JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae, for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumder, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred against the judgment & order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 182(S-C) 2008, convicting the accused Anil Gowalla under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months more. 3. The accused faced the trial, from behind the bar and has also preferred the appeal from inside the jail and accordingly, the appeal was registered. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that, one Sri Chamru Garh lodged an ejahar before the O/C Borhat Police Station that the appellant intentionally caused death of Anil Garh on 15.09.2008 at about 9.00 p.m. At about 9 p.m. when deceased Anil Garh was returning home through Lakhmijan Tea Garden after loading of green tea leaves in the vehicle. On that day, prior to occurrence, an altercation took place between the deceased Anil Garh and accused Anil Gowalla on a simple matter. The appellant dealt Khukuri blows on the abdomen and other parts of the body of Anil Garh and, as a result of the injuries, the victim succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the ejahar, a case was registered as Borhat Police Station Case No.55/08 under Section 302, IPC. The Investigating Police Officer visited the place of occurrence and made an inquest on the dead body of Anil Garh and send the dead body for post-mortem examination to Sivasagar Civil Hospital. The investigating officer recorded statement of the witnesses and also seized the weapon of assault i.e. Dao on being produced by the accused which was concealed in his dwelling house. A sketch map was also drawn of the place of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing death of Anil Garh. 4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and charge was framed under Section 302, IPC and the same on being explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing death of Anil Garh. 4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and charge was framed under Section 302, IPC and the same on being explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side examined as many as 13 witnesses whereas the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge find and hold the accused guilty under Section 302, IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. That being aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Court has failed to appreciate the matters on record as per prescribed procedure and has convicted the accused appellant in spite of having several infirmities in the prosecution case. It has been prayed to set aside the judgment. 6. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. R.M. Choudhury who has led the Court through the evidence of material witnesses i.e. evidence of P.Ws.3, 7 and 13 and has pointed out that though the lower Court has relied upon their evidence for basing conviction, but there are material contradictions in their evidence coupled with the fact that the material witness referred by this witness P.Ws. 13 has not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.7 cannot be relied upon which is not again corroborated by the P.W.13. In view of material contradiction among the star witnesses of the occurrence, it is submitted that their evidence is not at all reliable. Further contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the circumstances so referred into is also insufficient to embrace the accused with the offence charged. The prosecution relied upon the so-called extra judicial confession made by the accused to the witnesses P.W. 7 and P.W.13 but according to the learned Counsel for the appellant the same is not at all convincing and reliable which also lacks corroboration. Thus, it has been contended that conviction of the accused on the basis of such shaky and inconsistent evidence is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State Mr. Thus, it has been contended that conviction of the accused on the basis of such shaky and inconsistent evidence is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State Mr. K.A. Mazumdar has urged this Court to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 along with the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W.13 which will clear the picture that it is the accused for having quarrel prior to the incident on the same very day might have killed the deceased. It has been pointed out that on the fateful day, at about one hour ago of the occurrence, the accused was found quarrelling with the deceased as the deceased teased him on some simple matter then the P.W.2 intervened and separated the accused from the deceased and, thereafter, he went to his own house. After few while he got the information that somebody had killed Anil Garh on the road of the Lakhijan Bagan. So, according to the learned counsel for the State, because of such quarrel, the accused might have persuaded the accused to commit the offence. It is also contended that the extra-judicial confession made individually to the witnesses P.W. 7 and P.W. 13 cannot be discarded for the reason assigned by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and also gone through the evidence on record. It is to be noted that the prosecution has relied upon the extra-judicial confession so made by the accused person and other circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. On brief look at the evidence on record, we find that the P.W.2 is the person who has narrated about the facts that on the day of occurrence while returning from market he found the accused and the deceased having altercation on the point that the deceased teased the accused and then P.W. 2 separated them and returned home. On the same very day, the P.W. 2 heard after few hours that Anil Garh has been killed by somebody. On the other hand P.W. 3 Ramesh Garh, P.W. 4 Kul Bahadur Thapa found the deceased Anil Garh with pool of blood on the road leading to Lakhijan Garden. P.W. 5 heard about such finding of dead body, but nobody could say about the assailant. On the other hand P.W. 3 Ramesh Garh, P.W. 4 Kul Bahadur Thapa found the deceased Anil Garh with pool of blood on the road leading to Lakhijan Garden. P.W. 5 heard about such finding of dead body, but nobody could say about the assailant. On being informed about the incident, the father of the deceased Shri Samru Garh simply lodged the FIR vide Ext.3, but admittedly he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and do not know who killed his son Anil Garh. Similarly, P.Ws. 8 to 11 are also not the eye witness to the occurrence nor they have any knowledge about the occurrence. P.W. 9 to P.W. 11 has signed the seizure list Ext.4 when the police seized the Khukri vide M. Ext. 1 from the house of the accused appellant. P.W. 12 is the I.O. who conducted the investigation and has stated about recovery of dead body from the Lakhijan Garden road and also about recovery of Dao from the house of the accused as shown by the accused and he prepared the Ext. 4, the seizure list accordingly. However, he has not send the seized article for chemical examination as there was no blood stain on the dao. 9. Now we are left with the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 13, which are crucial for prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 7 is reproduced below : The occurrence took place about 8/9 months ago, at about 9 o clock in the evening, of the day of occurrence. When, I Shri Vadaria Garh and Robin Garaik were walking on the road of the labour line of Sundarpur T.E., the accused Anil Gowala reported us that he had killed a man in Lakhijan T.E. At that time, the accused was wielding with a khukri like sharp cutting weapon. We all apprehended him at once and tied him with a rope and took him to the Borhat P.S. We handed over him to the police of Borhat P.S. At the time, when we apprehended the accused, he handed over the khukri like sharp cutting weapon, which he used in the commission of the crime, to his sister. I forgot the name of the said younger sister of the accused. On the following day, the police, accompanied by the accused, came to his house and seized the weapon of assault. I forgot the name of the said younger sister of the accused. On the following day, the police, accompanied by the accused, came to his house and seized the weapon of assault. At that time, I was away at my work site in the Sundarpur T.E. Later on, I heard that the accused killed one Anil Garh. 10. According to P.W.13, Bhadaria Garh (evidence is in vernacular so the same could not be reproduced) on the day of occurrence at about 8 p.m. while he was on road at the Garden Line along with one Amit Orang, then accused came there and washed his feet at the tube well, then he also went to the tube well and at that time the accused told him that he has killed a person in the Lakhijan Bagan and at that time he had a long knife in his hand. Then he along with Amit and local people caught hold the accused and took him to the police station. On the way to the police station, the accused kept the weapon in his house which was later on seized by the police through Ext. 4. Later on he came to know that the accused has killed Anil Garh. 11. On appreciation of the evidence these two vital witnesses, it is found that their evidence do not tally as regard the name of witnesses referred into. According to P.W. 7, Shri Bhadri (P.W.13) was with him at the time of occurrence and one another Robin Gariak at the time when the accused confessed about the occurrence. But, the said Robin Gariak (P.W. 8) has denied to have any knowledge about the occurrence, not to speak of his presence along with P.W.7 and P.W. 13. The said witness P.W. 8 was not declared hostile by the prosecution, though there are scope for declaring him as a hostile witness in view of the statement made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. However, for this reason alone we cannot propose to discard the evidence of the other witness P.W. 7. Now, facts reveal that P.W. 7 also referred about the presence of P.W. 13 along with him at the time of occurrence when the accused made the confession which is also admitted by P.W.13 that the accused made a confession to him while he was present along with one Amit Orang. Now, facts reveal that P.W. 7 also referred about the presence of P.W. 13 along with him at the time of occurrence when the accused made the confession which is also admitted by P.W.13 that the accused made a confession to him while he was present along with one Amit Orang. But, there is nothing to show that P.W. 7 and Amit Orang is the same person. Neither the prosecution nor the defence tried to elicit anything to assert the same. On the other hand, P.W. 13 has also given a similar statement that the accused made a voluntary confession to him while he met him near the road. There is nothing to discredit either of the evidence of P.W.7 or P.W.13 and if individually their evidence is accepted, then it would remain that accused made confession before both these witnesses and it was almost immediately after the occurrence. The discrepancy as mentioned above may occur in the evidence of such witnesses who were illiterate persons and their memory may not act properly. It may also so happen that the P.W.7 and Amit Orang may be the same person but the same has not been brought properly into his mouth. However, conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W s.7 and 13, it would reflect that both of them have claimed that the accused made a confession to them and they are not at all inimical to the accused person for his false implication with the offence. The mere fact that there is some minor discrepancy and inconsistency as appeared in the evidence is not destructive of the credibility of the evidence. 12. The facts stated by P.W. 13 that police seized the dao from the house of the accused after the occurrence which the accused kept in his house is supported by the evidence of the I.O. That apart, the extra-judicial confession made by the accused coupled with the factum of incident as narrated by P.W. 2 who had the seen the quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to the occurrence can definitely lead to the fact that the accused has taken the revenge upon the deceased after the incident by inflicting serious cut blow upon the deceased resulting into his death. The learned Court below has also appreciated the aspect about value of extra-judicial confession to base conviction. 13. As we found that the Medical Officer Dr. The learned Court below has also appreciated the aspect about value of extra-judicial confession to base conviction. 13. As we found that the Medical Officer Dr. Nirmal Chutia has also found several deep cut injury on the person of the deceased as mentioned below : Injuries: 1. A deep cut mark on the nape of the neck deep to the bone, below the right ear of the size 3 cm. x 2 cm. 2. A deep cut mark on the right arm with division of muscles and vessels of the size 4 cm. x 3 cm. 3. A cut injury at the lower part of the chest with division of ribs of the size 3 cm. in length. 4. Deep cut mark on both the elbows. 5. A deep cut mark at the lower part of the right leg. More detailed description of injuries or diseases: As described above, there were multiple incised wounds on the dead body. The wounds were deep enough with division of large blood vessels. The wounds were ante-mortem in nature. Opinion : In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the cut injuries sustained by the injured. The injuries are homicidal in nature and they are sufficient to cause death of a person and caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 14. Regarding extra-judicial confession, principles of law has set forth by the Hon’ble Apex Court in different pronouncements and some of which can be referred into for the purpose of this case to appreciate the evidence on record. In (2012) 6 SCC 403 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2435 ) (Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu), the principles of extra-judicial confession has been reiterated in para -16 of the judgment, as follows:- 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession as admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 15. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility of evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3601 ) has held in para 19 as follows :- 19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The Court further expressed the view that: Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, nor even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. 16. In view of the above proposition, there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis for conviction and the only fact that the Court has to be guided by the above principles pronounced by the Apex Court. 16. In view of the above proposition, there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis for conviction and the only fact that the Court has to be guided by the above principles pronounced by the Apex Court. Keeping in mind the above principles, if we turn to the case in hand, we find that the confession made by the accused appellant before P.W.s 3 and 7 are in no way biased to the accused nor they have any inimical relation with the accused so as to give a false statement against the accused. As we found the accused made a voluntary statement before the witnesses without being provoked by any other situation, he was in a fit state of mind. The other facts, as stated by other witnesses that the dead body of Anil Garh was found at the place where the accused admitted to have commit the offence to P.W. 7 and P.W.13, the recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused are another circumstances indicating the involvement of the accused. In view of such matters on record, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the accused on the basis of extra-judicial confession relied by the prosecution is wholly justified and, as such, the order of conviction and sentence is maintainable. 17. Accordingly, we are of the firm view that the accused has rightly been held guilty under Section 302, IPC and conviction and sentence so awarded is hereby upheld. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. 18. Before parting with the case record, we appreciate the assistance rendered to the Court by Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae and we direct the Gauhati High Court Legal Aid Cell to remunerate him to the extent of Rs.7,000/-. 19. Return the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.