I A. Ansari, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 3.3.2009, passed, in Sessions Case No.23 (NL) of 2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, convicting the accused-appellant, Nitul Hazarika @ Nigun, under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of rupees three thousand and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under : (i) On 25.7.2006, at about 8 p.m., Mahananda Bania was heard screaming that accused, Nitul, had assaulted him. Having heard Mahananda so screaming, when Durga Bora (PW2) went running towards his gateway, where the screams were being raised, he found Mahananda, in injured condition, at his gateway, and accused Nigun running away towards his house. PW2 (Durga Bora) chased the accused to some distance; but, on seeing the accused entering into his house, PW2 came back and, on returning to his gateway, he found Mahananda sitting, at the gateway, with blood coming out from his mouth and, then, the injured fell down. When PW2 so returned to his gateway, he found his wife, Arunima Bora (PW3) near injured Mahananda with a lamp in her hand, and Mahananda, then, told them that Nigun had injured him. On hearing Mahananda screaming, his brother, Indreswar Bania (PW1), too, went running towards the house of PW2 and found, on the gateway, Mahananda lying injured and blood coming out of his left eye. The injured was, then, taken to Dholpur hospital; but, on examining him, the doctor declared him dead. (ii) An Ejahar, in writing, was, then, lodged by PW1, at Dholpur Police Out Post, on the following day, i.e., on 26.7.2006, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that two persons (named in the said Ejahar), namely, accused Nitul @ Nigun Hazarika and Putul Bania, had waylaid Mahananda at the gateway of PW2 and stabbed him in the eye causing grievous injury and though the injured was taken to Dholpur hospital, he died. Having made GD Entry No.325, dated 26.7.2006, in this regard, PW7, who was, at the relevant point of time, in-charge of Dholpur Police Out Post, forwarded the said Ejahar, for registration of a case, to Bihpuria Police Station. Having made GD Entry No.325, dated 26.7.2006, in this regard, PW7, who was, at the relevant point of time, in-charge of Dholpur Police Out Post, forwarded the said Ejahar, for registration of a case, to Bihpuria Police Station. Based on the said Ejahar and treating the same as First Information Report ('FIR'), Bihpuria Police Station Case No. 168/2006, under sections 341/302/34, IPC, was registered against the two accused named in the said Ejahar. (iii) During investigation, the police held inquest over the said dead body and prepared inquest report. Mahananda Bania's dead body was also subjected to post mortem examination and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet, under sections 341/302, IPC, was laid against the two accused aforementioned. (iv) As accused Nitul Hazarika @ Nigun had absconded, accused Putul Bania @ Nikhani was tried alone on the charges framed under sections 341 and 302 read with section 34 IPC. To the charges, so framed, accused Putul Bania @ Nikhani pleaded not guilty and, in course of time, the trial ended in acquittal of accused Putul Bania @ Nikhani by giving him benefit of doubt. 3. Thereafter, the present accused-appellant, Nitul Hazarika @ Nigun, was apprehended and brought, for trial, before the learned court below. At the trial, so held against the present accused-appellant, when charges, under sections 341 and 302 read with section 34, IPC, were framed against accused Nitul Hazarika @ Nigun, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. Accused Nitul Hazarika @ Nigun was, then, examined under section 313, Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. 5. Having found accused Nitul Hazarika not guilty of the charge framed against him, under section 341 IPC, the learned trial court acquitted him accordingly. Having, however, come to the conclusion that accused Nitul @ Nigun Hazarika had been proved, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty of commission of offence punishable under section 302, IPC, the learned trial court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, accused Nitul @ Nigun Hazarika, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned amicus curiae, and Ms. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, accused Nitul @ Nigun Hazarika, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned amicus curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that according to the evidence of the doctor (PW8), who had, admittedly, conducted post mortem examination, on 26.7.2006, on the dead body of Mahananda Bania, it was found as follows : "One sharp penetrating wound over the inner cantus of the left eye deep into the frontal love of the brain with clotted blood in a lacerated dura underneath the subdural haematoma with fractured cribritam plate of ethmoid bone. Left lung and heart were found collapse. Blood stains discharge with clot over the skin margin of the face. Clotted blood was present in the nose and oral cavity. Other organs were found healthy." 8. It is in the evidence of the doctor (PW8) that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and, in his opinion, death was caused due to cranial cerebral injury leading to massive intracranial hemorrhage, the injury being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 9. Apart from the fact that the defence declined to cross-examine the doctor, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence of the doctor (PW8). We, therefore, see no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings given by the doctor (PW8) and/or his opinion with regard to the nature of the injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, and/or his opinion with regard to the cause of death, namely, that Mahanannda had died due to cranial cerebral injury leading to massive intracranial hemorrhage and that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 10. Bearing in mind that there was only one sharp penetrating wound over the inner cantus of the left eye deep into the frontal lobe of brain with clotted blood in a lacerated dura underneath the subdural haematoma with fractured cribriatam place of ethmoid bone, we, first, turn to the evidence of PW2 on whose gateway, Mahananda was found lying injured. 11. 11. While considering the evidence on record, it needs to be noted that PW2 (Durga Bora) has deposed that they had heard Mahananda crying out that Nigun (i.e., the accused-appellant) had assaulted him and, at that time PW2, who was cooking meals, went towards his gateway from where cries were being raised by Mahananda and found Mahananda, near the gateway, but accused Nigun was seen by him running away towards his house and though PW2 chased accused Nigun, he came back by seeing the accused entering into the house of the accused. It is in the evidence of PW2 that on returning to his .gateway, he found Mahananda sitting with blood coming out from his mouth and, then, he fell down slowly. 12. In his evidence, PW2 has also clarified that after chasing the accused, when he came back to his gate, he saw his wife (PW3) with a lamp in her hand and it was then that Mahananda told them that accused Nigun had caused him injury and that on hearing hue and cry being raised by them, Indreswar Bania (PW1) and Cheniram Bania, both of whom are brothers of the said deceased, came there and took the injured to hospital, where the injured was declared dead by the doctor. 13. So far as PW3, Arunima Bora, is concerned, her evidence, in tune with the evidence of her husband (PW2), is that she heard screams of Mahananda from their gate saying that Nigun had assaulted him and that her husband, who was cooking meals, rushed to the gateway and, a little later, when she (PW3), too, with a lamp in her hand, went towards her gateway, she saw her husband (PW2) chasing a man and the man, whom her husband was so chasing, challenged him and from the voice of the man, whom her husband had been so chasing, she recognised that it was accused Nigun. It is in the evidence of PW3 that her husband returned and in the glow of the lamp, she saw blood coming out from Mahanand's face and, on seeing the same, she raised hulla. 14. It is in the evidence of PW3 that her husband returned and in the glow of the lamp, she saw blood coming out from Mahanand's face and, on seeing the same, she raised hulla. 14. What is significant to note, in the evidence of PW3, is that according to her evidence, till before losing his power to speak, Mahananda told her and her husband that Nigun had inflicted injury on him and that by the hue and cry, which were so raised, Mahananda's brothers, Indreswar Bania (PW1) and Cheniram Bania, came and took Mahananda to hospital, where he died. 15. PW3 has categorically asserted, in her evidence, that they had no dispute with the accused and she also asserted that their relationship with the accused was cordial. 16. Except putting some suggestions to both PW2 and PW3, there was virtually no effective cross-examination of these two witnesses. Consequently, their evidence remained wholly unshaken and their unshaken evidence more than clearly prove that Mahananda, before he lost his power to speak, had clearly declared that it was Nigun, who had injured him (Mahananda). This apart, PW2 had seen the accused running away and entering into his (accused-appellant's) house and as far as PW3 is concerned, she had recognized the accused by his voice, when the accused had challenged her husband at the time, when her husband was chasing the accused-appellant. 17. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW2 and PW3, Mahanand's brother, Indreswar (PW1), has deposed that while he was at home, on the night of the occurrence, he heard Mahananda screaming that someone had assaulted him and when he went towards the place from where screams were raised, he found Mahananda lying injured at the gateway of PW2 and blood was coming out from his left eye and, on his arrival there, PW2 told him that accused Nigun had caused injury to Mahananda and, in the meanwhile, Cheniram (another brother of Mahananda), too, came there and they took the injured to hospital, where the injured was examined and declared dead and, then, an Ejahar was lodged, on the following day, which is Ext.1. 18. While considering the evidence of PW1, it needs to be noted that PW2 has corroborated the evidence of PW1 by deposing to the effect that he (PW2) had told PW1 the name of the accused, who had injured Mahananda. 18. While considering the evidence of PW1, it needs to be noted that PW2 has corroborated the evidence of PW1 by deposing to the effect that he (PW2) had told PW1 the name of the accused, who had injured Mahananda. In fact, PW3 has also clarified, in her evidence, that he had not seen anyone except Mahananda and accused Nigun at the place, where he found Mahananda. 19. Notwithstanding the cross-examination to which PW1 was put to, his evidence, same as the evidence of PW2 and PW3, remained unshaken on all material aspects and except some suggestions, which were put to them, the defence did nothing, though the suggestions were denied by the witnesses concerned. 20. So far as PW4, PW5 and PW6 are concerned, their evidence merely show that on hearing hue and cry, they went near the house of PW2 and saw Mahananda in injured condition. 21. From the evidence, which we have already discussed above, what clearly transpires is that Mahananda had sustained one injury, which resulted into his death, and that the injured had told PW2 and PW3 that Nigun, (i.e., the accused-appellant), had told PW2 and PW3 that Nigun had assaulted and injured him. This apart, PW2 had seen the accused-appellant running away and though PW2 had chased the accused-appellant, the accused-appellant ran away to his house and the fact that it was the accused-appellant, Nigun, who had been chased by her husband, stands confirmed by PW3 inasmuch as the evidence of PW3 is that the person, whom her husband was seen chasing, had challenged her husband and from the voice of that person, she could recognize that the voice was that of accused Nigun. 22. We may hasten to add, at this stage, that the Investigating Officer's evidence shows that during investigation, accused-appellant was also found absconding. As this piece of evidence, given by the Investigating Officer, has been denied and disputed by the defence, we find that even if the evidence, given by the Investigating Officer, that the accused-appellant, Nigun, had been absconding, is kept out of the purview of our consideration, the remaining evidence on record more than amply prove the accused-appellant as the assailant of Mahananda. 23. 23. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we are wholly convinced that the evidence on record clearly prove that it was the accused-appellant, who had assaulted and injured Mahananda resulting into his death. We do not find, therefore, that the conviction of the accused-appellant suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. 24. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 25. Send back the LCR. 26. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs.5,000 for his valuable assistance rendered to the court.