JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 5.4.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for live and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default suffer imprisonment for another period of one year for his conviction under section 302 IPC. We have heard Ms. S.D. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 28.3.2004, at about 6 P.M., Shri Deb Rajkhowa (hereinafter called the appellant), being armed with a dao entered the premises of Shri Bhadreswar Keot (informant) and killed his son namely Shri Tilok Keot (hereinafter called the deceased) by inflicting dao blows on his neck. The occurrence was witnessed by Smt. Gayatri Keot (P.W. 1) and Smt. Anjana Saikia (P.W. 6). Hearing alarm raised by the said witness, the informant (P.W. 8), who got ready to enter his prayer house (Nam Ghar) saw the appellant being chased by P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. The said informant found the deceased lying in injured condition. The incriminating weapon (dao) i.e. material Exhibit No. 1, which was left by the appellant in the place of occurrence, was seized by the Police. P.W. 8, as informant lodged an FIR, (Exhibit 4) with the Police. On receipt of the said FIR Police registered a case and launched investigation into the matter. 3. During investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Exhibit 3) in respect of the dead body of the deceased, seized the incriminating weapon from the place of occurrence vide Exhibit 2, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination and examined the witnesses. The appellant surrendered before the Police on 29/3/2004 and accordingly, he was arrested and taken into custody. At the close of investigation, Police submitted charge sheet for the offence under section 302 IPC against the appellant. 4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 5. At the close of investigation, Police submitted charge sheet for the offence under section 302 IPC against the appellant. 4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 5. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as nine witnesses including the Medical Officer (P.W. 2), who performed the post mortem examination and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, levelled against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 6. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. 7. Ms. S.D. Baruah., learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that, except the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, there is no incriminating evidence against the appellant and that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting the appellant, on the basis of the evidence rendered by the said witness, inasmuch as, P.W. 1 was the close relative of the deceased. It has also been submitted, by the learned Amicus Curiae, that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the said witness as well as the evidence of the informant (P.W. 8) and as such their evidence, without sufficient corroboration, cannot be believed. 8. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to the evidence, on record more particularly the evidence of the eyewitness i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, has submitted that both the said witnesses were natural witnesses and that the occurrence took in their presence. Therefore, it is submitted that, though P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 were close relatives of the deceased, the said relationship, in the absence of any material contradiction, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. It is also submitted that the circumstantial evidence, that the dead body of the deceased, sustaining a cut blow on his neck, was found lying in the place of occurrence, that the incriminating dao was found near the place of occurrence, that the appellant, after the occurrence i.e. on the next date, surrendered before the Police stood corroborated by the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses more particularly P.W. 1 P.W. 6 and P.W. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the minor discrepancies and omissions, found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, cannot be sufficient ground to disbelieve their evidence, on material point. In view of the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed no error, requiring interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is no dispute that the deceased, who was the son of P.W. 8 and brother-in-law of P.W. 1, died due to the cut injury, sustained by him on his neck. P.W. 1, i.e. the informant lodged the FIR with the Police on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 28/ 3/2004 informing that his son was killed by the appellant, in his premises. The occurrence took place at about six P.M. on 28/3/2004. The Investigating Officer, deposing as P.W. 9, stated that he received the FIR on 28/3/2004 in the Police Station and accordingly visited the place of occurrence. According to the Investigating Officer, he found the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem examination, after preparing the inquest report. The inquest report (Exhibit 3) reveals that the dead body of the deceased was found in the premises of the informant, on the night of the occurrence. During the inquest, the Investigating Officer found a cut injury (2"x 11/2") on the left side of the neck of the deceased. The said inquest report does not reveal presence of any other injury. The Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy on the next date i.e. 29.3.2004 found the following injury:- 1. A sharp cut injury was found on the lower part of the left side of the neck. Size 5 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm. Bleeding was present underlying muscles, blood vessels and the cervical vertebrae (7 & 8) were found cut. The Medical Officer has observed that no other external injury was found except that neck was in deformed condition. The Medical Officer opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock, resulting from the injury sustained by the deceased. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Exhibit 1 and his signature thereon as Exhibit 1(1). The Medical Officer opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock, resulting from the injury sustained by the deceased. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Exhibit 1 and his signature thereon as Exhibit 1(1). The defence declined to cross-examine the Medical Officer. Therefore, the evidence given by the Medical Officer remained undemolished. 10. Carefully reading the said medical evidence and the inquest report i.e. Exhibit 3, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the single cut injury sustained by him, on his neck, on the previous evening. The prosecution version is that the appellant had caused the said injuries. 11. Smt. Gayatri Keot, sister-in-law of the deceased, deposing as P.W. 1, stated that, while she was preparing for evening prayer, she saw the appellant coming to their residence with a long and curved dao in his hand and thereafter inflicting blows on the deceased, who was sitting in the court yard. According to this witness, though she tried to resist the appellant, she failed, as a result of which the deceased breathed his last on the spot. She clearly stated that the deceased sustained the injury on his neck. She also stated that the deceased fled the place, leaving the weapon therein, Supporting the evidence of P.W. 9, this witness stated that the said weapon i.e. the dao, Material Exhibit 1 was seized by the Police. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. In her cross-examination, she, supporting the evidence of her father-in-law i.e. P.W. 8 (informant), stated that at the time of occurrence, her said father-in-law was praying in their prayer house (Naam Ghar) and that she and her mother-in-law i.e. Premeswari were inside their house. According to this witness, she could clearly see the appellant assaulting the deceased with a dao. She also stated that, hearing the alarm raised by her, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, father-in-law also arrived in the place of occurrence. From her evidence, it is found that the appellant was a front door neighbour of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that the Material Exhibit No. 1, was their dao and that the appellant did not visit their house on the date of occurrence. She also denied the suggestion, put to her by the defence that she falsely implicated the appellant. She denied the suggestion that the Material Exhibit No. 1, was their dao and that the appellant did not visit their house on the date of occurrence. She also denied the suggestion, put to her by the defence that she falsely implicated the appellant. She further denied the suggestion that she did not specifically mention, before the Investigating Officer, that on the date of occurrence, the deceased, after his return from the house of his father-in-law, was taking rest in the courtyard of their residence. Though the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W. 9, the defence failed to prove any material omission or contradiction on the part of P.W. 1. Therefore, her evidence, that she had seen the appellant, assaulting the deceased and the appellant fled the place of occurrence, throwing the incriminating dao therein, remained undemolished. Her evidence that the appellant had given a blow on the neck of the deceased stood corroborated by the medical evidence, given by P.W. 2 and the inquest report (Exhibit 3). That apart, her evidence that the appellant had left the incriminating dao (Exhibit 1) in the place of occurrence and that the same was seized by the Police therefrom also remained unchallenged. Her said evidence regarding seizure of the dao from the place of occurrence also remained unchallenged. Her evidence regarding seizure of the dao, from the place of occurrence, has been corroborated by P.W. 9 i.e. the Investigating Officer. Therefore, we find sufficient corroboration and force in the evidence of P.W. 1 to believe that the appellant had given the fatal blow on the deceased. As the occurrence took place in the premises of P.W. 1's house at about 6 P.M., considering the facts and circumstances of this case, she is found to be the most natural witness. No suggestion has been put to her, indicating that she had any interest or grudge against the appellant. Therefore, we find no reason to believe that she had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant, leaving the guilty person. Therefore, her close relationship with the deceased cannot be the reason to reject her forceful evidence. 12. Smt. Anjana Saikia (P.W. 6), who was a neighbour of the deceased, claimed that she had seen the appellant inflicting dao blows on the deceased in the court yard of the latter. She has also exhibited the dao (machete) as material Exhibit No. 1. 12. Smt. Anjana Saikia (P.W. 6), who was a neighbour of the deceased, claimed that she had seen the appellant inflicting dao blows on the deceased in the court yard of the latter. She has also exhibited the dao (machete) as material Exhibit No. 1. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that hearing the alarm, her husband (P W4) also rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased lying with bleeding injury. She denied the suggestion that she did not see the occurrence herself and that she had falsely deposed. Though this witness was duly cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction could be elicited to disbelieve her evidence. Therefore, her evidence that she had seen the appellant, assaulting the deceased with a dao, remained undemolished. Her further evidence that Police had seized the material Exhibit No. 1 from the place of occurrence also remained unchallenged. 13. Carefully scrutinising the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, it is found that both of them are eyewitness to the occurrence and they saw the appellant inflicting blow. We find sufficient corroboration in their evidence regarding the assault made by the appellant. 14. Shri Badreswar Keot father of the deceased, who lodged the FIR, was also present in his house, at the time of occurrence. Of course, he did not see the appellant inflicting the blows. According to this witness, prior to the incident, he saw the appellant abusing someone. He further stated that subsequently hearing alarm raised by somebody, he had gone out from his prayer home and found his daughter-in-law i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 (who was a neighbour) chasing the appellant. According to this witness, he found the deceased lying in injured condition near his cowshed. He has exhibited the FIR, lodged by him, as Exhibit 4. He also stated that the incriminating dao, which was found in the place of occurrence, was handed over by his daughter-in-law to Police. He has exhibited the said dao as material exhibit No. 1. This witness further stated that earlier, about 15 days ago, allegation was brought against the wife of the appellant that she had stolen an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the house of the informant and that due to such allegation and out of grudge, the appellant had killed the son of the informant. This witness further stated that earlier, about 15 days ago, allegation was brought against the wife of the appellant that she had stolen an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the house of the informant and that due to such allegation and out of grudge, the appellant had killed the son of the informant. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that he did not see the incident herself. As revealed by this witness, he found the deceased lying near the cowshed, in injured condition and the incriminating dao in the place of occurrence. This witness, in his cross-examination, clearly admitted that similar type of dao would be available in many houses of the village and that he had also possessed a similar type of dao. Sri Dhaniram Saikia (P.W. 4) i.e. the husband of P.W. 6 and Shri Nipon Saikia (P W5), who were the neighbours of both the parties, stated that they had rushed to the courtyard of the deceased and found him lying in injured condition. They clearly stated that, immediately after their arrival in the place of occurrence, the deceased breathed his last. Sri Nipon Saikia (P.W. 5), supporting the evidence of P.W. 6, stated that P.W. 6 had told him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. Both P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 did not see the occurrence themselves. They appeared in the place of occurrence after the incident and found the deceased in the injured condition. Their evidence supports the prosecution version that the deceased on the fateful evening sustained fatal injury. 15. Sri Riku Keot (P.W. 7), who was a witness to the inquest report, prepared by the Police, did not see the occurrence himself. Though the Investigating Officer failed to gist the seized dao chemically examined to ascertain the existence of human blood on the same, the unimpeachable evidence given by the eye witness i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the appellant had caused the fatal injury. 16. As discussed above, there is nothing, on record, to hold that the said prosecution witnesses, more particularly P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, had any grudge or enmity to falsely implicate the appellant leaving the actual culprit. 16. As discussed above, there is nothing, on record, to hold that the said prosecution witnesses, more particularly P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, had any grudge or enmity to falsely implicate the appellant leaving the actual culprit. The undemolished evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, has been corroborated by the circumstantial evidence that the deceased was found lying in injured condition; that he sustained a cut blow on the neck, that a dao was seized from the place of occurrence. The P.W. i.e. the father of the deceased that Immediately after the occurrence, he found the P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 chasing the appellant from the place of occurrence. Both P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 claimed to have seen the occurrence. The said circumstantial evidence, coupled with the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 conclusively lead to the findings that none, other than the appellant, had caused the said injury. Therefore, we have: no hesitation in holding that the prosecution could successfully prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had inflicted the fatal blow, resulting in death of the deceased. The facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased, on vital part i.e. neck and the type of the weapon used, clearly indicate that the blow was given with an intention to cause the death of the deceased i.e. murder. The act done by the appellant does not fall under any of the exceptions provided by Section 300 IPC. Therefore, we find no difficulty in holding that the appellant had inflicted the fatal blow with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC. We find no merit in this appeal requiring interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentences are upheld and affirmed. Before we part with this judgment, we appreciate the assistance, rendered by Ms. S.D. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae. We order that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as her remuneration. Return the LCR. Appeal dismissed