JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 03/02/2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, passed in Sessions Case No. 29 (JN)/2007 (The State of Assam v. Chucha Varjung). By the said judgment, while convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 and 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, further R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. On the basis of the FIR that was lodged on 06/03/2006 by the PW-1 with the Officer-in-charge, Jonai P.S., Jonai P.S. Case No. 23/20-06 was registered under Section 302, 326, 307, 427 IPC. As stated in the FIR, in the morning on 06/03/2006 at about 0600 hrs., the accused appellant capturing the weapon in question from one Sunny Salathiya (LMG), started firing indiscriminately and in the process, two persons died and another sustained injury. He was over powered to other CRPF personnel. It was also stated that both the injured and the accused appellant had been sent to the Hospital. Be it stated here that the incident occurred inside a CRPF camp and the accused appellant and so also the two deceased persons and the injured were all CRPF personnel. 3. On receipt of the FIR which was preceded by GD entry on receipt of information over phone, the police swung into action and carried out investigation, on conclusion of which, submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 302/307 IPC. Charges having been framed under the said sections and the accused appellant having denied of the same, trial started, during which the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the I.O. and Medical Officer and the Ballistic expert. The injured was examined as CW-1. The accused appellant examined himself as DW-1. He was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence on record having convicted the accused appellant and sentenced as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant and have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam. The accused appellant examined himself as DW-1. He was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence on record having convicted the accused appellant and sentenced as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant and have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam. We have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the learned Court below. 5. PW-1 is the first informant, who in his deposition categorically stated about seeing the commission of the offence by the accused appellant. Although Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel representing the accused appellant has submitted that in the cross examination, the said witness having categorically stated that he was inside the room when the incident occurred, he could not have seen the alleged firing by the accused appellant, but the said statement will have to be tested in the touch-stone of the totality of the circumstances which the PW-1 vividly explained in his deposition. He in his deposition categorically stated about seeing the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the firing incident himself. According to his version, hearing the sound of gun firing in the camp, he came out from his room and saw the appellant firing in the camp. 6. PW-2 also stated in his deposition as to how the accused appellant had climbed up the stairs of the observation post so as to reach him. According to him, the accused appellant had given him a slap. Due to the resistance put by him, both fell down and thereafter there was scuffle between them. At that point of time, the particular weapon was with him. He then climbed up the Observation Morcha and took the LMG from there. Coming down, he started firing. At that point of time, the deceased had come out and the accused appellant fired at them and they got killed. 7. PW-3 in his deposition stated about the indiscriminate firing being resorted to by the accused appellant and killing the deceased. He also stated that he had retaliated and in the process resorted to counter firing from the rifle of one Rajesh Kumar. 7. PW-3 in his deposition stated about the indiscriminate firing being resorted to by the accused appellant and killing the deceased. He also stated that he had retaliated and in the process resorted to counter firing from the rifle of one Rajesh Kumar. PW-4 corroborated the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses and stated in his deposition as to how the accused appellant took recourse to indiscriminate firming, as a result of which he had also taken recourse to retaliatory measure. He was reported by PW-2 as to how the accused appellant had killed the deceased Constables. He also stated about CW-1 receiving bullet injury. 8. PW-5 in his deposition categorically stated as to how hearing the noise he had come out of his room and saw the accused holding one SLR in his hand, going up to the Observation Post. He also stated that the accused appellant came down with the LMG from the Observation Post. When one of the deceased come forward, the accused appellant fired at him and the deceased fell down on the ground. The accused also started firing on the standing vehicles. He also stated as to how the accused was apprehended thereafter and his hands and legs were tied with a rope. He could also see that the other deceased lying inside the camp. He further stated as to how the injured sustained injuries on his person due to the firing by the accused appellant. 9. PW-6 in his deposition stated about hearing the noises and somebody shouting that the accused had snatched his rifle. Coming out, he could see the accused. He could also heard shout from the accused appellant to the effect that he would kill everyone. PW-7 also stated the same story. Coming out he could see that two deceased CRPF personnel lying dead. 10. PW-8 in his deposition, narrating the injuries sustained by the deceased, stated thus :- "External Examination : Healthy stout male with rigor mortis present. Wounds :- 1. " x " circular would with blackening surrounding on the right lumber region. 2. 1" x 1" would with intestine and blood oozing out on the left side of abdomen on the flanks. On Examination of Abdomen :- Two wounds as per Column-1 are present on both flanks of abdomen. Peritoneal cavity is full of blood. Stomach - Healthy and contains food materials. 2. 1" x 1" would with intestine and blood oozing out on the left side of abdomen on the flanks. On Examination of Abdomen :- Two wounds as per Column-1 are present on both flanks of abdomen. Peritoneal cavity is full of blood. Stomach - Healthy and contains food materials. Small intestine and its contents - healthy, contains semi-digested food. Large intestine and its contents - Healthy and contains foecal matters. Cranium and spinal Canal :- Intact. Thorax : After opening the Thorax, all the organs are found to be healthy. Opinion :- In my opinion, the cause of death is due to nurogenic and haemorrhagic shock, caused by fire-arm injury and it is ante-mortm. On the same, I also performed Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of Gangaram, male, 40 years, on police requisition on being identified by UPC-89 Mr. Punaram Gogoi and found as follows :- External Appearance : 1. 3 Perforating circular wounds with surrounding tattooing of " x " sizes are present in the right axilla. 2nd and 3rd i/c (intra-canial) space of anterior chest. 2. 3 exit wounds of " x 1'2" size are present on the right back on the right scapular, 3rd and 5th intra canial space of back on right side. Abdomen - Normal. After opening Thorax - In the walls of the chest wounds as described earlier. Heavy amount of blood are present in both pleural cavities. Right and left lung - collapsed. Pericardium and heard - Healthy. Opinion : In my opinion the cause of death is due to neurogen and haemorrhagic shock caused by fire-arm injury and it is ante-mortem. Exhibit-11 and Ext-12 are the Post-Mortem Reports and Ext-11(1) and Ext 12(1) are my signatures. Ext-11(2) and Ext - 12(2) are the signatures of the Joint Director of Health Services, Dhemaji which are known to me." 11. PW-9 is the I.O. who generally stated about the investigation that was carried out. He also stated that on reaching the place of occurrence, the Police found the accused appellant tied up with rope. Injuries were also found on his person. 12. PW-10 in the Doctor, who had examined the injured Mohesh Kumar. Briefing the injuries with the opinion, he stated thus :- "On 6-3-06 I was at Assam Medical College Hospital as Prof./General and Laparoscopic Surgeon of Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh. Injuries were also found on his person. 12. PW-10 in the Doctor, who had examined the injured Mohesh Kumar. Briefing the injuries with the opinion, he stated thus :- "On 6-3-06 I was at Assam Medical College Hospital as Prof./General and Laparoscopic Surgeon of Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh. On that day, the patient-Mahesh Kumar was admitted in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh for treatment of his injuries. The following finding were found on the body of the patient :- 1. Multiple injuries following alleged assault with a fire-arm weapon. 2. Gangrenous Gall Bladder. Complications : 1. Abdomen would dehiscence. 2. Phocal Fistula. Treatment : 1. Explanatory Labarotemy, IIeal resection and end-end anastomosis, Jejunal resection and end-end anastomosis, transverse colon resection and end-end anastomosis, Cholecysteetemy on 6-3-06 (GA). 2. Interocostal chest tube (6th FICS) with water sealed drainage on 6-3-06 (GA). 3. Exploratory laparotomy and adheniolysis on 3-4-06(GA). 4. Adhesiolysis and colostomy closure on 13-7-06(GA). 5. Closure of fistula of the Transverse colon and adhesislysis on 07-09-06(GA). Remarks : Recovered. The patient was discharged on 9-10-06. I put my counter signature on the Discharge Certificate. All the injuries were mentioned in the Discharge Certificate. Exhibit-19 is the Discharge Certificate and Ext-19(1) is my signature therein." 13. PW-11 is the Ballistic expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had examined the seized arms and ammunitions and found LMG, 5'56 MM Rifle and 7'62 MM SLR marked as Ext-'A', 'B' and 'C' respectively are serviceable fire arms. It also appears that he examined 3 Nos. of fired cartridges marked as Ext - D-1, D-2 and D-3 fitted by Ext-A. Further, it is in the evidence on record of PW-11 that he also examined 3 fired by Ext-C. Ext-7 is the F.S.L. Report and Ext-17(1) is signature. 14. CW-1 is the injured, who in his deposition categorically stated as to how he was injured by the accused appellant by two rounds of firm opened by the accused appellant. He fell down and become unconscious. Bullets hit him on his belly and chest. 15. DW-1 is the accused appellant himself who stated that he was hospitalized and after release from hospital, he was arrested by the Police. He further stated that he had no enmity with PW-2. According to him, at the time of the incident, he was in the latrine and that the allegation levelled against him were false. 15. DW-1 is the accused appellant himself who stated that he was hospitalized and after release from hospital, he was arrested by the Police. He further stated that he had no enmity with PW-2. According to him, at the time of the incident, he was in the latrine and that the allegation levelled against him were false. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was a case of total denial on the part of the accused appellant. However, responding to question No. 16, his answer was, yes. Question No. 16 is reproduced below :- "Q. No. 16. Constable Mahesh Kumar whom you had caused injury by firing bullets and you were sent to Pasighat Civil Hospital for treatment. What do you have to say?" 16. Above are the evidence on the basis of which the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel representing the accused appellant submits that there being contradictions in the testimony of PWs as to whether they had seen the occurrence or not, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. She also submits that no motive having been attributed to the accused appellant for resorting to indiscriminated firing, it cannot be said to be a case of establishing the offence purportedly committed by the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. Countering the said argument, Mr. Mazumdar, learned APP, Assam submits that when the witnesses unequivocally stated in their deposition about the commission of the offence by the accused appellant, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 18. We have briefly discussed the evidence adduced by the witnesses. Although, there was thorough cross examination but no contradictions could be brought down so as to disbelieve their statements. PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have given a clear picture of the incidents and have also corroborated each other on the material particulars of the case. It is evident from their evidence that on 06/03/2006 at about 6 a.m., the accused appellant took recourse to indiscriminate firing with one LMG causing injury to the CRPF personnel of the camp. In the process, he killed 2 (two) CRPF personnel and injured another. There was retaliation and in the process he also suffered injuries. 19. PW-4 in his deposition categorically stated about resorting to counter firing for self-defence. In the process, he killed 2 (two) CRPF personnel and injured another. There was retaliation and in the process he also suffered injuries. 19. PW-4 in his deposition categorically stated about resorting to counter firing for self-defence. There being indiscriminate firing, the CRPF personnel present at the place of occurrence, naturally had to hide themselves from being caught in firing. This position cannot be made use of, so as to put forward the story that no-body had seen the occurrence. Coupled with this, the totality of the circumstances in which the accused appellant had climbed up the stairs to reach the Observation Post and taking away the LMG and thereafter taking recourse to indiscriminate firing, clearly indicate that it was the accused appellant and none else who was instrumental in killing two CRPF personnel and injuring another. 20. Above being the position, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. 21. Registry shall send down the LCR to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment and order.