C.R. Srama, J.;— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7.1.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Sessions Case No. 40(DM)/2001. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and two others under Section 302/ 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life for their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the above named convicted persons, namely, Makhan Ch. Rai and Haridas Sen, as appellants, have come up with this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State respondent. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 29.03.2000 at about 4 p.m., the appellants, along with two others (Sanjoy Rai andNirmal Rai), being armed with lathi and dao, entered the premises of Satyen Rai (herein after called the deceased), and picked up tl quarrel with the deceased. The said persons i.e. the appellants and two others assaulted the deceased, causing injuries on his person, despite resistance given by the P W Nos. 1 and 2. The deceased was taken to hospital for medical treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him, in the same night. Accordingly, Sri Sanjib Rai, son of the deceased, as informant, lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) with the police. On receipt of the said FIR police registered a case and launched investigation into the matter, 6. During investigation, police visited Tangla Civil Hospital, where the dead body of the deceased was lying, visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused persons, examined the witnesses, seized a bamboo lathi, alleged to be used by the accused persons, vide ext. No. 2, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, arrested Sanjoy Rai and Nirmal Rai. Accused Haridas Sen and Makhan Rai absconded and as such they could not be arrested. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet. 7. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 6 witnesses including the medical officer (P W-6), who performed the post mortem examination and the investigating police officer (PW-5). 8. At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them. 7. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 6 witnesses including the medical officer (P W-6), who performed the post mortem examination and the investigating police officer (PW-5). 8. At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them. The defence examined 3 witnesses as D Ws 1,2 and 3. 9. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the convicted persons, namely, Sanjoy Rai, Nirmal Rai, Makhan Rai and Haridas Sen (both appellants before this Court), in furtherance of their common intention, caused death of the deceased by assaulting him. 10. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appellants, namely, Makhan Rai and Haridas Sen have come up with this appeal. 11. Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, referring to the evidence on record, has submitted that, except the evidence given by P W Nos.-1 and 2, who were the son and the wife respectively of the deceased, there is no other substantive evidence in support of the prosecution version i.e. against the appellants. It is also submitted that both PWs 1 and 2, being close relatives of the deceased, were interested witnesses and as such their evidence cannot be relied upon to base the conviction, without corroboration from independent evidence. The learned defence counsel, taking us through the defence evidence has also submitted that if the evidence given by the said defence witnesses (DW Nos. 1,2 and 3) are accepted then the prosecution version, that the appellants were involved with the alleged occurrence, cannot be believed. In view of the above, the learned defence counsel has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 12. Resisting the said arguments, advanced by the learned defence counsel, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the time of occurrence PWs 1 and 2, who were the members of the same family, were most reliable and natural witnesses and as such their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. P.P. has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the time of occurrence PWs 1 and 2, who were the members of the same family, were most reliable and natural witnesses and as such their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. It is also submitted that, from the materials on record, it can be found that, at the time of occurrence, the deceased and PWs-1 and 2 were in their house and the occurrence took place in their presence. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence, given by the said two eye witnesses, is trustworthy and reliable. It is also submitted that sufficient corroboration can be drawn from the medical evidence, rendered by P W 6, in favour of the evidence given by PWs 1 and 2. The learned Addl. P.P. has also pointed out that PW 1 clearly stated that, after assaulting his father, the appellants had dragged the deceased to the courtyard of Makhan Rai i.e. the father of Sri Nirmal Rai. It is submitted that the said version of P W 1 is corroborated by the investigating officer (PW 5), who found the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of Sri Nirmal Rai, who is the son of Sri Makhan Rai. In view of the above, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants have assaulted the deceased causing his death and as such the trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302/ 34 IPC. 13. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, put forward by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness the impugned judgment and order, we feel it necessary to, briefly, scan the evidence on record. 14. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence it is found that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the premises of Makhan Rai, who was the father of Nirmal Rai. 14. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence it is found that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the premises of Makhan Rai, who was the father of Nirmal Rai. According to PW-1, the deceased, after being assaulted in his house, was dragged to the house of Nirmal Rai and according to DW-2, also the deceased was found, in injured condition, by the side of the road and he was taken to the house of Makhan Rai. There is no dispute about the time and date of occurrence, therefore, it has been established that the deceased died on the date of occurrence i.e. on 29.03.2000 at about 4 p.m. 15. The medical officer (PW-6), who performed the autopsy on 30.03.2000 i.e. on the next date, found the following injuries in respect of the dead body of the deceased: "2. Cut mark in the left leg 3'x2'xl’ below the knee joint. 3. Cut mark in the right arm 2'x1/2"x1/2" 4. Damage of the left eye by the sharp instrument. 5. Cut mark in the right temporal region 4"x1"x1/2" damaging skin, muscles bone and brain. 6. Cut mark in the left temporal regfion 3"x1"x1/2" damaging skin, muscles bone and brain. 7. Cut mark in the frontal region 2"x 1 "x 1/2" 8. Lacerated wound of 1 1/2"x1/4" in the back. 16. The said medical officer opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by him. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Ext. 4 and his signature, thereon, as Ext.4(1). From the said medical evidence, it is found that the deceased sustained as many as 5 (five) cut injuries, one lacerated injury, his left eye was also damaged by sharp instrument. 17. The said multiple injuries which, were anti-mortem in nature, suggest use of blunt as well as sharp cutting instruments. From the above discussed evidence it is clear that the deceased died on 29.03.2000 i.e the date of occurrence due to the injuries aforesaid. The nature and number of injuries, sustained by the deceased, indicates involvement of many persons and their intention to cause death of the victim (deceased). 18. Now, the question is who had caused the fatal injuries aforesaid. The nature and number of injuries, sustained by the deceased, indicates involvement of many persons and their intention to cause death of the victim (deceased). 18. Now, the question is who had caused the fatal injuries aforesaid. The prosecution version is that the appellants, who had boundary dispute with the deceased, being armed with dao and lathi entered the premises of the deceased and assaulted him in presence of PW-1 and 2 causing the said fatal injuries. Sri Rajib Rai, son of the deceased, deposing as P W1, stated that, at the time of occurrence, his mother PW-2 and the deceased were at their house and the appellans, being armed with dao and Jathi, had assaulted the deceased. He, further, stated that the accused persons had dragged his father to Makhan Rai's courtyard. Though D W 2 stated that he had found the dead body of the deceased on the road side and carried the same to the house of Shri Makhan Rai, there is no corroboration in his evidence that the dead body was found lying on the road. 19. Therefore, in view of the above it has been established from the evidence of PW 1 and 2 that the dead body was found in the house of Makhan Rai i.e. father of Nirmal. The investigating officer i.e. PW-5 also stated that the dead body was found in the courtyard of Nirmal Rai i.e. son of Makhan Rai. PW-4 has exhibited the FIR, lodged by him. In the said FIR also PW-1 stated about the involvement of the accused persons. In his cross-examination PW-1 stated that, at the time of the occurrence, his mother i.e. PW-2 was in the house of Brajen Rai and that having seen the occurrence she had returned and given resistance and thereafter rushed to the police station. From his evidence it is also found that the house of Sri Brojen Rai was situated near the house of PW-1. Supporting the evidence of PW-1, his mother Smti. Jyoti Rai, deposing as PW-2, stated that, at the time of occurrence, she had visited the house of a neighbour and her son P W-1 and the deceased were in their house. She also stated that hearing about the commotion she returned home and found the appellants assaulting her husband. Supporting the evidence of PW-1, his mother Smti. Jyoti Rai, deposing as PW-2, stated that, at the time of occurrence, she had visited the house of a neighbour and her son P W-1 and the deceased were in their house. She also stated that hearing about the commotion she returned home and found the appellants assaulting her husband. She further stated that the appellants, namely, Makhan Rai, Sanjoy Rai and Nirmal Rai had assaulted the decease with a dao, while Haridas Sen had assaulted him with a lathi. She also stated that she went to police station and gave information about the incident. This witness further stated that, after return from the police station, she found her husband in the courtyard of Makhan and that he succumb to the injuries. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that, though initially, i.e just prior to the incident, she had gone to the house of Brojen Rai, but coming to know about the occurrence, she immediately rush home and saw the incident. Despite cross-examination of PWs-1 and 2, no material contradiction could be elicited to render their evidence dis-believable. The investigating officer (PW-5), supporting the evidence rendered by PW-2, has stated that immediately after PW-2 had made an oral complaint, a written FIR was lodged and, as such, no GD Entry was made on the basis of the said oral complaint. 20. From the evidence of PW-5 sufficient force can be found in favour of PW-2fs evidence to believe her version that she had rushed to the police station and verbally lodged the information, followed by a written complaint (Ext. 1). PW-3 was the scribe of the FIR. He had no personal knowledge about the incident. Sri Ramesh Mishra, who deposed as PW-4, stated that he heard about the murder of the deceased and saw the later in the hospital. He also stated that the wife of the deceased i.e. PW-2 had told him that Makhan Rai had killed her husband. 21. In view of the forceful evidence given by PWs 1 and 2, about the involvement of the appellants, we find no corroboration in the evidence of PW-4 to believe that he was informed about the involvement of only Makhan Rai. Therefore, his uncorroborated evidence does not negate the prosecution version, about the involvement of the appellants. 22. To negate the prosecution version regarding involvement of Mr. Therefore, his uncorroborated evidence does not negate the prosecution version, about the involvement of the appellants. 22. To negate the prosecution version regarding involvement of Mr. Makhan Rai, DW-1, in his evidence, stated that the appellant Makhan Rai, on the date of occurrence, was working in his (D W-1) house from 7-00 a.m. to 7-00 p.m. and that he had heard that the deceased was beaten by some other person. Though this witness stated about the presence of the appellant, namely, Makhan Ray in his house from 7-00 a.m. to 7-00 p.m., Sri Makhan Rai, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.RC. clearly stated that he was in his house. Therefore, the evidence of DW-1, that the Makhan Rai was in his house (DW-1’s) from 7-00 a.m. to 7-00 p.m. stands negated by the said appellant himself. DW-2 stated that Kandaz Rai and Nirmal Rai visited his house and informed that somebody had beaten Satyen i.e. the deceased and that, on being so informed, he visited the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying on the road. He also stated that he, along with Sanjoy and Nirmal, carried the deceased to the house of Makhan Rai. But Sri Nirmal Rai, in his statement given under Section 313 Cr.RC., to a pointed question as to whether he would say anything, replied that he had noting to say. The said appellant did not take the plea that he, along with Kandaz had informed the DW-2 that somebody had assaulted the deceased. That apart, Kandaz Rai has not been examined to substantiate the said plea.Hence, the evidence of DW-2 lacks corroboration on material point. Therefore, his evidence does not help the defence to negate the involvement of Mr. Nirmal Rai. 23. DW-3 stated that, on the date of occurrence, he saw the appellant Haridas Sen plucking chilli from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Butr, Sri Haridas Sen, in his statement given under Section 313 Cr.RC., did not take any such plea. Therefore, the evidence, given by D W-3, that Haridas was plucking chilli from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. does not rule out the involvement of Haridas Sen with the alleged incident, which took place at around 4 p.m. 24. In view of the above, We find no force in evidence of the said D Ws to disbelieve the prosecution version regarding involvement of the appellants. 25. In view of the above, We find no force in evidence of the said D Ws to disbelieve the prosecution version regarding involvement of the appellants. 25. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that PWs 1 and 2, who were the eye witnesses to the incident, categorically indicated the involvement of appellants and their said evidence remained un-demolished. Their uncontroverted evidence coupled with the medical evidence, given by P W 6, safely lead to the conclusion that, none except the appellants and others caused the fatal injuries, resulting the death of the deceased. The multiple injuries sustained by the deceased and the type of weapons used in inflicting the injuries, clearly imply that the appellants had caused the fatal injuries with intention to cause death of the deceased and thus, they committed murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that, the prosecution could successfully establish the charge, brought against the appellants. In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed no error by recording impugned conviction and sentence u/s. 302 IPC. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal requiring any interference. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are upheld and affirmed. 27. In view of the provision prescribed by section 357 (A) Cr.P.C. the victim or his/ her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our discussions, made in Criminal Appeal No. 93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: (1) As an interim measure, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Darrang District within a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money,. Shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether, there is dependent (s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and if such dependant (s) or legal representative (s) need any rehabilitation. The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money,. Shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether, there is dependent (s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and if such dependant (s) or legal representative (s) need any rehabilitation. (2) Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent (s), if any, need rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be prescribed by the scheme to be prepared by the State Government. (3) It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrives at the findings that there is no dependent (s) or that the dependant (s) of the deceased/ victim does not required any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs. 50,0007-, without delay, in favour of the State Government. (4) For the purpose of providing financial assistance towards rehabilitation of the victim of his/ her dependant (s), in appropriate case, and for proper implementation of such scheme, as provided by Section 357-A, Cr.P.C., it is necessary to ascertain the dependency factor and the financial status of such victim, his/ her dependents, and of the accused person(s), as the case may be. Therefore, we direct that the Judicial Officers, working under, jurisdiction of this Court,, during the course of trial, shall ascertain (i) the financial status of the victim or his/her dependent (s), if any, (ii) whether such persons need rehabilitation, as the case may be and also the financial status of the accused persons (s). The said findings of the enquiry shall be reflected in the judgment. Registry shall furnish copy of this judgment to all the Judicial Officers under the jurisdiction of this Court. 28. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, for doing the needful. Return the LCR. _____________