal canal: All organs are found healthy. There was blood stain on the shirt. One penetrating injury over the lower part of the mid chest. Penetrating injury through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, sternum and left costal cartilage, pleurae pericardium and right ventricle of the heard. The wound margin was clear cut and regular and oblique in direction. Cranium and spinal canal: All organs are found healthy. Thorax: Penetrating injury as described. Pleurae containing full of blood. Both lungs collapsed. Pericardium contains blood. Penetrating wound found over the right ventricle of heard. The heard chambers were empty. Abdomen: Abdominal organs are found healthy. 27. The doctor (PW 7) has opined that the penetrating wound, found over the lower part of the mid chest of Lakhan, was ante-mortem in nature, the injury having been caused by a sharp-pointed object and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injury sustained. 28. Though the learned amicus curiae has submitted that there are contradiction between statements, contained in the FIR, and the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, the fact remains that the informant (PW 1) is illiterate and she has not been cross-examined by the defence on the contents of the FIR, which she had lodged. If the defence intended to contradict the informant, her attention ought to have been drawn to such contradictions, which, according to the defence, the FIR reflected. 29. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are of the considered view that the finding of guilt, arrived by the learned trial Court, as against the accused-appellant, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. 30. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 31. Let the amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, by the Registry for his valuable assistance rendered to the Court. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed