ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 07.06.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc), North Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No. 58(NL) of 2003, convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus : On 14.04.2000, at about 3.30 pm, when Manju Duwara's husband, Bapukon Duwara (since deceased), was splitting bamboo at his seedling field, accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara along with Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah came to Bapukon and, on their arrival near Bapukon Duwara, accused Punna Duwara gave a blow with a bamboo lathi on Bapukon Duwara. Having witnessed Punna Duwara assaulting her husband, Bapukon Duwara, Manju Duwara (PW4) went running to Simaluguri out-post, which falls under Bihpuria Police Station, and brought with her police to her village; but when she arrived, she found her husband's dead body lying at the courtyard of accused Punna Duwara. In the meanwhile, however, on being assaulted by Punna Duwara, Bapukon Duwara had run and entered into the house of Krishna Adhikari in order to save his life, but the accused aforementioned brought Bapukon Duwara back to Manju Duwara's house, they all beat him with shafts to death. The assaults, on Bapukon Duwara, had been seen, from its commencement to the end, by PW3 (Junu Duwara), wife of the elder brother of deceased Bapukon Duwara. On their arrival at the scene of occurrence, police held inquest over the said dead body and also seized a lathi, which was found lying near the said dead body. Manju Duwara (PW4) got an Ejahar written by her co-villager, Manik Sarkar (PW9), wherein she named all the four accused persons as her husband's assailants. The Ejahar, so written, was handed over to the police at the scene of occurrence. On his arrival at the police out-post, the Investigating Officer (PW8), who was at the relevant point of time, in-charge attached to the said police out-post, made, in this regard, General Diary Entry No. 136, dated 14.04.2000, and forwarded the said Ejahar to Bihpuria Police Station for registration of a case. On his arrival at the police out-post, the Investigating Officer (PW8), who was at the relevant point of time, in-charge attached to the said police out-post, made, in this regard, General Diary Entry No. 136, dated 14.04.2000, and forwarded the said Ejahar to Bihpuria Police Station for registration of a case. Based on the said Ejahar and treating the same as First Information Report, a case was registered against the present four accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against them under the said penal provisions. 2. To the charge framed against them, at the trial, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, all the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses including two investigating officers. All the four accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his examination aforementioned, accused Punna Duwara, while denying that he had killed Bapukon Duwara, alleged that it was Bapukon Duwara, who had altercation with him and beaten him in front of his house, when he (accused Punna Duwara) was passing from in front of the house of Bapukon Duwara and, having been so assaulted by Bapukon Duwara with lathi, he (accused Punna Duwara) became unconscious and it was not known to him how Bapukon Duwara had died. As far as remaining accused persons are concerned, they denied, in their examinations aforementioned, that they had committed the offence, which they were alleged to have committed. The case of the defence was, thus, that of denial subject to the admission of accused Punna that there was an altercation between him and the said deceased and also a claim, made by accused Punna, that he had been assaulted by lathi by the said deceased and, as a result of the assault on him (accused Punna), he fell unconscious and remained unaware as to how Bapukon died. 4. Having, however, reached the finding of guilt against all the four accused persons, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentence against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, all the four convicted persons have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. AK Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence passed against them, all the four convicted persons have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. AK Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that as far as PW1, PW2 and PW5 are concerned, they are merely witnesses to the seizure of the lathi, which was, admittedly, found near the said dead body. The said lathi, we may hasten to add, could not be proved to be the weapon of offence. Similarly, as far as PW6 is concerned, he was a witness to the inquest, which was held on Bapukon Duwara's dead body. 7. The material witnesses, therefore, are PW3 (Junu Duwara), sister-in-law of deceased Bapukon Duwara, PW4 (Manju Duwara), widow of the said deceased, the doctor, (PW7), who, admittedly, conducted post mortem examination on the said dead body and PW8, who had conducted the investigation at the initial stage. 8. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, when we come to the evidence of PW3 (Junu Duwara), we notice that according to her evidence, on the day of the occurrence, at about 4 pm, she was present at her house and Bapukon, younger brother of her husband, was in their field, located in front of their house, and at that time, she saw accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara, accompanied by Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah, coming there from eastern side. 9. Describing the occurrence, PW3 has deposed that at first, Punna Duwara came and assaulted Bapukon Duwara with a bamboo lathi and, on being so assaulted, Bapukon Duwara ran and entered into Krishna Adhikari's house, but Punna, too, along with three other accused aforementioned, entered into the house of Krishna Adhikari and brought Bapukon back to Manik Duwara's compound, they all beat him with shafts, which they were armed with, Bapukon died and Bapukon Duwara's dead body remained lying at the courtyard of Manik Duwara. It is also in the evidence of PW3 that Bapukon Duwara's wife, Manju Duwara (PW4), informed the police, police came and took away the dead body after examining the same. PW3 has also deposed that accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara are brothers and their houses are near each other's house. 10. It is also in the evidence of PW3 that Bapukon Duwara's wife, Manju Duwara (PW4), informed the police, police came and took away the dead body after examining the same. PW3 has also deposed that accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara are brothers and their houses are near each other's house. 10. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW3 (PW4, Manju Duwara), has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, when her husband was in the seeding field, located in front of their house, she, on hearing commotion, came out of her house and saw her husband being assaulted by accused Punna Duwara, whereupon she went running to the police station and came back with police; but, on coming back, she found her husband lying dead at the courtyard of accused Punna Duwara and she, then, lodged an Ejahar, which, according to the evidence of PW9, was written by him. 11. It is in the evidence of PW4 that having seen her husband being assaulted, she did not, out of fear, go to the place of occurrence and, taking her baby, she went running to the thana. It is also in the evidence of PW4 that she saw injuries on her husband's head, his head stood cracked and there were injuries on other parts of his body. 12. In the cross-examination, PW4 has clarified that she had not seen any of the accused persons, other than accused Punna Duwara, assaulting her husband, Bapukon, with a lathi inasmuch as she had gone running to the thana on seeing her husband being assaulted. 13. From the evidence of PW4, it becomes clear that she had noticed only accused-appellant, Punna Duwara, assaulting Bapukon Duwara with a lathi. The Ejahar, which was lodged by PW4 and has been treated as the First Information Report, however, mentions the names of all the four appellants as the assailants of Bapukon Duwara. 14. We may pause here to point out that though the said Ejahar, which is Ext. The Ejahar, which was lodged by PW4 and has been treated as the First Information Report, however, mentions the names of all the four appellants as the assailants of Bapukon Duwara. 14. We may pause here to point out that though the said Ejahar, which is Ext. 4, names all the four accused persons as assailants of Bapukon Duwara, the fact remains that the police, on being informed about the occurrence of assault on Bapukon Duwara by Punna Duwara, had, immediately, arrived at the place of occurrence, examined the said dead body (i.e. held inquest over the said dead body) and also seized the lathi, which had been found lying near the said dead body. The investigation of the case had, thus, already commenced before the Ejahar (Ext.4) was, formally, lodged by PW4. The contents of the said Ejahar cannot, therefore, be treated as the FIR; rather, the contents of the said Ejahar are nothing, but previous statement, made by PW4, which was reduced into writing by PW9, and the said statement was given to the police, when they were investigating the case. Clearly, therefore, the said Ejahar (Ext.4) amounted to nothing, but a statement, made, in writing, by PW4 to the police, the statement being a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 15. The question, therefore, which legitimately arises is: whether any one, other than accused Punna Duwara, could have been tried and convicted for causing Bapukon Duwara's death ? 16. The answer to the question posed above is not very far to seek. While considering the question, posed above, one has to bear in mind the fact that nothing whatsoever was elicited by the defence, while cross-examining PW4, to show that her evidence that her husband, Bapukon, had been assaulted by accused Punna is untrue or false. 17. In fact, it was not even suggested to PW4 that accused Punna Duwara had not assaulted Bapukon Duwara by lathi and having seen the assault on her husband, PW4 had gone running to the said police out-post. Thus, the evidence, given by PW4, implicating the accused-appellant, Punna Duwara, as an assailant of her husband, Bapukon Duwara, has remained wholly unshaken and, in fact, unchallenged. 18. Thus, the evidence, given by PW4, implicating the accused-appellant, Punna Duwara, as an assailant of her husband, Bapukon Duwara, has remained wholly unshaken and, in fact, unchallenged. 18. When we revert to the evidence of PW3, sister-in-law of the said deceased, we notice, as already indicated above, that when Bapukon Duwara was in his seeding field, located in front of his house, accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara, accompanied by accused Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah, came there. Elaborately describing the occurrence, PW3 has also deposed that at first, accused Punna came and assaulted Bapukon with a bamboo shaft and when Bapukon went running and entered into Krishna Adhikari's house, he was brought back to Manik Duwara's compound by the other three accused, who, too, were armed with shafts and they all assaulted Bapukon to death and left his dead body lying at the courtyard of Manik Duwara. 19. We may point out, at this stage, that it has been contended by Mr. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, that while PW3 has deposed that Bapukon Duwara's dead body was lying in Manik Duwara's compound, PW4 had deposed that she found her husband's dead body at Punna Duwara's compound. It needs to be, therefore, clarified that the evidence on record and the statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the said two accused persons, clearly bring out the fact that both of them were brothers, their father being Late Joyram Duwara. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the evidence of PW3, on the one hand, and the evidence of PW4, on the other, as regards the place, where Bapukon Duwara's dead body was found lying. 20. Though denied by PW3, the defence has successfully elicited from the Investigation Officer (PW8) that in her statement given to the police, PW3 had not stated that accused Manik Duwara and Punna Duwara had come 'from the eastern direction'. However, we must promptly point out, in this regard, that the investigating officer has clarified that PW3 had stated before him that Manik and Punna had come. 21. Thus, there is really no material omission, in the previous statement of PW3, as far as coming of the said two accused, namely, Manik and Punna are concered. However, we must promptly point out, in this regard, that the investigating officer has clarified that PW3 had stated before him that Manik and Punna had come. 21. Thus, there is really no material omission, in the previous statement of PW3, as far as coming of the said two accused, namely, Manik and Punna are concered. Similarly, though the investigating officer has conceded that PW3 had not stated before him that the said deceased had entered into the house of Krishna Adhikari and he was brought by the accused to the compound of accused Manik from Krishna Adhikari's house and that all the four accused persons were armed with lathis, the fact remains that the investigating officer has clarified that the PW3 had stated before him, "They all had killed her 'dewar' beating him with lathi and stick". 22. If the evidence, given by PW3, is considered in its proper perspective, in the light of her previous statement made to the police, it becomes transparent that PW3 had clearly implicated all the four accused-appellants and the omissions, in her previous statement, does not shake the core of her evidence. 23. Coupled with the above, the learned Public Prosecutor has considerable force in his submission, when he points out that it was the specific evidence of PW3, in her examination-in-chief, that accused Punna Duwara and Manik Duwara had come, accompanied by accused Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah, and the evidence, so given by PW3, was not disputed by the defence, while cross-examining PW3, nor was it put to her (PW3) by the defence that in her previous statement made to police, she (PW3) had not mentioned the names of Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah as assailants. In fact, even while cross-examining the investigating officer (PW8). the defence did not, we notice, elicit anything from the Investigation Officer (PW8) to show that the names of Bogai Borah and Bhaikon Borah had not been mentioned by PW3 in her statement made to the police during investigation. Above all, there is no specific denial, on the part of the defence, while cross-examining PW3, that Bogai and Bhaikon and/or Manik Duwara had not come along with accused Punna Duwara. 24. Situated thus, when the evidence of PW3 has, otherwise, remained unshaken in her cross-examination, we see no reason to disbelieve her evidence and/or the evidence, as discussed above, given by PW4. 25. 24. Situated thus, when the evidence of PW3 has, otherwise, remained unshaken in her cross-examination, we see no reason to disbelieve her evidence and/or the evidence, as discussed above, given by PW4. 25. In the backdrop of the ocular evidence on record, let us come to the evidence of doctor (PW7), who had, admittedly, performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Bapukon Duwara, on 15.04.2000, i.e., on the following day of the occurrence. His findings were as follows : Lacerated open wound in the right side of the skull with exposed brain the wound started at frontal region to end at occipital region. There was extensive laceration of the scalp. The skull bone under the wound was fractured into pieces which penetrated deep into the brain mass of right side. Brain matter of right side of the brain was coming out through the fractured skull wound. 2. There was a lacerated cut injury of about 2" x 1/2" in size in the left eye brow. 3. Lacerated cut injury of about 1" in the angle of the mouth right side. 4. There was a lacerated linear cut about 3" in left mid leg. 26. It is in the evidence of the doctor (PW7) that all the injuries aforementioned were ante mortem in nature and that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and that the injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. 27. While cross-examining the doctor, the defence did not dispute his findings and/or his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries and/or the cause of death. This apart, we do not notice anything inherently incorrect or untrue in the evidence of the doctor. We see, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the medical evidence on record. When the ocular evidence, given by the PW3 and PW4, are considered, in the light of the medical evidence on record, we find that the medical evidence substantially supports and lends considerable corroboration to the two eye witnesses' accounts of the occurrence. 28. We see, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the medical evidence on record. When the ocular evidence, given by the PW3 and PW4, are considered, in the light of the medical evidence on record, we find that the medical evidence substantially supports and lends considerable corroboration to the two eye witnesses' accounts of the occurrence. 28. What can also not be ignored is the fact that in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant, Pund Duwara, has stated, when asked by the Court, if he has anything to say, that on the day of the occurrence, while he was passing from in front of the house of the said deceased, the said deceased waylaid him and had altercation with him and, then, assaulted him and, as a result thereof, he became unconscious and did not know how Bapukon Duwara died. It is worth noticing that the defence completely failed to prove or probablise that accused Punna had sustained any injury. The defence, so taken by the accused Punna Duwara of his being assaulted by Bapukon Duwara (since deceased) and his (accused Punna's) falling thereby unconscious, is, thus, ex facie a false plea. 29. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that Bapukon Duwara lost his life on being assaulted by lathis by the present four appellants, the assailants having been led by accused-appellant, Punna Duwara. The nature of injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and the vital parts of the body, where the assaults had taken place, are all indicative of the fact that the assailants wanted nothing less than death of Bapukon Duwara inasmuch as his head was broken and the brain materials had come out and, out of the four injuries, which were found on his dead body, as many as three were on his facial region. Thus, the intention, which the accused-appellants had, was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, to cause Bapukon Duwara's death and it is, in furtherance of this common intention, which all the accused-appellants had shared, that Bapukon Duwara was assaulted and killed as has been described above. It is, therefore, immaterial as to which accused-appellant had given the fatal blow. 30. It is, therefore, immaterial as to which accused-appellant had given the fatal blow. 30. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are clearly of the view that the finding of guilt, reached by the learned trial Court, is wholly correct and does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. 31. This appeal, in our considered view, is wholly without merit. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. 32. With the above observations and directions, this criminal appeal shall stand disposed of. 33. Send back the LCR. The Amicus Curiae shall be paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/-. Appeal dismissed.