JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 11.11.2010, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 167/2007 convicting the appellants of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months for the offence aforesaid. I have heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for accused/appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused persons) as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short, are that on 05.04.2007, one Sohrab Ahmed lodged an FIR with the Officer In-charge of Borbari Police Out Post alleging inter alia that on that day, at about 2:10 pm, the deceased Dr. Niaz Ahmed sent Israil Khan (PW 2) along with one Akshaylal Yadav (PW 3) to measure a plot of land, situated near Shistry Hospital, Paltanbazar, Dibrugarh. Such land belongs to Dr. Niaz Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as victim) and accused persons were residing on such land. On their arrival at such land, PW 2 and PW 3 started measuring the aforesaid land. However, accused persons prevented them from measuring such land. 3. It has also been stated that, accused persons had constructed a kaccha latrine in the land aforesaid and on being informed Dr. Niaz Ahmed immediately went to such place and asked accused persons not to construct the kaccha latrine on his land. Immediately thereafter, accused persons, namely, Sri Firoz Khan (A 1) along with, Sri Rajib Khan (A 2), Sri Bhaijan Khan (A 3), Smti Naju Khatoon (A 4), Smti Julie Khatoon (A 5), Smti Sabila Begum (A 6) and Sri Nazamul Ahmed (A 7) armed with various weapons assaulted the victim and PW 2 inflicting serious injuries on their persons. They were without any delay taken to the nearby Shistry hospital. Since the victim could not be treated at Shistry Hospital, he was taken to Aditya Hospital where the victim died while undergoing treatment. 4. An FIR was lodged with police while Dr. Niaz Ahmed was undergoing treatment. They were without any delay taken to the nearby Shistry hospital. Since the victim could not be treated at Shistry Hospital, he was taken to Aditya Hospital where the victim died while undergoing treatment. 4. An FIR was lodged with police while Dr. Niaz Ahmed was undergoing treatment. On receipt of the FIR, I/C Borbari Police Out Post made a GD Entry and forwarded the same to the Officer In-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station (in short PS) for registering a case and for doing the needful in accordance with law. On receipt of the FIR, O.C. Dibrugarh PS registered a case vide Dibrugarh PS Case No. 133/2007 under Section 325/326/34 IPC and O/C, Sri J.T. Baruah himself took up the investigation. 5. During the course of investigation, Sri Baruah came to the place of occurrence, conducted autopsy on the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses and did other things needful and on conclusion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against accused persons and forwarded them to the Court to face trial for the offence aforementioned. 6. When the charge sheet was so laid before the concerned Magistrate, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions since offence under Section 302/34 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, for disposal in accordance with law. 7. On receipt of the case on transfer, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh, and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to frame charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused persons. The charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses including the Investigating Officer (in short, IO) and the Medical Officer (in short, MO), who conducted autopsy over the dead body. 8. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Their pleas were of total denial. However, on being required, they declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Addl. 8. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Their pleas were of total denial. However, on being required, they declined to adduce any evidence in their defence. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions judge (FTC), Dibrugarh found accused persons guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this present appeal. 9. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants vehemently submits that the judgment under challenge is unsustainable in law since the prosecution could not make out the charges, leveled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt as required under the law. In this connection, it has been pointed out that Shri Israil Khan (PW 2) and Sri Dulab Saikia (PW 8) were reported to be eye witnesses. However, an in-depth scrutiny of their testimonies shows that they were not the eye witnesses since their testimonies belie such a claim. 10. In support of such contention, it has been contended that though PW1 claims that on the fateful day, all the accused persons came to the place of occurrence armed with various weapons, he could not describe specifically the roles, being played by each of the accused persons in inflicting the wounds on injured persons, more particularly, on Dr. Niaz Ahmed The inability of PW 2 to describe the roles, played in assaulting the persons aforesaid in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, raises a serious doubt about the veracity of the claim of PW 2 that he saw the incident under consideration. 11. According to learned counsel for appellants, PW 2 claims that he was also assaulted by accused Sabila Begum and others with various weapons. Once again, he could not explain the part played by each of those accused persons in assaulting him. This is another reason why the evidence of PW 2 needs to be viewed with enormous suspicion. 12. Learned counsel further submits that soon after the incident, PW 2 saw accused Firoz and Bhaijan fleeing the scene by boarding in the vehicles driven by accused Nazmul Ahmed. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see those accused persons fleeing the scene. 12. Learned counsel further submits that soon after the incident, PW 2 saw accused Firoz and Bhaijan fleeing the scene by boarding in the vehicles driven by accused Nazmul Ahmed. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see those accused persons fleeing the scene. In his cross examination, he also admitted that he did not witness who drove the aforesaid vehicle. Such inconsistencies in the evidence of PW 2 make the evidence, rendered by PW 2 more and more suspicious. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that in his evidence, PW 2 speaks about something which he never divulged to the I/O during investigation. Nondisclosure of such vital information to the I/O during investigation rendered the testimony of PW 2 unreliable since such infirmities caused his evidence to suffer from vice which is commonly known as contradiction as contemplated in Section 162 CrPC. 14. In so far the testimony of PW 8 is concerned, it has been stated that though he claims that at the time of incident he was in a shop, situated very close to place of occurrence (same being the courtyard of accused persons), yet, in his evidence, the I/O very categorically claims that there was no shop in and around the place of occurrence which makes the very presence of PW 8 at the PO during the time under consideration extremely doubtful. 15. It has also been contended that testimony of PW 8 cannot be accepted as truthful for other reason as well. In that connection, it has been stated that PW 8 claims that he is a man hails from Sivasagar, about 100 miles away from the place of occurrence and possesses enough landed properties, to be precise, 40 bighas. In spite of he being a man from Sivasagar and in spite of his owning sufficient landed properties in Sivasagar, he claims to be working in a small shop at a place close to the PO, presumably under the tutelage of the deceased. Such revelation again shows that the testimony of PW 8 cannot be accepted as truthful one. 16. In spite of he being a man from Sivasagar and in spite of his owning sufficient landed properties in Sivasagar, he claims to be working in a small shop at a place close to the PO, presumably under the tutelage of the deceased. Such revelation again shows that the testimony of PW 8 cannot be accepted as truthful one. 16. Again though PW 8 claims that he was at the place of occurrence, yet, none of the witnesses examined from the prosecution side, who claims to be the witnesses to the alleged incident or part thereof, did not utter a single word about their seeing PW 8 at the place of occurrence when the incident in question was going on. This also raises a doubt about the presence of PW 8 at the place of occurrence during the time under consideration. 17. Referring to the evidence of Sri Sohrab Ahmed (PW 1), it has been stated that PW 1 seems to have tendered evidence as if he were present at the place of occurrence during the time under consideration. However, in his cross-examination, he frankly admitted that he was not the eye witness to the incident in question. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1 as well, more so, when he did not disclose person/persons from whom he came to know about incident aforesaid. 18. PW 3, Akshaylal Yadav claims to have gone to the place of occurrence, first with PW 2 in order to measure the land where accused persons reside reportedly on rental basis as being tenant of Dr. Niaz Ahmed. However, when accused Firoz Khan did not allow them to measure such land, he was sent back to Dr. Niaz to report such fact to the victim. He accordingly reported the matter to the victim and being so informed, Dr. Niaz immediately came to the PO. On his arrival at the place of occurrence second time along with Dr. Niaz Ahmed, they found none on such land. 19. However, Dr. Niaz Ahmed asked accused persons not to construct a service latrine on his land. Little thereafter, a chaos followed for which he left the place of occurrence and reported the matter to one Mehtab @ Sohrab (PW 1). In that incident, Dr. Niaz Ahmed, they found none on such land. 19. However, Dr. Niaz Ahmed asked accused persons not to construct a service latrine on his land. Little thereafter, a chaos followed for which he left the place of occurrence and reported the matter to one Mehtab @ Sohrab (PW 1). In that incident, Dr. Niaz Ahmed got severely injured for which he was immediately taken to Shristy hospital where-from he was shifted to Aastha Hospital where he died next day. However, the evidence, so rendered by PW 3, is found not in harmony with the testimonies of other PWs, more particularly, PW 2 and PW 8 which makes the evidence of all those witnesses very unreliable. 20. According to learned counsel for appellants, the prosecution has relied heavily on the evidence rendered by some other PWs, more particularly, PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 which they rendered on the point of seizure of dao on being produced by accused Rajib Ali who allegedly surrendered before the police along with a dao soon after the incident in question. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of those witnesses on the point of seizure of vehicle allegedly used by accused Firoz and Bhaijan in fleeing the scene. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the evidence, tendered by those witnesses on the point of seizure of dao and vehicle aforesaid as well as surrender of accused Rajib Ali before the police cannot be accepted since such evidence is defective so much so that there is hardly any scope for placing any reliance on the evidence of witnesses on the point of seizure of those articles as well as surrender of accused Rajib Ali before the police on 05.04.2007. 22. Apart from aforesaid infirmities, the evidence of witnesses from the side of prosecution suffers from vice which is commonly called as contradiction. Since the evidence of most of the witnesses afflicted with contradictions of serious nature, the evidence of those witnesses cannot be accepted on this ground as well. In support of such contention, or attention has been drawn to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Fazlur Rahman & Ors. Vs. The Emperor reported in 1947 CrLJ 814. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "8. In support of such contention, or attention has been drawn to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Fazlur Rahman & Ors. Vs. The Emperor reported in 1947 CrLJ 814. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- "8. In the case of Leonard Harris it was laid down that if a witness is proved to have made a statement, though unsworn, in distinct conflict with his evidence on oath, the proper direction to the jury is that his testimony is negligible and that their verdict should be found on the rest of the evidence. That was a case in which a charge of incest was not supported at the trial by the evidence of the girl, who however, had made and signed a previous statement to the police in which she had said that the accused had committed the act Cross-examined by Counsel for the prosecution, she admitted making the previous, assertion, but denied that it was true. In relation to these facts, Lord Chief Justice Hewart laid down the rule in words which it would be well always to hear in mind. "It is well established in the familiar words which are to be found, for example, in Archbold that the character of a witness for habitual veracity is an essential ingredient in his credibility; for a man who is capable of uttering a deliberate falsehood is in most cases capable of doing so under the solemn sanction of an oath. If, therefore, it appears that he has formerly said or written the contrary of that which he has now sworn (unless the reason of his having done so is satisfactorily accounted for), his evidence should not have much weight with a jury, and if he has formerly sworn the contrary the fact (although no objection to his competency, Teal, 11 East 309, 809), is almost conclusive against his credibility; in other words it was permissible to cross-examine this girl upon the assertions she had previously made, not for the purpose of substituting those unsworn assertions for her sworn testimony, but for the purpose of showing that her sworn testimony, in the light of those unsworn assertions, could not be regarded as being of importance. It is upon that matter that confusion has sometimes arisen. It is upon that matter that confusion has sometimes arisen. It has undoubtedly sometimes been thought that where a witness is cross examined upon a previous unsworn statement and admits the fact that the statement was made but says that the statement was untrue, that unsworn statement may sometimes be treated as if it could be accepted by the jury in preference to the sworn statement in the witness box, and in like manner sometimes where the witness has denied having made the previous statement, and evidence has thereupon been given that the previous statement was made, there has been, at least, a suggestion that the jury, if they chose might accept the previous in preference to the sworn statement. That, of course, is all wrong, as has been pointed out on various occasions by this Court, and not least in the case of Rex Vs. A. White c.q. No. such question as that arises here, because when the learned Judge came to sum up he was exceedingly careful to say that the effect of this collision between the sworn testimony of the girl on the one hand, and her unsworn assertions on the other hand, was to make her a witness who should be neglected." 23. The learned counsel for appellants further submits that the prosecution places reliance on the evidence of interested witnesses ignoring persons who were neutral and natural witnesses to the incident under consideration since they reside at places very close to the place of occurrence which reportedly witnessed a very violent incident on 05.04.2007 in the morning. Such a lapse on the part of prosecution is fatal and in that connection, the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa Vs. State/Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2013 SC 3298 is relied on. 24. It has also been contended that non examination of those neutral and natural witnesses shows the quality of investigation which in fact, adversely affected accused persons. In support of such contention, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gazu Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2012) 9 SCC 532 is relied on. 25. Learned counsel for appellants again submits that the private counsel had conducted the case on behalf of prosecution before the Trial Court which is not permissible under the law. In support of such contention, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gazu Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2012) 9 SCC 532 is relied on. 25. Learned counsel for appellants again submits that the private counsel had conducted the case on behalf of prosecution before the Trial Court which is not permissible under the law. Allowing a private counsel to conduct the prosecution case has again shaken the very basis of prosecution case and on this count also, the judgment under challenge is liable to be quashed and set aside. On all those counts, learned counsel for the appellant submits this Court to acquit accused persons on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 26. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. PP submits that the evidence of PW 2 and PW 8 cannot be discarded as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants. Admitting that there are some infirmities in the testimonies, rendered by those PWs, it has been contended that those infirmities are of insignificant in nature which occurred in the peripherial aspects of the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence of PWs, more particularly, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 8 cannot be rejected as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant. 27. In support of such contention, it has been stated that though PW 2 and PW 8 did not disclose some aspects to the prosecution case to the I/O during investigation which they had divulge before the Court during trial, yet, such statements, by no stretch of imagination, can be bracketed as contradictions as contemplated in Section 162 CrPC since such infirmities are very inconsequential in nature, far too unequal to the task of throwing the testimonies of those witnesses over-board. 28. Continuing her argument, learned Addl. PP, again submits that the statements, rendered by PW 2 and PW 8 were found to be consistent and symmetrical on all material points and such evidence draws more confirmation from the testimony, rendered by PW 3 who remained at the place of occurrence right from the moment one till the incident turned violent in which Dr. Niaz Ahmed got assaulted for which he expired next day. 29. Learned Addl. Niaz Ahmed got assaulted for which he expired next day. 29. Learned Addl. PP again submits that the prosecution case finds more and more support from the fact that one of the accused persons, namely Rajib Khan had surrendered before the police sometime after the incident and that too, with a dao allegedly used in committing the crime in question. The surrender of the accused with dao which police seized on the strength of seizure list (Ext. 4) again puts the prosecution case on a very firm footing. 30. According to her, there is indisputable evidence on record to show that police seized the vehicle in which accused Firoz Khan (Bobby) and Bhaijan tried to flee the scene. The fact that such vehicle was seized by police on the date of incident itself too lends more and more credence to the prosecution case aforementioned. 31. It has been contended by the learned Addl. PP that though the learned counsel for appellants takes serious objection in private counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor in conducting the case in hand, it has been submitted that such assistance is permissible under the law and which is again affirmed by this Court in the case of Firoz Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Assam reported in (2009) 1 GLT 399. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss this appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge . 32. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of witnesses and the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, is first taken up for consideration. The Doctor who conducted autopsy was one Dr. Kambabu Choudhury and was examined as PW 6. His evidence is as follows:- "External Appearance: A male dead body of average built, brown complexion, found it naked condition, eyes and mourn were closed, crap-bandages were present in scalp and neck. Rigoromortis not present on the body. Anus and penis were healthy. Injuries:- 1. An incised wound measuring 9 cm present on back and left side of horizontally and scalp deep. In left ear incised wound present in lower part 1 cm long surgical stitch present. 2. An incised wound present on back of scalp and right side measuring 15cm long scalp deep horizontally. Surgical stitch present. 3. An incised wound present on back side of neck and right side horizontally measuring 14 x 1 cm muscle deep. 4. In left ear incised wound present in lower part 1 cm long surgical stitch present. 2. An incised wound present on back of scalp and right side measuring 15cm long scalp deep horizontally. Surgical stitch present. 3. An incised wound present on back side of neck and right side horizontally measuring 14 x 1 cm muscle deep. 4. An incised wound measuring 17 x 2cm present on back of neck and left side of neck horizontally muscle deep. 5. An abrasion measuring 7 x 1.5 cm in left lateral side of abdomen. 6. An abrasion of 1 x 2cm in size on the left elbow at posterior aspect. 7. One contusion measuring 4 x 3.5cm over the right scapula. 8. One contusion measuring 10 x 5cm on the right side of back of abdomen. 9. An abrasion of 3.5 x 2.5 cm in size present on middle part of right leg and anterior aspect. 10. One laceration measuring 1 x 0.5 cm present on middle of the forehead. 11. One contusion measuring 3 x 2cm present on lower part of sternum. 12. One incised wound measuring 1cm present on lower part of right ear horizontally. 13. One contusion measuring 5 x 7 cm present on left temporoparietal region of the scalp. 14. One fissured fracture measuring 8cm long present on left temporal and parietal bone obliquely. 15. One fissured fracture measuring 9cm long present on occipital bone horizontally present. 16. One contusion of brain of variable size in both right and left temporal and occipital region. Thorax: Thorasic part, walls ribs and cartilages were healthy. Pleurae, larynx and trachea were healthy. Right and left lungs were pale. Pericardium, heart and vessels were healthy. In abdominal examination, walls were as described. Peritoneum, mouth, pharynx and oesophagus were healthy. Stomach and its contents were found healthy and contained digested food matters. Small intestine healthy. Large intestine was also healthy and contained gases and fecal matters. Cranium and Spinal Canal: Scalp and skull injuries were as described. Vertebrae - healthy Membrane - congested Brain - as described Liver, spleen, kidneys were pale. Bladder - healthy and empty. Organs of generation - healthy." 33. PW 6, we find, has proved the post mortem examination report as Ext. 3. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW 6 reveals that Dr. Niaz Ahmed died due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injuries described above. Bladder - healthy and empty. Organs of generation - healthy." 33. PW 6, we find, has proved the post mortem examination report as Ext. 3. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW 6 reveals that Dr. Niaz Ahmed died due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injuries described above. According to PW 6, all those injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by both blunt as well as sharp edged weapon. 34. It may be noted here that one Dr. Pankaj Kr. Bhattacharjee was examined as PW 7. According to PW 7, on 05.04.2007, he was working at Shristry Hospital. On that day, he attended Dr. Niaz Ahmed and found him to have sustained several injuries of extremely serious nature. He could hardly take breathe at that time. Since, he was bleeding profusely, they took steps to stop bleeding and referred the patient to Aditya Hospital for better treatment. In that connection, he also prepared a report which he proved as Ext. 3. 35. The evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 coupled with the averments made in Ext. 3 (injury report) and Ext. 3 (post mortem report) and inquest report (Ext. 2) further confirm that the deceased died a homicidal death on sustaining very many wounds of extremely serious nature which were caused by blunt as well as sharp object. 36. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses more particularly, PW 2 and PW 8 who are found to be the prime prosecution witnesses. Before considering the evidence of PW 8, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of PW 2 (Israil Khan). According to PW 2, deceased Niaz Ahmed was his childhood friend. Deceased had a plot of land near Shristi Hospital, Paltanbazar, Dibrugarh. On such land, Dr. Niaz Ahmed had his own house. House of accused persons is also situated on a part of such land. 37. On 05.04.2007, on request of Dr. Ahmed, he along with Akshaylal Yadav (PW 3) went to measure the land on which the rented household of accused persons is situated. When they started to measure such land, accused Firoz objected to such measurement for which PW 2 requested Akshaylal (PW 3) to call Dr. Niaz Ahmed to such place. Being so requested, Akshaylal (PW 3) to call Dr. Niaz Ahmed to such place. When they started to measure such land, accused Firoz objected to such measurement for which PW 2 requested Akshaylal (PW 3) to call Dr. Niaz Ahmed to such place. Being so requested, Akshaylal (PW 3) to call Dr. Niaz Ahmed to such place. Being so requested, Akshaylal went there and reported the matter to Dr. Niaz Ahmed. 38. Being so informed, Dr. Niaz Ahmed came there little later. When Dr. Niaz Ahmed arrived at such place, accused persons were inside their house. On arriving at PO, the victim started to inspect his land and found that service latrine was being built on such land. The victim raised objection about the construction of kuccha latrine on his land whereupon accused Firoz, Rajib and Bhaijan armed with dao started assaulting the victim. 39. The other accused persons too including Sabila, armed with "Sabal" and other instruments, started assaulting Dr. Niaz Ahmed. Due to such assault, the victim sustained injuries on the various parts of his body including head and neck for which he fell on the ground. Even after he fell down on the ground, accused persons continued to assault him with the weapons in their hands. 40. When PW 2 resisted such assault, accused Sabila also assaulted him with a rod on his head. Other accused persons, namely, Nazu and Julie also attacked him. For such assault, PW 2 also fell down on the ground and started to raise hue and cry. Thereafter, PW 2 somehow managed to reach the road nearby where the people gathered there took him as well as Dr. Niaz Ahmed to hospital for treatment. Later Niaz was taken to Aditya Hospital where he died next day. 41. Soon after the incident, accused Firoz and Bhaijan fled the scene boarding a vehicle driven by accused Nazmul Ahmed. In the meantime, Rajib Khan surrendered before the police along with a dao which police seized on being produced by said accused person. According to him, M. Ext. 1 was the dao, which was so seized by police on being produced by accused Rajib Khan. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that Firoz attacked the deceased with a dao from the backside. 42. According to him, M. Ext. 1 was the dao, which was so seized by police on being produced by accused Rajib Khan. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that Firoz attacked the deceased with a dao from the backside. 42. The suggestion that he did not tell the IO that Rajib and Bhaijan attacked the deceased with dao whereas other women accused persons assaulted him with rod and 'sabal' etc. and the suggestion that he did not state before the police that accused Rajib had surrendered before the police with dao M. Ext. 1 whereas Firoz and Bhaijan flee the scene boarding a vehicle were also denied by PW 2. 43. In his evidence, PW 8 deposes that on the fateful day, at about 2 pm, he was planting a Sashi plant on a land situated very close to Shristy Hospital, Paltanbazar, Dibrugarh. Such land was owned by Dr. Niaz Ahmed. He also had a shop on such land. While he was doing work near his shop, the victim was sitting in his own land. At that time, Akshaylal Yadav came there and had some discussion with Dr. Niaz Ahmed for which both of them left such place and proceeded to the place of occurrence where the house of accused persons is situated. 44. After a little while, he heard hue and cry coming from the place of occurrence. He immediately went there and found Dr. Niaz Ahmed, the victim, on the backside of the house of accused persons. Soon thereafter, he also saw accused Firoz, Rajib and Bhaijan assaulting the victim with dao. He also saw Sabila armed with 'Sabal' and other accused persons armed with various weapons assaulting the victim. Seeing such incident, he requested accused persons not to assault the victim. Witness Israil Khan (PW 2) also requested accused persons not to assault the victim. 45. However, three women accused in Sessions Case No. 167/2007 had however, assaulted PW 2 with the weapon in their hands. Seeing the incident, he got frightened and left the PO in order to report the matter to Mehtab @ Sohrab Ahmed (PW 1). He met PW 1 and reported him about the incident. In the meantime, Dr. Niaz Ahmed was hospitalized and thereafter he was shifted to Aditya Hospital where he died next day. Seeing the incident, he got frightened and left the PO in order to report the matter to Mehtab @ Sohrab Ahmed (PW 1). He met PW 1 and reported him about the incident. In the meantime, Dr. Niaz Ahmed was hospitalized and thereafter he was shifted to Aditya Hospital where he died next day. In his cross-examination, he however, denied the suggestion that he did not tell police that he saw PW 3, Akshaylal having a parley with the deceased little before the incident in question. 46. The suggestion that he did not tell police that accused Firoz, Rajib and Bhaijan had assaulted the deceased with dao whereas Sabila and other women, armed with sabal and other weapons, had attacked the victim Dr. Niaz Ahmed were also denied by PW 8. The suggestion that he did not see the incident under consideration since he had no occasion to be present at the PO during the time relevant was also denied by PW 8. 47. In these backdrops, let us consider the evidence of PW 3 Akshaylal Yadav. According to him, on 5.4.2007, as per the instructions of the victim, he went to the place of occurrence and started measuring the land on which the house of accused persons is situated. Accused Firoz objected to such measurement. Then, on being requested, PW 3 went to Dr. Niaz Ahmed and reported him about the obstructions raised by accused Firoz in measuring the land of deceased. Being so informed, the victim taking PW 3 with him came to the place of occurrence but they found nobody at such place. 48. As the victim started to inspect the land, he saw a service latrine being constructed on his land. Therefore, the deceased asked accused Firoz and his family members not to construct service latrine on his land. In the meantime, a hulla-bulla had occurred at the place of occurrence for which he left such place to report the matter to Mehtab @ Shorab, (PW 1). Meanwhile, police came to the PO. 49. By that time, Dr. Niaz Ahmed was taken to nearby hospital where from he was shifted to Aditya Hospital where he died next day. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the allegation that deceased Niaz had raped one Julie, the former was taken to task by then people. Meanwhile, police came to the PO. 49. By that time, Dr. Niaz Ahmed was taken to nearby hospital where from he was shifted to Aditya Hospital where he died next day. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the allegation that deceased Niaz had raped one Julie, the former was taken to task by then people. The allegation that he falsely implicated accused persons with the crime in question was also denied by him. 50. PW 4, Faroque Ahmed deposed that on 05.04.07, he heard that an incident was going on at the place of occurrence. He immediately reported the matter to I/C Borbari outpost also rushed to the place of occurrence and found blood marks at the PO. He also found that victim being treated at ICU, Shristy Hospital. He also noticed that Israil Khan (PW 2) was being hospitalized for sustaining injuries. Later on, Dr. Niaz Ahmed was taken to Aditya Hospital where he died next day at about 10 am. 51. PW 5, Biswajit Choudhury deposes that on 5.4.07, he was told by PW 4 over phone that Dr. Niaz Ahmed Ansari was murdered. At that point of time, he was at Chabua. According to him, Niaz Ahmed was the brother of his friend Shorab Ahmed. Therefore, he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found Dr. Niaz Ahmed being treated at ICU, Shistry Hospital. This witness further deposes that Dr. Niaz Ahmed was got assaulted in an incident which occurred in the courtyard of Firoz Khan (Bobby). 52. He also found that Israil Khan at the hospital being treated for sustaining some injuries. Though Dr. Niaz Ahmed was shifted to Aditya Hospital, he died there next day. According to him, on the aforesaid day, he saw accused Firoz leaving the PO in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. AS-04-B-9553 which was driven by Hunu @ Nazmul Ahmed. He saw such a vehicle at Paltan Bazar police point. In his cross-examination, the suggestion that he did not tell the police that he saw accused Firoz leaving the PO in a vehicle aforesaid being driven by Hunu was denied by PW 5. 53. PW 1, Shorab Ahmed is the brother of the deceased who lodged the FIR with police on 5.7.07. He was not an eye witness to the incident and came to know about the same from others. 53. PW 1, Shorab Ahmed is the brother of the deceased who lodged the FIR with police on 5.7.07. He was not an eye witness to the incident and came to know about the same from others. He is found saying that his brother died on sustaining very many injuries whereas Israil Khan sustained injuries on his person for whom he was also treated at hospital. He proved the FIR as Ext. 1. During the course of investigation, police conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared a report in that connection which he proved as Ext. 2. 54. PW9, Allaudin Sah and PW 10, Asis Paik depose that police seized the M. Ext. 1 (dao) at Borban Police Station on being produced by accused Rajib Khan. On the other hand, PW11 Sri Dilip Lohar deposes that police seized one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AS-04 B 9553 along with driving license of the driver and some other documents on the strength of seizure list (Ext. 5). 55. PW 12, Sri Joulat Thanga Baruah is the I/O of the case. According to him on 5.4.07, he was working as I/C, Borbari Police Outpost. On that day, he received an FIR lodged by PW 1, Shorab Ahmed. According to him, on receipt of the FIR, he made a GD Entry vide GD Entry No. 112/07 and sent the FIR to O/C, Sadar Police Station for registering a case. It is also in his evidence that before receipt of the FIR, he also received telephonic information about such incident on the basis of which he made a GD Entry vide GD Entry No. 105/2007. 56. In the meantime, he was entrusted to investigate the case. During the course of investigation, the deceased died for which Section 302 IPC was added. On 5.4.2007 itself accused Rajib Khan appeared before him with a dao and surrendered before police stating that he assaulted Dr. Niaz Ahmed with the dao aforesaid. He, therefore, seized the dao on the strength of seizure list (Ext. 4). During the course of investigation, he visited hospital and found the victim in ICU. 57. He also found PW 2 in the said hospital. The victim died next day at Aditya Hospital. Niaz Ahmed with the dao aforesaid. He, therefore, seized the dao on the strength of seizure list (Ext. 4). During the course of investigation, he visited hospital and found the victim in ICU. 57. He also found PW 2 in the said hospital. The victim died next day at Aditya Hospital. It is also in his evidence that though he made several attempts to arrest accused Firoz and Bhaijan but they could not be arrested since they fled in a Tata Sumo vehicle owned by Firoz Khan. He however, arrested the driver of the aforesaid Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AS-04-B-9553 and also seized the vehicle on the strength of Seizure List (Ext. 5). 58. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no shop in and around the PO. The suggestion that PW 5 told him that PW 5 gave him the number of the vehicle in which accused Firoz and Bhaijan escaped from the place of occurrence and the suggestion that PW 5 told him that said vehicle was driven by Nazmul were also denied by PW12. 59. We had already found that prosecution had pinned enough hope on PW 2 and PW 8. We have also found that PW 2 and PW 8 were brought under detailed cross-examination which reveals that some statements which they rendered before the Court during trial, did not divulge to the I/O during investigation. But, as contended by the learned Addl. PP, such omissions occurred not on the main aspects of the prosecution case but occurred only in peripherial matters without having any implication on the evidence rendered by prime prosecution witnesses. In view of above, the infirmities, pointed out by the prosecution, in our opinion, not of that nature which requires this Court to view such omission as contradiction as contemplated in Section 162 CrPC. 60. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 8, we would find that on the fateful afternoon, PW 2 and PW 3 were sent to the land on which accused persons had their households which they reportedly occupied as tenant under the deceased/victim. PW 2 and PW 3 were sent to the land aforesaid to measure it. While they were trying to measure the land aforesaid, accused Firoz objected to the measurement requiring PW 2 to send PW 3 to Dr. PW 2 and PW 3 were sent to the land aforesaid to measure it. While they were trying to measure the land aforesaid, accused Firoz objected to the measurement requiring PW 2 to send PW 3 to Dr. Niaz Ahmed to invite him to come over to the place of occurrence. 61. Being so required, Dr. Niaz came to the PO, inspected the same and having found a service latrine being constructed on such land, he objected the construction of kuccha latrine on his land for which accused Rajib, Firoz and Bhaijan attacked the victim with dao in their hands whereas three armed women accused persons assaulted him with sabal and rods etc. for which Dr. Niaz got severely injured and fell down on the ground requiring him to be taken immediately to nearby hospital for treatment. 62. The evidence of those two witnesses further shows that on seeing Dr. Niaz Ahmed being beaten by accused persons, PW 2 requested accused persons not to assault the victim but instead of paying heed to such request, the women accused persons also assaulted PW 2 inflicting wounds on his persons for which he somehow managed to escape from the PO and placed himself on the road wherefrom he along with the victim were taken to nearby hospital for treatment. While PW 2 recovered from illness in due course, the other victim died next day. 63. Such evidence of PW 2 and PW 8, more particularly, PW 2 finds support from PW 3 who stated that on the fateful day, on being required by Dr. Niaz Ahmed, he and PW 2 went to measure the land under the possession of accused persons. However, they could not undertake such work since it was objected to by accused Firoz Ahmed requiring PW 2 to send PW 3 to Dr. Niaz Ahmed to inform the same and call him to the place of occurrence to give further instructions on such matter. 64. Evidence of PW 3 further reveals that when the matter was reported to Dr. Niaz Ahmed, he came there, inspected the land aforesaid and found the kuccha latrine being constructed on such land for which he objected accused persons not to construct such service latrine on his land. However, soon thereafter, there was a huge chaos at the PO for which he left the PO to report the matter to the brother of Dr. Niaz Ahmed, he came there, inspected the land aforesaid and found the kuccha latrine being constructed on such land for which he objected accused persons not to construct such service latrine on his land. However, soon thereafter, there was a huge chaos at the PO for which he left the PO to report the matter to the brother of Dr. Niaz Ahmed. The evidence of PW 3 again shows that PW 2 and Dr. Niaz got injured in such incident for which the victim died at Aditya Hospital next day. 65. We have found that in his evidence, the I/O deposes that after the incident, Rajib Khan came to the Borbari Police Outpost with a dao in his hand and surrendered before him. He seized the dao from him on the strength of seizure list, Ext. 4. Such evidence finds support from the testimony rendered by PW 9 and PW 10 as well as the averments made in Ext. 4. Such evidence remains nearly unchallenged and therefore, surrender of accused Rajib Ali soon after the incident in question, and that too, with a dao in his hand, reportedly used in committing the crime in question stands proved and such facts lend more and more credence to the prosecution case. 66. We have also found that one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AS-04 B 9553 was seized by police. There is evidence on record in the form of testimony of PW 2 to show that said vehicle was used by accused Firoz and Bhaijan to flee the scene. Such evidence coupled with the averments made in Ext. 5 again shows that the accused aforesaid tried to escape from the scene soon after the incident using the vehicle which belonged to accused Firoz Khan. Such disclosure' is a testimony of the prosecution case being based on facts. 67. We have found that there is also evidence on record to show that accused Firoz and Bhaijan could not be arrested soon after the incident since they fled the scene. In other words, they absconded. Absconding of those accused persons, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, become one more testimonies of those accused persons and others being fully involved in the crime in question. 68. In other words, they absconded. Absconding of those accused persons, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, become one more testimonies of those accused persons and others being fully involved in the crime in question. 68. We may note here that appellants tried to discard the evidence, rendered by PW 8 stating that his claim that he has a shop in the vicinity of the place of occurrence has not been corroborated by I/O. We have found that such contention is founded, not on facts, but on fiction instead. In that context, it may be stated that though in his evidence, I/O has stated that there was no shop in front of the PO, yet, it is a categorical claim of PW 8 that he had a shop on a land belonging to the deceased which is situated little away from the place of occurrence. Being so, there is no inconsistency between the evidence, rendered by PW 8 and PW 12 on the point of location of shop of PW8. 69. Regarding other infirmities, pointed by defence, we have found that such infirmities, as submitted by learned Addl. PP, are found to be too insignificant and too irrelevant in causing any damage to the prosecution case. 70. On an overall reading of evidence on record, we have found that the appellants herein has assaulted the deceased at the PO in furtherance of their common intention which is evident from the manner in which they assaulted and injured the victim. The fact that the victim had sustained many serious injuries on his person being inflicted with both sharp and blunt weapons again firmly demonstrate that accused persons intended to kill the deceased. 71. In the face of above revelations, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 302/34 IPC against accused persons (who are appellants herein) beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such, the judgment under challenge invites no interference whatsoever from this Court of appeal. 72. In the result, this appeal is dismissed on upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court. Return the LCR forthwith.