JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 22.04.2008, passed, in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, convicting the accused-appellant, Adhar Ch. Ray, under Sections 323 and 302 IPC, and sentencing him, for his conviction, under Section 302 IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and also to undergo, for his conviction, under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: Tulsi Newar and Dimbeswari Das were sisters. Tulsi Newar (P.W. 1), being married, had come to her parents house. On 09.11.2005, at about 5.30 PM, both the sisters went out of their house, for a walk on the road. While they were so walking, the accused, suddenly, came and assaulted Tulsi Newar (P.W. 1) by means of Trishul (a trident, which can also be used as a weapon of assault) on her back and she fell down. While Tulsi Newar (P.W. 1) was still lying on the ground, the accused gave a blow with the Trishul on the right chest of Dimbeswari Das and Dimbeswari Das, too, fell down. The people, who had witnessed the occurrence of assault by the accused, came running and apprehended the accused. While injured Dimbeswari Das was being carried to R.N.B. Civil Hospital, she succumbed to her injuries. A written Ejahar was, then, lodged, on the day of the occurrence itself, at Kokrajhar Police Station, by Tulsi Newar (P.W. 1) alleging to the effect, inter alia, that her sister had been assaulted by the accused, by means of Trishul, and she died, while she was being carried, in injured condition, to the hospital. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Kokrajhar Police Station Case No. 205 of 2005, under Sections 323/302 IPC, was registered against the accused, Adhar Ch. Ray. 2. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post-mortem examination. The Police visited the place of occurrence and arrested the accused, who was later, on remanded to the judicial custody. Ray. 2. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post-mortem examination. The Police visited the place of occurrence and arrested the accused, who was later, on remanded to the judicial custody. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Sections 302/323 IPC, against the accused, Adhar Ch. Ray. 3. At the trial, when charges, under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, were framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 14 (fourteen) 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 offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the accused being that the accused was innocent and he happened to have killed Dimbeswari, while in the state of insanity. The defence also adduced evidence by examining 3 (three) witnesses. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offences, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences, which have been passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have been examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 1 being herself one of the injured. 8. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 (Tulsi Newar), on the day of the occurrence, at about 5.25 PM, while she and her sister, Dimbeswari Das, were walking on the road, accused Adhar Ch. Ray came and gave a blow, by means of Trishul, on her back and she sustained injuries and, thereafter, the accused gave blows by means of Trishul on Dimbeswari's chest and, as a result thereof, Dimbeswari Das sustained injuries, she was taken to hospital, but the doctor declared her dead. 9. Ray came and gave a blow, by means of Trishul, on her back and she sustained injuries and, thereafter, the accused gave blows by means of Trishul on Dimbeswari's chest and, as a result thereof, Dimbeswari Das sustained injuries, she was taken to hospital, but the doctor declared her dead. 9. Broadly in tune with the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 (Lakhi Chetry) has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 5.25 PM, while she got down from a bus, she saw P.W. 1 and Dimbeswari Das (since deceased) going on foot by the road and accused giving a blow, by means of a Trishul, on P.W. 1, and, thereafter, he assaulted Dimbeswari too. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that P.W. 1 sustained injuries on her shoulder and her back and Dimbeswari sustained injuries on her chest. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 2 that people gathered and took Dimbeswari and Tulsi to the hospital, but Dimbeswari died. 10. Lending support to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, P.W. 5 (Hira Lal Sarma) has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 5.00/5.30 PM, while he was proceeding on the road towards Choraikhola Chariali, he noticed that Dimbeswari Das and Tulsi Newar were proceeding on the road and while he was behind them, accused came armed with two Trishuls and gave blows with the same on P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 shouted to save her, but, thereafter, the accused gave blows, by means of the said Trishul, on Dimbeswari, who fell down on the ground, villagers came and caught hold of the accused. It is in the evidence of P.W. 5 that Dimbeswari was taken to hospital, but she was declared dead and police seized, at the house of accused Adhar, in his presence, two Trishuls from the Siva-Temple situated in the campus of the house of the accused, Ext. 5 being the seizure list, in this regard, and Ext. 5(2) is his signature. 11. Though P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have been put to cross-examination by the defence, nothing could be elicited by the defence from their cross-examination to show that what they had deposed was untrue or unreliable. 12. 5 being the seizure list, in this regard, and Ext. 5(2) is his signature. 11. Though P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 have been put to cross-examination by the defence, nothing could be elicited by the defence from their cross-examination to show that what they had deposed was untrue or unreliable. 12. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, describing the occurrence of assault by the accused-appellant on P.W. 1 and Dimbeswari, remained unshaken. 13. Bearing in mind what we have indicated above, when we turn to the evidence of P.W. 3, we notice that according to his evidence, on the day of occurrence, at about 5.30 PM, he happened to come across, on the road, Dimbeswari and Tulsi and, after he had gone a little ahead of them, he heard hue and cry raised behind him and, when he looked back, he found Dimbeswari lying on the road and people having apprehended accused Adhar and snatching away a Trishul from the hands of the accused. This witness also noticed some blood stains on the Trishul. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that the family members of the accused took the accused away and Dimbeswari was taken to hospital, but she was declared dead. 14. Close on the heels of the evidence of the P.W. 3, P.W. 4 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 5.30 PM, he was in the pan-shop of his elder sister and, on hearing hullah, when he came out of the shop, he saw Dimbeswari lying on the side of the road, in injured condition, and he accompanied the injured to the hospital, but the doctor declared her dead. 15. P.W. 4 has deposed that when he went, along with the police to the house of the accused, the police arrested the accused and took him to the Police Station and after interrogating the accused, police came back to the house of the accused and seized two Trishuls from the Siva Temple, situated within the campus of the house of the accused, Ext. 5 being the seizure list, in this regard, and Ext. 5(1) being his signature. 16. Though P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were cross-examined by the defence, the material aspects of the evidence, given by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, remained unshaken. 5 being the seizure list, in this regard, and Ext. 5(1) being his signature. 16. Though P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were cross-examined by the defence, the material aspects of the evidence, given by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, remained unshaken. When their evidence is examined and considered in the light of the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, it leaves no room for doubt that the accused-appellant had assaulted, first, Tulshi (P.W. 1), by means of Trishul, on her back and, after she fell down, the accused assaulted, by means of Trishul, Dimbeswari, who got seriously injured and the people, who had witnessed the occurrence, apprehended the accused and though Dimbeswari was taken to hospital, she was declared dead. 17. Coming to the evidence of doctor (P.W. 9), we notice that, according to his evidence, he examined Tulsi (P.W. 1), on 09.11.2005 (i.e., on the day of the occurrence) at the R.N.B. Civil Hospital and found the following injuries: One oblique scratch over aspect of dorsal surface of right wrist. One penetrating injury in the back over medial aspect of right specula. One penetrating injury over right shoulder over lateral aspect. Tenderness over nape of the back. Nature on injury- simple, caused by blunt weapon. 18. The other doctor (P.W. 14), who had, admittedly, conducted post mortem examination, on 10.11.2005, on the dead body of Dimbeswary Das, found as follows: Cut mark measuring 3 1/2 x 1/2 inch on the left side shoulder in anterior medical aspect. There is another cut injury on the left waist measuring 1/2 x 1/2 inch. There are two stabbing like wound measuring 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch each on the abdomen 4 inch below the right nipple and 5 inch below the left nipple. A metallic probe entered through abdomen and passed up to depth about 5 inches posterior aspect. Rigor mortis present. Another piercing wound in the middle of the abdomen and the piercing wound are three in number. 19. The doctor (P.W. 14) has opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage following multiple injuries sustained by Dimbeswari including injuries on her stomach, large and small intestine by trident-like metallic object and the injuries were ante mortem in nature. 20. 19. The doctor (P.W. 14) has opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage following multiple injuries sustained by Dimbeswari including injuries on her stomach, large and small intestine by trident-like metallic object and the injuries were ante mortem in nature. 20. From the evidence that we have discussed above, there is no escape from the conclusion that Dimbeswari sustained more than one injury and died as a result of the injuries, which she had sustained on her small and large intestine by trident-like metallic object. It may be noted that a trishul has three sharp and pointed edges and, if one is given a blow by means of a trishul, the blow may result into more than one injury. It is also worthy to notice that the other end of trishul has blunt edge and can cause such an injury, which can be caused by a blunt object. No wonder, therefore, that the medical evidence on record reveals multiple injuries having been sustained by Dimbeswari. Considered in the light of the ocular evidence coupled with the medical evidence on record, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the accused-appellant was the one, who had injured Tulshi and also injured and caused death of Tulshi's sister, Dimbeswari. 21. Conscious of the fact that the evidence on record has cemented the case of the prosecution proving that the accused-appellant was the person responsible for the death of Dimbeswari. The defence, as we have already indicated above, has adduced evidence by examining 3 (three) witnesses in support of their plea of insanity of the accused. In this regard, it needs be noted that, while the prosecution witnesses were being examined, it was not even suggested to them that the accused-appellant was, at the relevant point of time, insane or of unsound mind or was unable to understand the consequences of his act. It is from this perspective that the evidence adduced by the defence needs to be analysed. 22. As far as D.W. 1 is concerned, who is a neighbour of the accused-appellant and who knows the accused-appellant since his childhood, has deposed that the accused, who has two sons and three daughters, used to be, occasionally, insane and, at the time of the occurrence, the accused owned a tea stall at Charaikhola Chariali. 23. 22. As far as D.W. 1 is concerned, who is a neighbour of the accused-appellant and who knows the accused-appellant since his childhood, has deposed that the accused, who has two sons and three daughters, used to be, occasionally, insane and, at the time of the occurrence, the accused owned a tea stall at Charaikhola Chariali. 23. From the evidence of D.W. 1, it is not at all discernible if the accused-appellant was insane at the time of the alleged occurrence. Far from this, the evidence of D.W. 1 shows that the accused had, at the relevant time of the occurrence, a tea stall at Charaikhola. 24. The impression that the evidence of D.W. 1 does not help the case of the defence is also clear from the fact that he has deposed, in his cross-examination, that he was not present, at his house, on the day of the occurrence and he has also stated, in his cross-examination, that the accused was never treated for his insanity. 25. So far as D.W. 2 is concerned, who, too, happens to be a neighbour and a friend of the accused-appellant. His evidence is that he managed to obtain a loan for the accused-appellant and the accused started a tea stall at Charaikhola market and, though the tea stall was a small one, it gradually grew bigger and that, on the day of the occurrence, he (D.W. 2) was at Siliguri and received information from his wife, over telephone, that the accused had committed murder. It is also noteworthy that though D.W. 2 has claimed that the accused used to become, occasionally, insane for about 5 years before the occurrence, D.W. 2 has admitted that he took the accused on bail and while applying for bail, he had not stated that the accused was an insane person. It also surfaces from the evidence of D.W. 2 that the accused was handed over by him to the Court after about 9 months, because the behaviour of the accused was like an abnormal person. The evidence on record reveals that, on being so produced, the Court got the accused examined medically and the Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry, at the Gauhati Medical College, opined that the accused had been suffering from nervous disorder. The evidence on record reveals that, on being so produced, the Court got the accused examined medically and the Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry, at the Gauhati Medical College, opined that the accused had been suffering from nervous disorder. We find that the learned trial Court correctly pointed out that nervous disorder is a neurological problem and cannot be regarded as insanity. Thus, the evidence of D.W. 2 does not, same as the evidence of D.W. 1, help the accused in advancing his case of insanity. 26. Coming to the evidence of D.W. 3, who is son of the accused, we notice that, according to him, his father had a tea stall and, about 1 1/2 years back, something went wrong with his father and he started abusing people, he was taken to a kabiraj and that though his father had been missing from the house, the police was not informed. It is also important to note that the kabiraj, who is claimed to have treated the accused-appellant, was not examined at the trial. 27. D.W. 3 has also deposed that he was not present in his house on the day of the occurrence and that when he returned home, he found that his father had been tied up by the people. Curiously enough, D.W. 3 has not claimed that he told any of his co-villagers that his father was insane or had been under treatment for unsoundness of mind. 28. Situated thus, the learned trial Court was wholly justified in not relying upon the evidence adduced by the defence in support of the fact that the accused-appellant had been suffering from insanity at the time of the alleged occurrence. When the plea of insanity, which the accused-appellant had taken, is ruled out as unbelievable, it logically follows and that the evidence, which the prosecution has adduced, proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused-appellant had assaulted Tulsi and injured her and that the accused-appellant had also assaulted Dimbeswari and caused her death. The weapon, used by the accused-appellant, is a trishul? which is, undoubtedly, a deadly weapon? The weapon, used by the accused-appellant, is a trishul? which is, undoubtedly, a deadly weapon? the force, with which the blows by the trishul were given and the vital part of the body, where the blows were given, leaves us with no room for doubt that the accused-appellant intended to cause death of Dimbeswari and he did succeed in causing the death of Dimbeswari Das and committed thereby the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 29. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not notice anything, which can make us hold that the finding of guilt, which the learned trial Court has arrived at against the accused-appellant, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. The conviction of the accused-appellant does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 30. As far as the sentences, passed against the accused-appellant are concerned, though we find that the sentence, which has been passed against the accused-appellant for his assault on Tulsi (P.W. 1), is slightly excess in nature, considering the fact that the sentences, so passed, have been made to run concurrently with the imprisonment for life, which the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo in consequence of his conviction under Section 302 IPC, we are of the view that even the sentences, passed against the accused-appellant do not require any interference. 31. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 32. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to this Court in this case. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed