C.R.Sarma, J;— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 30/03. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, suffer RI for another period one month. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. We have heard Ms. Rita Das Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during the trial, is that, on 24.10.2001, at about 7.30 PM, when Bideshi Pandit (hereinafter called the deceased) and his daughter-in-law Smti Kunti Devi, [P W-4(A)] were in their house, the appellant, being armed with a 'dao', entered their house and inflicted dao-blows on the deceased at his doorway. PW-4(A), out of fear, rushed to the house of Rejesh Chetry and thereafter returned home and found that the appellant was pulling the deceased. However, she, on being chased by the appellant, took shelter near the gate of the Water Supply Scheme. Shri Lal Bahadur Pandit (P W-4), son of the deceased, who was away from their home, at the time of the incident, on his arrival at home, after enjoying 'Durga puja', found his father (deceased) lying with injuries, outside their house. He came to know from his wife [PW-4(A)] that the appellant had caused the fatal injuries. Accordingly, the PW-4, as informant, lodged an FIR (Ex.-3) with the Police. 5. On receipt of the said FIR, Police registered a case, under Section 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. 6. During the investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.-4), arrested the accused person, recorded the statement of the witnesses, seized a 'dao’, on being produced by the accused from his house, vide seizure list i.e. Ex.-2 and forwarded the deadbody for postmortem examination. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, under Section 302 IPC. 7. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 8. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, under Section 302 IPC. 7. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 8. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, framed charge, under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 8 (eight) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW1), who performed the postmortem examination in respect of the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Police Officer (PW-8). 10. At the conclusion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 11. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused person committed the murder of the deceased and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 12. Ms. Rita Das Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, taking us through the evidence, on record, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is also submitted, by the learned defence counsel, that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, in the evidence of PW-4(A) regarding the place of occurrence and as such prosecution version is not believable. It is also contended, by the learned Amicus Curiae, that as there was land dispute between the parties, the informant, out of grudge, had lodged the FIR, against the appellant. 13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the prosecution version is not believable and as such the impugned conviction and sentence can not be maintained. 14. Resisting the argument, advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is sufficient substantive and cogent evidence, on material point and that minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of PW-4(A), regarding place of occurrence, cannot negate the entire prosecution version. 14. Resisting the argument, advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is sufficient substantive and cogent evidence, on material point and that minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of PW-4(A), regarding place of occurrence, cannot negate the entire prosecution version. It is contended that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, evidence of PW-4(A), who was the eye witness to the occurrence, clearly indicates that the appellant had inflicted fatal blows causing multiple injuries, resulting the death of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the circumstantial evidence, that at the time of incident, the deceased and the P W-4(A) were alone in their house, that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the road, situated in the premises of the deceased, that the deceased died due to the multiple injuries sustained by him coupled with and the oral evidence given by the PW-4(A), clearly indicate that none, other than the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. 15. In view of the above, it is submitted, by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Trial Judge committed no error by convicting the appellant, under Section 302 IPC and as such the impugned conviction and the sentence do not warrant any interference by this Court. 16. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence, on record, as below: 17. Mr. Lal Bahadur Pandit (PW-4), who lodged the FIR (Ex.-3), did not see the occurrence himself. At the time of incident, he, alone with his children, had gone to enjoy a Puja and his wife PW-4(A) and the deceased were in their house. On his return from the Puja, he found the dead body of his father i.e. deceased lying in injured condition, outside their house. According to this witness, he was informed by his wife Smti Kunti Devi, P W-4(A) that the appellant had cut his father with a ‘dao’. He also stated that his father was attacked by the appellant, due to a pending land dispute. This witness was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence. His evidence, regarding the injuries sustained by his father and the land dispute remained undemolished. He also stated that his father was attacked by the appellant, due to a pending land dispute. This witness was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence. His evidence, regarding the injuries sustained by his father and the land dispute remained undemolished. Therefore, it is found that the appellant had no good relation with the deceased and as such, the existing land dispute could be the motive behind the crime aforesaid. 18. Supporting the evidence of PW-4, his wife, PW-4(A) stated that, at about 6.30 PM, when her husband (PW-4) and their children went to enjoy puja, she, along with the deceased, was inside their house and at that time the appellant, being armed with a ‘dao’, entered their house and inflicted blows on the deceased at the doorway. According to this witness, on being chased by the appellant and out of fear, she had run away and returned home after the arrival of her husband. She [PW4(A)], also stated that the Police had seized the ‘dao', on being handed over by the appellant. 19. During her cross-examination, made on behalf of the defence, this witness clearly stated that her father-in-law was assaulted at the doorway of their house and that the field was near their house. She denied the suggestion, put to her, by the defence, that she did not see the occurrence herself. From the cross examination of this witness, no contradiction could be elicited to discredit her evidence, regarding involvement of the appellant and seizure of the ‘dao’ by Police. Her evidence that she had seen the appellant inflicting dao-blows on the deceased, in her presence, on the fateful night, remained undemolished. 20. The Medical Officer (PW1), who performed the postmortem examination, in respect of the dead body of the deceased, on 25th October i.e. on the next day of the incident, found the following injuries:- (1) An. Incised wound over the left cheek horizontally placed measuring 9x2 c.m. Cutting left maximal. (2) An incised wound over the left frontal region measuring 3 C 2 Cm. (3) An incised wound over the left forehead. M: 2.5x1 Cm. muscle deep directed downward to the left. (4) An incised wound over the right cheek. M; 6X 2 Cm. directed upward and downward extending over the moveable and cutting the muscle. (5) An incised wound over the present surface of the finger of the left head. (6) An abrasion left knee. M: 2.5x1 Cm. muscle deep directed downward to the left. (4) An incised wound over the right cheek. M; 6X 2 Cm. directed upward and downward extending over the moveable and cutting the muscle. (5) An incised wound over the present surface of the finger of the left head. (6) An abrasion left knee. M: 4x3 Cms. (7) An abrasion left knee. M: 3x2 c.m. The said Medical Officer opined that the cause of the death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries indicated above. He also opined that the injuries were anti mortem, homicidal in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon as well as blunt force. He has exhibited the postmortem report as Exhibit-1. The said medical evidence supports the evidence, given by PW-4(A) that the deceased sustained injuries, caused with a 'dao', which is a sharp cutting weapon. 21. PW-4(A), in her cross-examination, stated that she saw the appellant inflicting two blows on her father-in-law and out of fear and, on being seized by the appellant, she had run away towards the Water Supply Scheme. Therefore, though, as per the medical evidence, the deceased sustained as many as 7 (seven) injuries, the failure of the P W-4(A) to notice all the injuries (except two blows) inflicted by the appellant, can not negate her evidence that she had seen the appellant giving blows to the deceased. There is no difficulty in understanding that after P W-4(A) had fled the place of occurence, the appellant had inflicted other injuries, as indicated by the Medical Officer aforesaid. 22. The Inquest Report (Ex.-4) prepared by PW-8 also indicates that cuts injuries were found on the face, ear, fingers etc of the deceased. The said medical evidence as well as the Inquest Report support the evidence, given by the PW-4(A), with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, we find sufficient corroboration to believe the evidence, given by PW-4(A), that the appellant inflicted dao-blows on the deceased. 23. Shri Debraj Orang, who deposed as PW-2 was the Uncle of the appellant and neighbour of the deceased. He stated that the deceased died on the road, situated inside the premises of the deceased. According to this witness, he heard about the occurrence. He stated that he did not know as to who had assaulted the deceased. 23. Shri Debraj Orang, who deposed as PW-2 was the Uncle of the appellant and neighbour of the deceased. He stated that the deceased died on the road, situated inside the premises of the deceased. According to this witness, he heard about the occurrence. He stated that he did not know as to who had assaulted the deceased. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, no substantive incriminating evidence could be elicited, from his cross-examination. 24. Shri Kishor Kr. Yadav, who deposed as PW-3 stated that his father had told him that a person had killed the deceased. He was a witness to the seizure list (Ex.-2). He stated that the Police did not show him the seized item. This witness also did not state anything incriminating against the appellant. 25. Shri Laxman Kumar, who deposed as P W-5 stated that, coming to know about the occurrence, he had visited the Police Station, where he found the deadbody of the deceased. He was a witness to the Inquest Report (PW-4). 26. Shri Bhogeswar Das (PW-6) stated that when he was working in the Duliajan Water Supply, on the night of occurrence, a woman had visited the water supply project and he had sent her back after pacifying her. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined, on behalf of the prosecution. In his cross examination, he has stated that wife of Bideshi Pandit went there with undressed hair and inform him that a boy (labour) had charged her with a ‘dao’. He also stated that she had told him that the said boy had killed her father in law. 27. From the said evidence, given by the PW-6 it is clearly found that the PW-4(A), immediately after the incident, and on being chased by the appellant, had rushed to the Water Supply Scheme and informed the P W-6 about the involvement of the appellant. Therefore, we find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of PW-4(A) to believe that she was chased by the appellant, who had attacked her father-in-law. His evidence that PW4 (A) had informed him about the incident, immediately after the occurrence, indicates the truthfulness of the evidence given by PW4(A). 28. In the tune with the evidence, given by PW-6 and supporting the evidence of PW-4(A), Mr. His evidence that PW4 (A) had informed him about the incident, immediately after the occurrence, indicates the truthfulness of the evidence given by PW4(A). 28. In the tune with the evidence, given by PW-6 and supporting the evidence of PW-4(A), Mr. Saidur Ali, who was also working in the said Water Supply Project, along with PW-6, stated that, at about 8 PM, he came to know that a woman had entered the compound of the said project through the gate and that she was sent back by the security, after pacifying her. PW-6 clearly stated that PW-7 was also with him in the said Water Supply Project. 29. In view of the above evidence, given by the PWs-6 & 7, we find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of P W-4(A) to believe that, immediately after the incident and on being chased by the appellant, she had rushed to the Water Supply Project and informed PW-6 about the involvement of the appellant. 30. PW-8 is the Investigating Police Officer. From the cross-examination of the I/ O, no contradiction, in respect of evidence given by the said prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWNos-4,4(A), 6 and 7 could be elicited to render their evidence disbelievable. 31. In view of the above, it is found that PW-4(A) was present at the time of occurrence in her house, along with the deceased and she was the most natural witness, who could see the incident. She has clearly implicated the appellant with the death of the deceased. 32. As discussed above, we find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of PWs-4, 4(A), 6, 7 to believe that the incident took place in presence of PW-4(A) and she had seen the appellant, inflicting dao-blows on the deceased. 33. Regarding the discrepancies with that regard to place of occurrence, as pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, it is found that the only eye witness i.e. PW-4(A), who initially saw the incident i.e. at the time of giving two blows by the appellant, on the deceased, stated that the deceased was attacked on the doorway. 34. According this witness, out of fear, she had fled the place of occurrence and took shelter in the Water Supply Project. As discussed above, her version that she had taken shelter in the Water Supply Project, has been supported by the P W Nos 6 and 7, who were independent witnesses. 34. According this witness, out of fear, she had fled the place of occurrence and took shelter in the Water Supply Project. As discussed above, her version that she had taken shelter in the Water Supply Project, has been supported by the P W Nos 6 and 7, who were independent witnesses. PW-4(A) also stated that when she returned back, she saw the accused pulling the deceased. Therefore, as the accused had pulled the deceased, the place of occurrence got shifted from the doorway of her house. 35. As per the Inquest Report (Ex.-4), the dead body was found in the marshy land near the field, in front of the house of the deceased. PW-4, who arrived after the occurrence found that the dead body of his father, lying outside their house. PW-2, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, stated that the dead body of the deceased was found on the road, situated near the house of the appellant. 36. PW 4(A) in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that she did not tell the Police that the appellant had chased the deceased to the field. This denial indicates that she had asserted that she told that the deceased was dragged to the field. Of course, the Investigating Officer confirmed the said omission. Admittedly the field was near the house of the deceased. PW2 clearly stated that the deceased was lying on the road inside the house i.e. the premises of the deceased. A close scrutiny of the said evidence leaves no room for doubt that though the incident had initially taken place at the door step of the house, there is evidence to show that the deceased was dragged to the nearby field, situated in front of the house and as such the deceased was found, lying on the road/field i.e. in the premises of the deceased. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the finding of the dead body of the deceased on the road/field, situated in front of the house of the appellant, cannot be treated as major contradiction, on material point, sufficient to negate the forceful evidence given by the PW4 (A). Her failure to disclose such fact, i.e. dragging of the deceased before the Police is a minor omission. 37. Her failure to disclose such fact, i.e. dragging of the deceased before the Police is a minor omission. 37. Considering entire circumstances and the prevailing situation faced by P W4(A) and her social status, such minor contradiction or discrepancy cannot be sufficient to demolish the evidence given by her. Therefore, in our considered opinion, her failure to disclose before the Investigating Officer, regarding dragging of the deceased by the appellant, cannot be fatal for the prosecution. 38. From the above discussed evidence, it has been well established that, at the time of occurrence, PW4(A) and the deceased were present in their house and as such she was most natural witness to see the incident. Her evidence regarding involvement of the appellant has remained undemolished. The above evidence of PW4(A) has been corroborated by PW6 and PW7. 39. In view of the above discussed evidence, we find no difficulty in holding that the appellant had given fatal blows on the deceased resulting his death. 40. The multiple injuries, inflicted on the deceased with a sharp cutting weapon, that too on vital part like forehead, indicate that the appellant had given the blows with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence recorded under section 302 IPC suffers from no illegality, requiring any interference by this Court. 41. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are upheld and affirmed. Return the LCR. In appreciation of the services, rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, we direct payment of Rs. 5,000/- in her favour, as her remuneration, to be paid by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. _____________