JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the judgment and order, dated. 16-03-2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2005, the accused-appellant stands convicted, under Section 302, IPC, and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The accused, Ratenswar Roy, is the brother of deceased Dhaneswar Roy and they used to live separately at the same place. On 08-08-2004, at about 10 p.m. when Dhaneswar Roy (since deceased) was sleeping after having his meals and his wife (PW 1) was present at home, she heard the accused calling his elder brother, Dhaneswar Roy, "dada ahaa" (i.e., brother come) and, then, her husband, Dhaneswar, went away with the accused. Though PW 1 did not see her husband being assaulted, she saw him lying injured at her doorstep and when her husband was being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. On the very night of the occurrence, on hearing PW 1 weeping in her house, PW 2 went to the house of the deceased and he saw the deceased lying injured smeared with blood and the accused present, inside the compound of the deceased, holding a dao in his hand. On the following day, Homeswar, father of the accused, lodged a written ejahar alleging to the effect, inter alia, that his son, accused, Ratneswar Roy, hacked Dhaneswar to death by dao, on 08-08-2004, at 10 p.m. Based on the said ejahar and treating the same as First Information Report, a case was registered, against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, IPC. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, inquest was held over the said dead body, inquest report was prepared and the dead body was put through post mortem examination. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302, IPC. 2. To the charge, framed against him, at the trial, under Section 302, IPC the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302, IPC. 2. To the charge, framed against him, at the trial, under Section 302, IPC the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses. On closing of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused-appellant denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been' committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 4. Having, however, reached the finding that the accused-appellant was guilty of the offence 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 Mr. R Islam, learned amicus curiae, and Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted, at the very outset, that no one had been examined, in the present case, as an eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution, therefore, rested and continues to rest on the circumstantial evidence. 7. While considering the merit of the present appeal, we may point out that according to the doctor (PW 4), who had, admittedly, performed, on 09-08-2004, post mortem examination on Dhaneswar's dead body, he found as follows: A non-emaciated not decomposed pale male dead body with average built. Rigor mortis present in all four limbs. There is discharge of faecal matter from the anus. Injury: 1. Cut injury in the chart 1" x½" x ½". 2. Cut injury in the right cheek)" 1 x ½" X½". 3. Cut injury in the left cheek)" 1 x½" x½". 4. Cut injury in the left pina 1" x½" X½". 5. Cut injury in the left upper chest 2" 1"X½". 6. Cut injury in the left thigh 3" x 2" x1". 7. Fracture femur left side. 8. Cut injury in the left palm 2" x1" x1". Cranium and spinal canal: Pale Thorax-Plurae pale. Both lungs pale, heart empty. Pericardium pale. Abdomen: Stomach pale contains food materials. Small intestine: Pale contains partially digested food. Large intestine-Pale contains gas and focal matters. 6. Cut injury in the left thigh 3" x 2" x1". 7. Fracture femur left side. 8. Cut injury in the left palm 2" x1" x1". Cranium and spinal canal: Pale Thorax-Plurae pale. Both lungs pale, heart empty. Pericardium pale. Abdomen: Stomach pale contains food materials. Small intestine: Pale contains partially digested food. Large intestine-Pale contains gas and focal matters. Liver apleenand kidney-All are pale. More detailed description of the injury: The injuries described are antipostem in nature as the margin of the wounds are averted and there is adherent blood clot to the margins of the wounds. 8. The doctor (PW 4) has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased, Ext. 4 being the post mortem report. 9. What is, now, worth noticing is that the defence declined to cross-examine PW 4. This apart, we do not find anything inherently improbable or incorrect in the findings of the doctor (PW 4) and/or his opinion as regards the cause of death of the said deceased. We see, therefore, no reason to discard the evidence of PW 4 and his evidence clearly establishes the fact that there were several cut injuries found on the dead body of Dhaneswar as have been described by PW 4 and injury included fracture on the left femur, the injuries being ante mortem in nature. 10. The injuries, which have been found on the said dead body, clearly indicate that such injuries can be caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as, dao and the fracture on the left femur can be caused it the blow is given by the blunt edge of the dao. 11. Bearing in mind, therefore, the medical evidence on record as discussed above, we come to the evidence of PW 1, who is the widow of the deceased. Her evidence is that Dhaneswar was her husband and the accused, being younger brother of her husband, lived separately at the same place. 12. As regards the occurrence, PW 1 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 10 p.m., when her husband, having had his meals, was sleeping, the accused come and called him away by saying "Dada ahaa" (elder brother come). 12. As regards the occurrence, PW 1 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 10 p.m., when her husband, having had his meals, was sleeping, the accused come and called him away by saying "Dada ahaa" (elder brother come). While admitting that she had not seen the occurrence, she (PW 4) has claimed that she found her husband lying injured on their doorstep, the injuries having been sustained by him on his neck, hands and different parts of this body and when her husband was being taken to the hospital, he breathed his last. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that on the following day, police arrived and took away the accused. 13. In her cross-examination, PW 1 has denied the defence suggestion that the accused did not call away her husband. Except putting to PW 1 a suggestion to the effect that Dhaneswar had not been called away by the accused, the defence did not really cross-examine PW 1 to show that her evidence, that the accused had called away her husband, was untrue or false. The evidence, therefore, given by PW 1 that the accused had called away her husband and her husband was found lying injured on the doorstep of their house, as described hereinbefore, remained unshaken and we see no reason to disbelieve her evidence, particularly, when neither any animosity was alleged to have been existing between the family of PW 1 and the accused nor was there any evidence discernable, in this regard, from the evidence on record. 14. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, at about 11 p.m., when he was at home, he heard someone weeping at the house of the deceased, whereupon he went to the house of the deceased and, on reaching there, he found that Dhaneswar was lying smeared with blood and the accused was present there with a dao in his hand, but as the accused was in a different mood, he (PW 2) did not approach him. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that later on, Dhaneswar died. 15. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that on reaching the house of Dhaneswar, he saw the accused within the compound of the house of the deceased. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that later on, Dhaneswar died. 15. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has clarified that on reaching the house of Dhaneswar, he saw the accused within the compound of the house of the deceased. The evidence, so given by PW 2, remained wholly unchallenged and undisputed by the defence. 16. Thus, the evidence of PW 2 clearly establishes the fact that when Dhaneswar was lying severely injured on the doorstep of his house, the accused was present, inside the compound of Dhaneswar's house, holding a dao in his hand and we have also pointed out above that the injuries, which had been found on the dead body of Dhaneswar, could have been caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon, such as, dao. 17. So for as, the other evidence on record are concerned, they are not of any relevance inasmuch as the fact that Dhaneswar was found lying as described by PW 1 and PW 2 has not been in dispute at the trial. 18. What emerges from the above discussion is that on the night of the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the Dhaneswar, called him away and within few minutes thereafter, Dhaneswar was found lying with several injuries on his person at the doorstep of his house and, on finding her husband in injured condition, when PW 1 was crying, her neighbor, PW 2, arrived and saw the accused with a dao in his hand. 19. What also logically follows from the above discussion is that the accused-appellant was the one, who had been seen last with the deceased and at the time, when the deceased was still lying alive with serious injuries on his person, the accused was present within the compound of the house of the deceased holding a dao in his hand. 20. Coupled with what have been indicated above, the fact that the said deceased sustained injuries, which could have been caused by dao, make it clear that though there is no eye witness to the occurrence of assault on Dhaneswar, the evidence on record eloquently proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had assaulted and injured his brother, Dhaneswar, so severely that the shock and haemorrage resulting from the injuries became the cause of his death. 21. 21. We are conscious of the fact that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and we are also conscious of the fact that we are placing reliance, for the purpose of sustaining conviction of the accused-appellant, on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2. We may point out, in this regard, that the evidence is not to be counted and it is not the number of witnesses, which is material; rather, what is material is the quality of evidence. If the evidence is such, which the Court has no reason to disbelieve, there is no impediment in placing reliance on such evidence. When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be proved. The chain must be complete and the evidence, when circumstantial, not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but also be inconsistent with his innocence. 22. In the present case, the chain of circumstances, as discussed above, stand clearly proved. There is no hypothesis, which can be consistent with the innocence of 'he accused. In the face of the proven facts of the present case, we have no escape from the conclusion, and we, therefore, conclude, that the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have caused unintentionally the death of his elder brother, Dhaneswar, and has been rightly committed the offence of murder. His conviction, therefore, suffers from no infirmity, legal or factual. 23. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 24. Send back the LCR. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid Rs.3,500/-. Appeal dismissed.