JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 07.07.2008, passed, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2007, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, convicting the accused-appellant, Sarju Teli, under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: (i) On 22.03.2007, at about 6 PM, deceased Biplab Dey @ Dabloo Dey, in the company of accused Sarju Teli, went, in completely drunken state, to the house of Petra Karmakar and left the said house after some time and, on that very night, Dabloo Dey's dead body was found lying on the village path. (ii) On the night of the occurrence itself, at about 7.30 PM, the accused came to the house of Babu Karmakar (P.W. 1), son of the said Petra Karmakar, who is also father of Rupa Karmakar (P.W. 7) and told him (P.W. 1) that he (accused) had killed Dabloo Dey at his (Babu Karmakar's) native house. (iii) On being so informed, P.W. 1 went to his native house, and found Dabloo lying on the road, but at that time, Dabloo was alive, though he had injured on his head, which was bleeding, whereupon P.W. 1 went to the VDP Secretary, Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4), and told him about the occurrence. Mohon Gogoi (P.W. 4) accordingly went to the place, where Dabloo was found lying dead, and, then, Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4) informed, over telephone, the police, at Milan Nagar Police Outpost, that one Sarju Teli had committed murder of Dabloo Dey by assaulting him with an iron rod. (iv) A General Diary Entry (in short, "GD Entry") being No. 475, dated 23.03.2007, was made, in this regard, and acting upon the GD Entry, so made, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), who was the Officer-in-Charge of Milan Nagar Police Outpost, came to the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body and seized one iron rod, which was found lying near the place of occurrence. While the Investigating Officer was returning to his outpost, he saw the accused coming towards the outpost and arrested him. While the Investigating Officer was returning to his outpost, he saw the accused coming towards the outpost and arrested him. (v) On the following day (i.e., on 23.03.2007), Dabloo Dey's father, Sabtosh Dey, lodged a written Ejahar, at Milan Nagar Police Outpost, alleging to the effect that accused, Sarju Teli, had killed his (informant's) son, Dabloo Dey, by assaulting him with an iron rod. (vi) Treating the said written Ejahar (Ext. 3) as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 115/2007, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the accused, Sarju Teli, and, on completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the accused, Sarju Teli, under Sections 302 IPC. 2. At the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, framed against him, under Section 302 IPC. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 9 (nine) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. However, while denying his involvement in the assault on, and killing of, Dabloo Dey, the accused admitted that he did go to Babu Karmakar (P.W. 1) and informed him (P.W. 1) that Dabloo was lying dead. In this regard, the accused further stated, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had stated before P.W. 1 that people were suspecting him (accused) to be involved in the killing of Dabloo Dey. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which was passed against him, the accused, Sarju Teli, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. B. Nath, learned amicus curiae, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that P.W. 9 was the doctor, who had, admittedly, conducted post-mortem examination, on 23.03.2007, on the dead body of Dabloo Dey and found as follows: On 23rd March, 2007, I was on duty as demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicines, AMCH, Dibrugarh. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that P.W. 9 was the doctor, who had, admittedly, conducted post-mortem examination, on 23.03.2007, on the dead body of Dabloo Dey and found as follows: On 23rd March, 2007, I was on duty as demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicines, AMCH, Dibrugarh. On that day, I performed PM on the dead body of Dabloo Dey on being identified by constable No. 614-Tilendra Nath Das and found as follows:-- External appearance-- One male dead body of average built, dark brown complexion, covered by a white clothe with one bamboo wearing one full shirt, one high neck sporting, one long-pant, one ganjee, one underwear, blood stain present around the face and upper part of the body. Anus, penis and scrotum all are healthy. Injuries-- 1. Incised wound of size 2 cm X 1/2 cm present on right angle of right eye. 2. Abrasion of size 4 cm X 2 cm present over right face. 3. Laceration and contusion of size 2 cm X 1 cm present on the left face. 4. Laceration and contusion of size 3 cm X 1 cm present on the left frontal region. 5. Lacerated injury of size 7.5 cm X 2 cm to 6 cm X 1.5 cm present on left parietal region obliquely. 6. Abrasion of size 1.5 cm X 1/2 cm present on middle 1/3rd of left forearm dorsal aspect. Thorax-- Wall, ribs & Pleurae healthy. Larynx & trachea healthy. Both lungs were healthy. No injury detected in left lung. Pericardium healthy. Heart healthy and chambers are filled with liquid and clotted blood. Abdomen-- Wall as described. Peritoneum healthy. Mouth, pharynx, esophagus healthy. Stomach healthy, contained about 200 ml semi-digested substance having alcoholic smell. Small intestine healthy and contained digested food particles, having alcoholic smell. Large intestine healthy, contained fecal matter and gases. Scalp as described. Contusion of size 12 cm X 7 cm to 4 cm X 2 cm present all over the scalp at places. Skull depressed comminuted fracture of size 32 cm X 9 cm extending from left mastoid to the lower part of the right parietal region. Fracture of the base of the skull present longitudinally, vertebrae healthy. Membrane lacerated, subdural haemorrhage present. Brain lacerated left hemisphere, spinal cord not examined. Liver, spleen healthy. Kidneys healthy. Bladder healthy and empty. 7. Skull depressed comminuted fracture of size 32 cm X 9 cm extending from left mastoid to the lower part of the right parietal region. Fracture of the base of the skull present longitudinally, vertebrae healthy. Membrane lacerated, subdural haemorrhage present. Brain lacerated left hemisphere, spinal cord not examined. Liver, spleen healthy. Kidneys healthy. Bladder healthy and empty. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, death was instantaneous resulting from the head injury described above, the head injury having been caused by blunt force impact except injury No. 1, which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. 8. Neither the prosecution nor the defence disputed the finding of the doctor (P.W. 9) nor did they dispute the correctness of the opinion given by P.W. 9. 9. While considering, however, the medical evidence on record, it needs to be noted that a doctor's evidence is advisory in nature and though the finding of the doctor has to be given due recognition and importance by the Court, the opinion of the doctor, though relevant, is not binding on the Court. 10. Notwithstanding, therefore, the fact that the doctor (P.W. 9) has opined that the death was instantaneous resulting from the head injury, this opinion is not binding on the Court and it is, therefore, the duty of the Court to examine the correctness of the opinion, so given by the doctor, in the light of the other evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances. 11. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, we come to the evidence of P.W. 7 (Rupa Karmakar), daughter of Petra Karmakar, who had, admittedly, been visited by the accused and the deceased together, at about 6 PM, when both of them were under the complete influence of liquor. 12. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 1, we notice that according to his evidence the accused came to his rented house, at about 7.30 PM, and informed him that he (accused) had killed Dabloo at a place near the native house of P.W. 1, whereupon P.W. 1 went to his native house, at Thakurthan, and found Dabloo lying on the road and, at that time, Dabloo was alive with injury on his head, which was bleeding. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 1 that he, thereafter, went to the VDP Secretary, Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4), and informed him about the occurrence, whereupon Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4), too, came with him to the place, where Dabloo Dey was lying, and Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4), then, informed the police. 13. While considering the evidence of P.W. 1, it is of paramount importance to note that despite the fact that the evidence of P.W. 1 clearly implicated the accused-appellant in the commission of offence of murder, there was really no effective cross-examination by the defence to show that what P.W. 1 had deposed was untrue, false or unreliable. The defence merely suggested to P.W. 1 that the accused had not come to P.W. 1 nor had the accused stated anything to P.W. 1. The suggestion, so offered, was denied by the defence. The said suggestion, therefore, remained as a mere suggestion and the defence cannot derive any benefit from the cross-examination of P.W. 1. 14. Situated thus, it is clear that the evidence of P.W. 1 has remained wholly unshaken and intact. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 and/or not to give credence to his evidence, which his evidence, otherwise, deserves. 15. As far as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are concerned, their evidence is not of much use inasmuch as P.W. 2 is basically a witness to the inquest, which had been held over the dead body of Dabloo and as far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he happened to be a witness to the seizure of rod by the police. 16. When we turn to the evidence of Mohan Gogoi (P.W. 4), VDP Secretary, we notice that he has deposed that he was informed by Babu Karmakar (P.W. 1) that Dabloo had been killed and was lying on the ground, whereupon he (P.W. 4) went to the place of occurrence and found Dabloo lying on the ground with injury on his head and that he, then, informed the police about the occurrence. 17. It has been pointed out by the learned amicus curiae that though P.W. 1 claimed that he had informed P.W. 4 that the accused was the one, who had killed Dabloo, P.W. 4 does not say, in his evidence, that the name of the accused was revealed to him (P.W. 4) by P.W. 1. 18. 17. It has been pointed out by the learned amicus curiae that though P.W. 1 claimed that he had informed P.W. 4 that the accused was the one, who had killed Dabloo, P.W. 4 does not say, in his evidence, that the name of the accused was revealed to him (P.W. 4) by P.W. 1. 18. At the first blush, the submission made by the learned amicus curiae appears to have considerable force. However, when we examine, in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), the submission, so made, closely, we find that the omission, on the part of P.W. 4, to mention that he had been informed by P.W. 1 that the accused-appellant was the one, who had killed Dabloo, does not weaken the evidence of P.W. 1, which has, otherwise, remained wholly unshaken in the cross-examination and also supported by the evidence of Investigating Officer inasmuch as the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) has deposed that, on 22.03.2007, while he was at Milan Nagar Police Outpost, he received a telephonic message from P.W. 4, from Thakurthan that one Sarju Teli (i.e., the accused-appellant) had committed murder of one Dabloo by assaulting him with iron rod and, having received the telephonic message, he (P.W. 8) made an Entry, in this regard, at the said outpost and proceeded to the place of occurrence and, on reaching there, found Dabloo lying dead on the ground. 19. We may, at this stage, pause here to point out that the evidence of P.W. 8, given to the fact that, on 22.03.2007, he had received, at the said outpost, a telephonic information from P.W. 4 that one Sarju Teli (i.e., the accused-appellant) had committed murder of one Dabloo Dey by assaulting him with iron rod, went wholly unchallenged and undisputed by the defence, while the Investigation Officer was cross-examined by the defence. 20. Thus, when the evidence of P.W. 1 is considered, in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), our earlier interference, that P.W. 1 is a reliable witness, gets re-enforced. 21. 20. Thus, when the evidence of P.W. 1 is considered, in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), our earlier interference, that P.W. 1 is a reliable witness, gets re-enforced. 21. What logically follows from the above discussion is that the accused-appellant, according to the evidence on record, came, on 22.03.2007, at about 7.30 PM, to P.W. 1 and informed him that Dabloo had been killed by him (accused-appellant) near the native house of P.W. 1 and when P.W. 1 rushed towards his native house, he found Dabloo lying on the road, whereupon P.W. 1 informed P.W. 4 about the occurrence and P.W. 4, in turn, informed the police. 22. Though the Investigating Officer has claimed that he had seized an iron rod, which was found lying near the place of occurrence, and this fact is not in dispute, we must hasten to point out that except the fact, that an iron rod was found lying near the place of occurrence, there is no other cogent and convincingly assignable reason to treat the said iron rod as the weapon of offence. Neither the rod, in question, was subjected to serological examination nor was the same examined by a finger print expert to determine if the said rod bore the finger impressions of the accused-appellant or not. 23. However, even if the evidence given by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), with regard to the seizure of the iron rod, is kept excluded from the purview of our consideration, we find that the evidence on record convincingly prove that the accused-appellant had committed the murder near the native house of P.W. 1 and reported to P.W. 1, at the latter's house, that he (accused-appellant) had killed Dabloo near the native house of P.W. 1 and when P.W. 1 went near his native house, he found Dabloo lying on the ground with head injury, which was bleeding. 24. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we have no hesitation in holding that the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, was sufficient to hold the accused-appellant guilty of commission of the offence of murder punishable by Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence passed against him do not, therefore, call for interference in this appeal. 25. The conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence passed against him do not, therefore, call for interference in this appeal. 25. In the result and in the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 26. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to the Court. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed