JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 18.08.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2005, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: The accused, Jiten Lohar, used to work as a ploughman of Binandi Boro (P.W. 1). As the ploughman of Binandi Boro, accused Jiten Lohar used to stay, along with his mother, Sukumuni Lohar, in a house, adjacent to the house of his employer, but within the compound of his employer. On 27.03.2005, Binandi Boro heard the sound of a quarrel between the accused and his mother and he (Binandi Boro) accordingly informed, over telephone, the police, at Namrup Police Station. In the meanwhile, the accused was seen dragging his mother, Sukumoni, outside his dwelling room with an axe in his hand and also assaulting his mother with the axe and, then, he threw away the axe and entered into his dwelling house, leaving his mother injured at the courtyard of his employer, Binodi Boro. Acting upon the telephone call, so received, police came to the place of occurrence and found Sukumoni Lohar lying dead in the said courtyard. Police held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext. 2). The accused also showed the axe, lying under the said shed, and the police seized the said axe by seizure list (Ext. 3). A First Information Report was, then, formally lodged with the police by Binandi Boro. Based on the said FIR, Namrup Police Station Case No. 24 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the present accused-appellant. During investigation, Sukumoni's dead body was subjected to post mortem examination and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused-appellant. 2. At the trial, a charge was framed under Section 302 IPC, To the charge so framed against him, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. 2. At the trial, a charge was framed under Section 302 IPC, To the charge so framed against him, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, his case being that of denial except that the axe, in question, had been seized at his instance. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 4. 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. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Considering the fact that the principal argument of the learned Amicus Curiae is that the ocular evidence on record is inconsistent and irreconcilable with the medical evidence on record, let us consider, first, the medical evidence on record. It may be noted, in this regard, that P.W. 7 (doctor), who is incorrectly described by the learned trial Court as P.W. 6, had, admittedly, conducted post mortem examination on Sukumoni's dead body on 28.03.2005. The doctor's findings, as the evidence on record discloses, read as under: Injuries: 1. An abrasion 4 x 2 cm in size on right forehead. 2. An abrasion 7 x 2 cm on back of the right chest. 3. One stab wound 3 x 1 cm in size on back of the right abdomen and abdominal cavity deep. 4. One stab wound 3 x 1 cm in size on abdominal cavity deep on right lateral side of the abdomen. 5. One stab wound measuring 3 x 1 cm on right abdominal wall into cavity deep. 6. One contusion measuring 14 x 11 cm on right chest wall. Cranium and spinal canal Scalp contused on occipital and both side of parietal and frontal area. Others were healthy. In thorax, walls and ribs were as described. Right ribs fractured from 2nd to 6th. Left ribs-healthy. In abdomen, liver punctured, peritoneum cavity contained one liter of blood. Others were healthy. 7. Cranium and spinal canal Scalp contused on occipital and both side of parietal and frontal area. Others were healthy. In thorax, walls and ribs were as described. Right ribs fractured from 2nd to 6th. Left ribs-healthy. In abdomen, liver punctured, peritoneum cavity contained one liter of blood. Others were healthy. 7. The doctor (P.W. 7) opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and while abrasion and contusion were caused by blunt force impact, stab wounds were caused by pointed weapon, which were homicidal in nature, Ext. 4 being the post mortem report. 8. A very cautious and microscopic scrutiny of the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 7) shows that on the said dead body, two abrasions were found, one on the right forehead and the other on the back of the right chest. The doctor (P.W. 7) also found as many as three stab wounds, one of these wounds being on the back of the right abdomen, wound being abdominal cavity deep and, out of the remaining two stab wounds, one stab wound was on the right lateral side of the abdomen, which was abdominal cavity deep and one stab wound on right abdominal wall, which too was cavity deep. 9. What is, now, of great significance to note is that the doctor (P.W. 7) found one contusion measuring 14 x 11 cm on the right chest with 2nd to 6th of the right ribs having sustained fracture. 10. In the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 7), the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the said deceased, the injuries being ante mortem in nature. The doctor has clarified, as already indicated above, that while the; abrasion and contusion were caused by blunt force impact, the stab wounds were caused by pointed weapon, these wounds being the homicidal in nature. The findings of the doctor and/or his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and the nature of the weapon, which could have caused this said injuries, were not disputed at the trial. 11. Bearing in mind the unchallenged medical evidence on record, when we turn to the evidence of the informant (P.W. 1), we notice that according to his evidence, the accused was his ploughman and adjacent to his house, the accused used to live with his mother in a house. 11. Bearing in mind the unchallenged medical evidence on record, when we turn to the evidence of the informant (P.W. 1), we notice that according to his evidence, the accused was his ploughman and adjacent to his house, the accused used to live with his mother in a house. 12. As regards the occurrence, P.W. 1 has deposed that on 27.03.2005, at about 10.00 pm, when he (P.W. 1) was present at his home, the accused hacked his mother to death by giving a blow by means of an axe and he (P.W. 1), immediately, informed the police over phone, police came, held inquest over the dead body of Sukumoni and that the police also seized the axe by a seizure list, which is Ext. 3. 13. P.W. 1 has asserted that he had himself seen the accused causing his mother's death by assaulting her with an axe. Though P.W. 1 was cross-examined by the defence, the fact remains that except offering some suggestions to him, such as, the suggestion that he (P.W. 1) had not seen the occurrence, the defence could elicit nothing to show that what P.W. 1 had deposed was untrue or false and as far as the suggestion were concerned, the same were denied by P.W. 1. The suggestion of the defence, therefore, remained as mere suggestion. 14. Close on the heels of the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, son of the informant, has deposed that on 27.03.2005, at about 10.00 pm, he heard hue and cry raised from the room, where the accused used to live, and when he (P.W. 2) went out of his house, he saw the accused dragging out his mother from inside his dwelling house after having assaulted his mother by means of axe and that his father (P.W. 1), having heard hullah, informed the police and the police accordingly came and seized, by seizure list (Ext. 3), the said axe. 15. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has clarified that his house has electricity connection and it was in the electrical light that he had seen the occurrence himself. Except denying that accused had been falsely implicated, there was no cross-examination of P.W. 2. 3), the said axe. 15. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has clarified that his house has electricity connection and it was in the electrical light that he had seen the occurrence himself. Except denying that accused had been falsely implicated, there was no cross-examination of P.W. 2. This apart, there is nothing elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 2 nor is it discernible from the evidence on record that P.W. 2 and/or his family had any animosity with the accused; hence, the question of falsely implicating the accused does not arise. This apart, there is no reason for us to hold that the evidence of P.W. 2 is unsafe to believe in or rely upon. 16. So far as P.W. 3 (daughter of the informant) is concerned, she has deposed that on 27.03.2005, at night, the accused had killed his mother by hacking her by an axe and, attracted by the hue and cry raised, she and other inmates of their house went out of the house and found as to what the accused had done. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that later on, police came and seized, vide seizure list (Ext. 3), the said axe. Even while cross-examining P.W. 3, the defence elicited nothing from her to show that what she had deposed was not true and/or that her evidence was unbelievable or unreliable. 17. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 4, a niece of P.W. 1, we find that P.W. 4 has deposed that the accused used to live in a house, adjacent to their house, and, on the night of the occurrence, on hearing hue and cry, she went out and saw the accused dragging out his mother after having cut his mother and at that time, the accused was holding an axe, Ext. ka being the said axe. 18. In her cross-examination, P.W. 4, her clarified that at the house of the accused, none used to live except the accused and his mother. 19. As far as P.W. 5 is concerned, she lives in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and she has deposed that she (P.W. 5), on hearing hue and cry raised, went out and saw that the accused, having cut his mother by axe, was dragging his mother out to the courtyard by holding the axe in his hand and, shortly thereafter, police arrived there. 20. 20. As usual, there was no effective cross-examination of P.W. 5 by the defence except offering to her a suggestion that she had given evidence as was tutored, this suggestion having been denied by P.W. 7, remained as a mere suggestion. 21. As far as P.W. 6 is concerned, his evidence is that on hearing hue and cry, he also went out and found the dead body of Sukumoni Lohar (i.e., the mother of the accused), lying at the courtyard and, in the meanwhile, police arrived and prepared an inquest report, which is Ext. 2. Even the evidence of P.W. 6 could not be shaken by the defence inasmuch as there was no cross-examination except offering some suggestions, which this witness (P.W. 6) denied. 22. We, now, turn to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 7). According to his evidence, on 27.03.2005, when he was at Namrup Police Station, P.W. 1 had informed, over phone, at 10.20 pm, that his ploughman, Jiten Lohar, had been assaulting his mother, whereupon the Officer-in-Charge made a General Diary Entry, dated 27.03.2005 and, acting on the instructions of the said Officer-in-Charge, he (P.W. 8) came to the place of occurrence and found Sukumoni's dead body lying at the courtyard, whereupon he held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report. It is in the evidence of P.W. 8 that he recorded the statement of the accused and the accused showed the axe, which was lying under the shed of the house, and he (P.W. 8) seized the same and arrested the accused, Ext. 7 being the statement of the accused and Ext. 7(1) read, "the axe by which I had killed my mother that axe was left by me near my house and now, I would be able to show the axe". 23. From a combined reading of the evidence of the informant, his son, daughter and also his niece, and his neighbors, what becomes clear is that they had seen the accused-appellant dragging his mother after he had, according to these witnesses, already assaulted his mother by means of axe. As far as P.W. 1 is concerned, he (P.W. 1) claims to have seen the accused even giving blow on his mother by means of axe. 24. As far as P.W. 1 is concerned, he (P.W. 1) claims to have seen the accused even giving blow on his mother by means of axe. 24. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that all the witnesses, apart from P.W. 1, have claimed that they had seen the accused dragging the body after having hacked his mother by means of axe. What is necessary, therefore, to note is that these witnesses had not really seen as to how Sukumoni had been injured inside the room, where she used to live with the accused-appellant. The circumstances, however, clearly show that when Sukumoni was being dragged by the accused-appellant, she had already suffered injuries and these injuries might not have been caused by axe, because no one has seen as to how these injuries had already been caused. 25. In fact, the medical evidence on record, as reflected from the evidence of P.W. 7 (which has been wrongly written as P.W. 6), indicates, as already observed above, that there were three stab wounds on the abdominal area of the said deceased. These stab wounds could not have been caused, as rightly opined by the doctor (P.W. 7), by means of axe and could have been caused by pointed weapon. Since it was the accused-appellant, who is proved to have been seen dragging his mother, in injured condition, from inside the room, wherein he used to live with his mother, there can be no escape from the conclusion and we too hold that the said stab wounds were caused by none other than the accused-appellant. The two abrasions, which have been mentioned by the doctor (P.W. 7), one on the right forehead and the other on the right back chest, can be reasonably held to have been caused as a result of being dragged by the accused-appellant. 26. Coupled with the above, the assertion of P.W. 1 that he had witnessed the accused giving blow on his mother by axe is also supported by the medical evidence on record inasmuch as one contusion, measuring 14 x 11 cm, was found on the right chest wall and Sukumoni's 2nd to 6th ribs stood fractured. The injuries, so sustained, could have been clearly caused by means of axe. 27. The injuries, so sustained, could have been clearly caused by means of axe. 27. The evidence of P.W. 1 cannot, therefore, be said to be contrary to the medical evidence on record and as far as the other eye witness are concerned, they had not seen the actual assault and their descriptions of the occurrence show that they had seen the accused dragging his mother from inside the said room, when she already stood injured. Because of the fact that the accused-appellant was holding an axe in his hand, these witnesses appear to have presumed that all the injuries, Sukumoni had been caused by axe; whereas the injuries, as the medical, evidence on record discloses, were caused, inside the room, by means of some pointed weapon. Though no pointed weapon has been seized in the present case, this fact alone cannot make the Court discard the overwhelming evidence on record that it was the accused-appellant, who used to live with his mother, hue and cry were heard being raised from the room, where the accused-appellant used to live with his mother, and thereafter, the accused was seen dragging his mother, in injured condition out of the room, by holding an axe in his hand and, having taken out his mother in injured condition, he gave a blow by axe on his mother, he left her in the courtyard, threw the axe and went back to the room and, on their arrival, police apprehended the accused inside the said room and seized the axe, in question, on being shown by the accused. 28. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, one has no option, but to concluded, and we do conclude, that the accused-appellant was the one, who had caused the injuries on the person of his mother and killed her. The weapons, which the accused used, and the vital parts of the body on which the injuries were caused are clearly indicative of the fact that the accused intended to cause his mother's death and he, indeed, succeeded. 29. The findings of guilt, which the learned trial Court has reached against the accused-appellant, does not, therefore, in our considered view, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. The accused-appellant has been rightly held guilty of the offence of murder. 29. The findings of guilt, which the learned trial Court has reached against the accused-appellant, does not, therefore, in our considered view, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. The accused-appellant has been rightly held guilty of the offence of murder. The conviction of the accused-appellant, under Section 302 IPC and the consequential sentence, which has been passed, in this regard, do not, therefore, call for any interference. 30. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 31. Let the Amicus Curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for her valuable assistance rendered to this Court. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed