1. This Criminal Appeal from jail is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 61 (B) of 2004 wherein the accused/appellant, namely Md. Moinul Hoque Mondal is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. 2. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the First Information Report lodged on 03.12.2001 (Ext.-1) is that on the said date in the morning around 9:00 a.m. when Abu Sama went to paddy filed to bring paddy to his home, because of old & previous grudge, Afazuddin, his sons Moinul Hoque Mondal and Someruddin Mondal, attacked Abu Sama from behind, inflicting dao blows on his head, neck and back, caused grievous injuries, who was declared dead when taken to the hospital. On receipt of the said F.I.R. Bijni Police Station Case No.150/2001 was registered under Section 302/307/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 238/2001. During investigation, police recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the persons who are acquainted with the facts of the case and also arrested the accused persons including the appellant, drawn sketch map of the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest on the dead body, prepared the Inquest Report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On completion of the investigation, police vide No. 59/2001 dated 29.07.2002 submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 302/341/34 of the IPC against the accused/appellant and other FIR named accused persons. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijni on 17.09.2004 committed the said G.R. Case No. 238/2001 to the learned Court of Sessions at Bongaigaon and accordingly Sessions Case No. 61(B) of 2004 was registered. 3. On 19.02.2005 the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon framed charges under Sections 302/341/34 IPC only against the charge sheeted accused persons including the present accused/appellant and when the charges were read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such the trial commenced. 4. In order to bring home the charges, against the accused/appellant, the prosecution, examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses on its behalf. The defence only cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but it did not lead any evidence. As such the trial commenced. 4. In order to bring home the charges, against the accused/appellant, the prosecution, examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses on its behalf. The defence only cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but it did not lead any evidence. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.03.2010, where he denied all the accusations, but refused to adduce any evidence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon upon appreciation of the evidence adduced, passed the judgment of conviction as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. Bandana Bhuya, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused/appellant and Ms. Shemima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 7. Learned amicus Ms. B. Bhuya on behalf of the accused appellant stated that his conviction is bad because the weapons seized, was not sent for FSL for necessary test to ascertain whether the said weapon was allegedly used in the crime. She further stated that veracity of the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed as their statement varies from one to other and on the basis of it the accused cannot be convicted. 8. On the other hand Ms. Jahan, learned public prosecutor supporting the judgment and order of conviction submitted that prosecution have placed sufficient materials to prove guilt of the accused. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and to examine the cor­rectness of the impugned Judgment and Or­der of conviction, it will be appropriate to briefly scrutinize the evidence on record. 10. PW.1, Rahmat Ali, a school teacher by profession, in his evidence stated that in the morning on the date of the incident, while he was on his way to Bijni, PW.4 called him to his house and as he proceeded to PW.4's house, he heard hue & cry about 300/400 cubits away in the paddy field. As people from the surrounding went there, he too proceeded there. On the way he saw accused Moinul was running towards his house with a dao (a large knife, a kind of cutting instrument) in his hand. On reaching the place of occurrence he found the victim Abu Sama lying with cut injuries on his head, neck and cheek. As people from the surrounding went there, he too proceeded there. On the way he saw accused Moinul was running towards his house with a dao (a large knife, a kind of cutting instrument) in his hand. On reaching the place of occurrence he found the victim Abu Sama lying with cut injuries on his head, neck and cheek. He also stated that people surrounded accused Moinul in his house, he went to Police Station, informed verbally about the incident and police came to the place of occurrence. Subsequently, he saw that villagers present in the scene tied up accused Moinul and two others. They were taken to the police station and Abu Sama was sent to the hospital and on the way he died. Police seized one dao and a gamocha (a local hand weaven towel) in his presence, prepared a seizure list (Ext.1) to which he was a witness and also stated that police in the Police Station done the inquest on the dead body of Abu Sama and as he was present there, he was also a witness to the Inquest Report (Ext.2). In cross examination, PW.1 reiterated that he saw accused Moinul came running towards his hose with a dao in his hand from a distance of 150/200 cubits, Abu Sama was grievously injured and he was unable to speak. In his re-examination on, PW.1 stated that he wrote the FIR (Ext.8) as per the statement of Khabiruddin, father of Abu Sama in the police station, read over to him and the he put his thumb impression on it. 11. PW.2, Md. Hekmat Ali, deposed that on the day of the incident he was in his residence and around 08:30/9:00 in the morning, heard hue & cry in the paddy field, went running there, found Abu Sama with cut injuries on his head, neck & back and soak with blood He stated that he did not ask him nor Abu Sama replied, then Police came, arrested the three accused including Moinul, who were detained by the local villagers and he heard that Abu Sama died on his way to hospital. He also stated police seized the dao in his presence to which he is seizure witness. Though this witness was cross examined, nothing significant could be extracted from him. 12. He also stated police seized the dao in his presence to which he is seizure witness. Though this witness was cross examined, nothing significant could be extracted from him. 12. PW.3, Kalibor Raman @ Khalilur Rahman, in his evidence deposed that he saw the dead body of Abu Sama in Bijni Police Station while police made the inquest on the dead body and he is signatory to the inquest report of Abu Sama. In cross evidence he just stated that the place of occurrence is about 3 Kms. from his house and he is not aware how Abu Sama died. 13. PW.4, Md. Maharuddin, a co-villager, in his evidence he deposed that, he saw that while Abu Sama was working in his paddy field, accused Mainul followed him and dealt a dao blow on his head and he further dealt two more successive blows o the victim. He also stated that as Abu Sama fell down, accused Moinul dealt another dao blow and left the place with the dao threatening him not to go near. He also stated that later he went to the place of occurrence with other people and villagers surrounded the accused persons and subsequently police came and took them to the police station. In cross evidence PW.4 stated that place of occurrence is about 300/400 cubits away from his house and he saw accused Moinul giving dao blow on Abu Sama from about 300/400 cubits away from the eastern side of his house with a straight dao and when he asked what is happening, accused Moinul gave another blow. 14. PW. 5, Tamser Ali, in his evidence deposed that on the date of the incident around 9:00 a.m., he went to paddy filed to ploughing his land and hearing noise and yelling he came running to his house and went to the place of occurrence and found Abu Sama lying in the ground with cut injury on his back. He stated that villagers caught hold of the accused persons and later heard that Abu Sama died. In cross evidence, PW.5 stated that he did not see who dealt with cut injuries on Abu Sama. 15. PW.6, Md. Dilbar Ali deposed that while working in his own house, around 8:30 a.m. on the date of the incident and heard noise and yelling in the eastern side of his house. In cross evidence, PW.5 stated that he did not see who dealt with cut injuries on Abu Sama. 15. PW.6, Md. Dilbar Ali deposed that while working in his own house, around 8:30 a.m. on the date of the incident and heard noise and yelling in the eastern side of his house. On reaching the place of occurrence found Abu Sama lying in the ground with injuries in his neck, head and chick and he was unable to speak. He heard from public that it is Moinul who killed him and later police arrested accused Moinul. In cross examination, PW.6 started that he did not see the incident. 16. PW. 7, Nur Hussain, deposed that Abu Sama was killed by the three accused including Moinul and on the date of occurrence accused Moinul gave dao blow on Abu Sama injuring him in his head, back, neck and noticing the incident he went ahead and villagers also came. Being injured, Abu Sama fell down. He also stated that later police arrested the accused persons. In cross evidence PW.6 he denied the suggestion that that he did not witness the accused Moinul from about 300 cubits away hacking Abu Sama with a dao. 17. PW.8, Md. Muktar Ali deposed that on the date of the incident on hearing hue & cry he went to the paddy filed, found Abu Sama lying with cut injuries. He stated that he did not see who inflicted cut injuries on Abu Sama and he noticed that Abu Sama got injuries on his head, back and cheek. Defence declined to cross examine him. 18. PW.9, Dr. Gunindra Nath Das, is the autopsy doctor who performed the post mortem examination on dead body of Abu Sama and found the following injuries - External Injury (i) One cut injury on the left side of neck, extends from the angle of the mouth to the left ear of size 6 “x 3”x 4”. (ii) A cut injury on the back of the neck, 2”x 1 ½” (iii) An oblique cut injury on the occipital region of the head 4” x 2” x 1”. Cranium and spinal cord Found cut injury with blood clot, the injury describe as ante-mortem in nature. Opinion Death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. Cranium and spinal cord Found cut injury with blood clot, the injury describe as ante-mortem in nature. Opinion Death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. In cross examination, he stated that time since death is not mentioned in the post mortem report and the said report was prepared by him and that the injuries may cause instantaneous death. 19. PW.10, Upen Kalita, Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that Abu Sama was found with severe injuries at his home and sent him to the District Primary Health Centre for treatment where he succumbed to his injuries and on very day brought the dead body to the Police Station and held inquest over it. Defence side declined to cross examine him. 20. PW.11, Mahendra Rajkhowa, Officer-in-charge of Bijni Police Station and the Investigation Officer of the case, in his evidence deposed that PW.1 Md. Rahmat Ali verbally informed him about the incident on 03.12.2001 in the morning in the Police Station that a boy named Abu Sama has been hacked by sharp weapons by co-villagers accused Moinul Hoque and two others in the paddy field and they fled away and accordingly PW.11 made GD Entry No. 57 dated 03.12.2001 (Ext.6), proceeded for investigation with other police personnel to the place of occurrence, found Abu Sama in a moribund condition and immediately sent him to Bijni State Dispensary. He also stated that on reaching the place of occurrence he had drawn the sketch map (Ext.4), seized blood stained jute rope found in the place of occurrence (Ext.5), recorded the statements of witnesses gathered in the place and all the witnesses stated that it is accused Moinul Hoque and others who committed the crime further the witnesses also disclosed to him that when the accused persons tried to flee away, local villagers caught them and tied them up. The PW.11 further stated when he asked the accused persons, they too admitted their guilt and stated that Abu Sama was hacked by a 'cidha' (straight) dao and the said dao and a 'beki' (angular) dao was seized through Exhibit-1 from the house of accused Moinul Hoque under his bed and on arriving at the Police Station, on receipt of the written FIR, registered the Bijni P.S.Case No. 150/2001 and during investigation done the inquest on the dead body of Abu Sama. In cross evidence PW.11 stated that he found that the accused persons were surrounded by local villagers in the house of an accused Asaruddin and arrested them from the said place. 21. PW.12, Md. Khabiruddin Mia, father of the deceased Abu Sama in his evidence deposed that while his son went to paddy field to work, the accused persons followed him, the accused Moinul inflicted dao blow on his neck from backside which he saw from his orchard and Abu Sama fell down, the accused persons inflicted three more dao blows. He also stated that after committing the crime, the accused persons left for their house, he went to the place of occurrence and became unconscious and in the mean while people detained the three accused. He further stated that Abu Sama died due to his injuries and on the very day of the incident he lodged the FIR through Rahamat Ali (PW.1). In cross examination, he stated that FIR was written as per his statement which was read over to him and that there is a dispute between him and the accused persons with regard to land where the incident occurred. In cross PW.12 also stated that during the incident, he was at the outside of his house, saw accused Moinul followed by other two accused and it is the accused Moinul who dealt the first blow (on Abu Salam) and then the other two accused followed him. 22. PW.13, Mstt. Dudhjan Begum, mother of the deceased, deposed that the on the day of the occurrence her son Abu Sama went to paddy field to bring paddy, then the three accused followed him with daos in their hand, accused Moinul inflicted dao blow on Abu Sama and on seeing the incident from her orchard, she ran to Abu Sama. She also stated that Abu Sama was inflicted dao blows on his head. In cross examination she stated that there is a dispute over land between the parties. 23. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.03.2010 and in his said statement he claimed to be innocent, but refused to give any evidence on its support. 24. Now the question is whether from the evidence adduced by the prosecution guilt of the accused is proved for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 25. 23. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.03.2010 and in his said statement he claimed to be innocent, but refused to give any evidence on its support. 24. Now the question is whether from the evidence adduced by the prosecution guilt of the accused is proved for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 25. It is seen from the deposition of PW.1 who is a co-villager and an independent witness to both the parties, in his deposition stated that hearing hue & cry in the paddy filed in the morning of the incident, he proceeded towards it and from a distance of about 300/400 cubits he saw the accused/appellant was running towards his house with a dao and on arriving at the place of occurrence found Abu Sama lying with cut injuries on his head, neck and cheek and that people in the meanwhile surrounded the accused in his house. 26. Similarly PW.4, another independent witness and a co-villager like PW.1 in his deposition stated that he saw that while Abu Sama was working in the paddy filed, accused/appellant followed him, dealt a dao blow on his head and successively gave two more blows on him and while he fell down the accused gave another one and thereafter the said accused left the place with the dao threatening him not to go near. In cross examination he stated that he saw the incident from a distance of about 300/400 cubits that the accused gave the dao blow on Abu Sama by a cidha dao and denied the suggestion that he did not see the incident. 27. Again PW.7, a co-villager and another independent witness, in his deposition stated that he saw that the accused/ appellant inflicted dao blows on Abu Sama and ran away from the place of occurrence. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he did not see accused Moinul inflict dao blows on the decease Abu Sama. 28. PW.12, father of the deceased in his evidence deposed that accused Moinul inflicted dao blow on the neck of Abu Sama from rare side and that he saw the incident from his orchard. In his cross evidence also he reiterated that it is accused Moinul first gave the dao blow on Abu Sama. 29. 28. PW.12, father of the deceased in his evidence deposed that accused Moinul inflicted dao blow on the neck of Abu Sama from rare side and that he saw the incident from his orchard. In his cross evidence also he reiterated that it is accused Moinul first gave the dao blow on Abu Sama. 29. PW.13, mother of the deceased also stated that she saw accused Moinul hit Abu Sama by a dao which she saw from the orchard of their house. 30. The prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 & 13 in their evidence stated that Abu Sama got cut injuries on his head, neck, back and cheek and soaked with blood. Further, PWs. 2, 4, 7, 12 & 13 saw accused Moinul leaving the place of occurrence, with a dao in his hand. The Inquest Report, the Exhibit-2 also goes to show that the deceased was inflicted with dao blows on his head, neck, back and cheek. Again the post mortem report, the Exhibit-3 clarifies that the deceased had (i) one cut injury on the left side of his that neck, extends from the angle of the mouth to the left ear of size 6 “x 3”x 4”, (ii) a cut injury on the back of his neck, of size 2”x 1 ½” and (iii) an oblique cut injury on the occipital region of his head of size 4” x 2” x 1”. All these have been corroborated by the PW.9, the autopsy doctor, in his evidence. It is seen that the defence side did not challenge the injuries found on the person of the deceased, its nature as well as the opinion of the doctor. 31. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is found that the prosecution witnesses are unequivocal in their deposition about the commission of the offence by the accused/appellant. From the ocular evidence adduced by it, the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that that because of the dao blows inflicted by the accused/appellant Moinul Hoque, Abu Sama died due to grievous injuries sustained by him, which were ante mortem in nature, causing his instantaneous death. 32. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 61 (B) of 2004. 32. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 61 (B) of 2004. Hence, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. 33. Before parting, we appreciate the service rendered by Ms. Bandana Bhuyan, learned amicus curiae, who is entitled to the hearing fee of Rs.7,500/-, payable by the Government of Assam. 34. Let the Lower Case Record be sent down along with the copy of this judgment and order.