JUDGMENT : This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.20121 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 61/2011, convicting the appellant for causing of death of 2 minor boys under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him thereby to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, of payment of fine, further S.I. for a term of 1 (one) year. 2. Heard Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. PP, Asam. 3. The victim Sarif Uddin aged about 10 years of age was employed by the accused to help him in domestic work. In the evening of 28.07.2010, the victim asked the accused to allow him to go out to ease himself. The accused told him that there is no need to go out as there is a facility of toilet in the house but Sarif Uddin without obeying the instruction of the accused went out. When he came back there was an altercation between the accused and him which infuriated the accused who was then working inside his kitchen. The accused stabbed him in his abdomen causing his death. Immediately, thereafter, he came to the house of Lt. Nazir Hussain and killed his son Sariful Islam who was aged about 9 years of age by means of a dagger. The accused was immediately nabbed by the village people and he was handed over to Tikrikilla Police Station. Both the victim died due to injuries inflicted to them by the accused. The incident was reported to the Police and it was entered into General Diary maintained by the Lakhipur Police Station. On the basis of the General Diary entry, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body of Sarif Uddin lying in the house compound of the accused. On the subsequent date, the dead body of Sariful Islam was brought to Police Station and inquest on his dead body was also held at Police Station campus. A formal written FIR was lodged on the following day by Mozammal Hussain, uncle of the deceased Sariful Islam. On the basis of the written FIR Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 353/2010 was registered. Both the Dead bodies were subjected to Post Mortem Examination. A formal written FIR was lodged on the following day by Mozammal Hussain, uncle of the deceased Sariful Islam. On the basis of the written FIR Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 353/2010 was registered. Both the Dead bodies were subjected to Post Mortem Examination. During the investigation, the accused was arrested, as he confessed before the Police, he was accordingly forwarded to the Court and his confessional statement was recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., On completion of the investigation, the Police submitted the Charge-Sheet against the accused under Sections 447/302 of the IPC. The offence under Section 302 being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him under Sections 447/302 of the IPC and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein he admitted that the deceased Sarif Uddin was his employee, however, he denied that he made any confessional statement before the Magistrate. 5. P.W. 1, Sri Mujammil Husain is the informant and is a reported witness. He was informed that his nephew Sarif Islam has been killed by the accused and has been taken to Govt. Hospital. He went to the Hospital and found that his nephew still alive and was also able to speak. On being asked Sariful Islam told him that he was assaulted by the accused. A little later Sariful Islam died in the hospital. Thereafter, P.W. 1 came to the house of the deceased Sariful Islam and saw the accused was detained by the villagers near the house of Sariful. The VDP Secretary Noor Md. asked the accused as to who killed Sariful Islam and the accused confessed before the people gathered there and also in presence of P.W. 1, that he killed Sariful Islam and Sarif Uddin too. Then P.W. 1 came to know that prior to causing of death of Sariful Islam the accused had killed Sarif Uddin. He found the sarif Uddin dead body lying in the house compound of the accused. Police came and took the accused to the Police Station. On the following day, he (P.W. 1) lodged the FIR. In cross examination, he stated that about 10-12 people had detained the accused. He found the sarif Uddin dead body lying in the house compound of the accused. Police came and took the accused to the Police Station. On the following day, he (P.W. 1) lodged the FIR. In cross examination, he stated that about 10-12 people had detained the accused. The accused confessed before all that he had killed both the victims. He stated that although, the wearing clothes of accused were torn there was no injury on his person. On the following day of the incident the accused person's house was set at blaze. 6. P.W. 2, Sarifa Khatoon is the mother of the deceased Sariful Islam. She deposed that at the time of death, Sarif Uddin was 10 years old and Sariful Islam was 9 years of age. There is only a stream between the house of PW. 2 and that of accused. The stream is known as "Pasandara". She stated that while accused person's elder brother was in her house, two little sons of the accused called aloud the accused person's elder brother as "Jetha Jetha" and told him that the accused has stabbed Sarif Uddin with a dagger. Then one Gabbar Singh appeared and ask the accused as to why he has assaulted his nephew Sarif Uddin. Just then the accused came to the courtyard of P.W. 2 and caught hold of her son Sariful, whereupon Sarif Uddin cried aloud and hugged his mother. The accused was carrying a long dagger in his hand. The accused snatched Sariful Uddin, fall him on the ground, wounded him by stabbing him in his chest. She stated that the accused pushed the dagger through his chest and twisted it. Gabbar also witnessed the incident and went to bring a lathi to prevent the accused. The accused fled away and hide himself by submerging in "Pasandara". In the meantime, the neighbours arrived and removed her son to Tikrikilla hospital. The accused was also nabbed and produced before the Police. Sariful died in the hospital. P.W. 2 also saw the dead body of Sarif Uddin in the varanda of the accused person's house. She deposed that deceased Sarif Uddin was an employee of the accused and the accused was a butcher by profession. In cross examination, she admitted that she did not witness Sarif Uddin being killed. Sariful died in the hospital. P.W. 2 also saw the dead body of Sarif Uddin in the varanda of the accused person's house. She deposed that deceased Sarif Uddin was an employee of the accused and the accused was a butcher by profession. In cross examination, she admitted that she did not witness Sarif Uddin being killed. When the accused caught hold of her son she asked him as to why he was assaulting him but she did not raise any alarm, however, she offered resistance by pulling his arm from behind. 7. Corroborating the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 Gahirul Islam @ Gabbar stated that he heard hue and cry raised by the sons of the accused to the effect that their father was assaulting the deceased Sarif Uddin at their home. He went there and he asked the accused as to why he was assaulting Sarif Uddin and also asked him not to do so. Then the accused came to the house of Nazir and stabbed his son Sariful with a dagger. He stated that Sariful was aged about 9 years at that time and he was on the lap of her mother. Sariful was dragged out from her mother's lap and then stabbed. P.W. 3 then went in search of a Bamboo to prevent the accused, as the accused was armed with a dagger and it was difficult for P.W. 3 to stop him with empty hands. Exactly, at this time, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Then, the public caught the accused while he was trying to cross the water channel and handed over him to Tikrikilla Police Station. The deceased Sariful died in the Hospital at Tikrikilla. Deceased Sarif Uddin died in the house compound of the accused. In cross examination, he denied that he did not state before the Police that the sons of the accused were raising hue and cry to the effect that their father was assaulting the deceased Sarif Uddin. He stated that the accused inflicted only one Stab injury on the persons of deceased Sariful Islam. 8. P.W. 4, Nur Mohammad is a tailor by profession and while he was proceeding towards his home after finishing the days work, on the way he found Sariful Islam was being carried by his guardian at Tikrikilla hospital. He then accompanied the injured Sariful Islam to the hospital. 8. P.W. 4, Nur Mohammad is a tailor by profession and while he was proceeding towards his home after finishing the days work, on the way he found Sariful Islam was being carried by his guardian at Tikrikilla hospital. He then accompanied the injured Sariful Islam to the hospital. He noticed stabbed injury just below the chest and another in his right abdomen. He corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1 stated that deceased Sariful Islam was in a state to speak and on his querry as to who stabbed him he replied that accused inflicted injuries on his persons. After some time, the deceased died. Then P.W. 4 came to his village and the accused being caught by the public was sitting in the midst of jungles by the side of the water channel. Police took the accused to its custody. In cross examination, he denied that he did not state before the Police that Sariful Islam made any dying declaration in his presence. 9. P.W. 5, Al-Masadur Rahman Azad deposed that while she was at his residence, the mother of the deceased Sariful Islam, namely, Sarifa came to her courtyard and shouted seeking help to save her son Sariful Islam from the clutches of the accused who was assaulting him. P.W. 5, then came to the house of deceased, Sariful Islam and saw the accused stabbing the deceased Sariful Islam in his chest with a dagger. Thereafter, the accused left the place of occurrence through the back of the house of deceased Sariful Islam and crossed the water channel. 10. P.W. 5 along with others carried the injured Sariful Islam to Tikrikilla Govt Hospital and after 1 ½ hour Sarifula Islam died in the said Hospital. P.W. 5 subsequently came to know that Sarif Uddin was also killed by the accused. He saw the dead body of Sariful Islam as well. He denied in his cross examination that he did not state before the Police that he saw the accused stabbing the deceased Sariful Islam. 11. P.W. 6 Prasant Kr. Chakraborty heard some commotion on the other side of the stream. He saw the accused crossing the stream. At that time Sariful was playing with his mother at the courtyard. The accused appeared there and snatched away the boy from his mother and stabbed him with his dagger. The mother raised hue and cry. 11. P.W. 6 Prasant Kr. Chakraborty heard some commotion on the other side of the stream. He saw the accused crossing the stream. At that time Sariful was playing with his mother at the courtyard. The accused appeared there and snatched away the boy from his mother and stabbed him with his dagger. The mother raised hue and cry. After hearing hue and cry raised by the deceased's mother, the neighbourers arrived there. The accused submerged himself in the stream. People surrounded him and P.W. 6 ranged up the police station of Tikrikilla as well as Lakhipur Police Station too. Police came and took the accused to Police Station. He also accompanied the Police to Police Station. P.W. 6 stated that the accused confessed that he had killed both the victims. He, further stated that people moved Sariful to Tikrikilla Hospital. At that relevant point of time, the boy was able to speak and he died a little after he was taken to the Hospital. In his cross examination, he denied that he did not see the 2nd incident of murder and the accused did not make any confession of killing of the deceased. 12. P.W. 7, Dr. Bhaskarjyoti Baishya held post-mortem examination on the dead body of both the deceased on 29.07.2010. He found the injuries on the body of Sariful Hussain, which are as follows:- External Appearance A healthy male dead-body with rigor mortis all over four limbs. Injuries are:- (1) 5"X 2" X 1" perforating lacerated injury on lateral aspect of left thigh 3" below hip joint. (2) 4"X2"X2" perforating injury on left hand 2"above wrist joint. (3) 10"X5"X 2" perforating injury over left thoracic cavity piercing heart and left lung. (4) 10"X5"X2" perforating injury on right thoracic wall piercing liver. Cranium And Spinal Canal Normal. Thorax Walis, ribs and cartilages: perforating lacerated injury over left thoracic wall as right. Pleurae: Lacerated over left side. Left Lung: perforating injury. Pericardium: perforating injury on left side. Abdomen Liver: perforating injury through right side, Spleen: Ruptured. Muscles, Bones And Joints Fracture left both bone forearm 2" above wrist. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. The injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp weapon and homicidal in nature. 13. Abdomen Liver: perforating injury through right side, Spleen: Ruptured. Muscles, Bones And Joints Fracture left both bone forearm 2" above wrist. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. The injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp weapon and homicidal in nature. 13. On the same day, he (Doctor) also held Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Sariful Islam and found the injuries as follows:- External Appearance A healthy male dead-body with rigor mortis all over four limbs. Injuries are:- (1) 5"X 2" X 2" perforating lacerated injuries on back 2" lateral to spinal cord piercing right kidney. (2) 5"X2"X1" perforating lacerated injuries on right thigh 2" below hip joint. (3) 15"X2"X 5" perforating injury over left thoracic cavity piercing heart and left lung. (4) 10"X5"X2" perforating lacerated injury on right thoracic cavity piercing liver and right lung. Cranium And Spinal Canal Normal. Thorax Walis, ribs and cartilages: perforating injury over right rib cage. Right lung: Perforating Injury. Abdomen Liver: perforating injury. Kidney: Right kidney ruptured, left normal In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. The injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp weapon and homicidal in nature. 14. The fact that the death of the victims was homicidal in nature is not disputed in this case. The opinions of the Doctor has remained unreburted. 15. P.W. 8, Amir Hussain, along with the public, chased the accused who was hiding himself in the water canal and he was caught by the public. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross examination by the defence, he stated that few people had beaten up the accused and he heard that the accused had made a confession before them. 16. P.W. 9, Sri N.A. Laskar, the then Judicial Magistrate, 2nd class recorded the confessional statement of the accused. The accused was produced before him on 04.08.2010. On completion of 72 hours on police remand. He stated that there were several marks and sign of injuries on hand, head, fingers, leg, back and other parts of the body of the accused. The accused being asked, replied that after the occurrence, the local public assaulted him and police rescued him. The accused was then sent to judicial custody for reflection. He stated that there were several marks and sign of injuries on hand, head, fingers, leg, back and other parts of the body of the accused. The accused being asked, replied that after the occurrence, the local public assaulted him and police rescued him. The accused was then sent to judicial custody for reflection. The accused was again brought before P.W. 9 on 06.08.2010 from the Judicial custody. He was cautioned and then was allowed to sit in the corner of the court room under the supervision of the Bench Assistant to the Magistrate. At 02.00 PM, the Magistrate called the accused in his chamber and asked him about requirement of treatment about his personal life and other relevant questions as to why he want to make confession that he is not bound to make confession, that he will not be sent to Police custody, if he declines to confess his confessional statement, which was to be recorded. The Magistrate also gave certificate to the effect that the accused was warned that he is not bound to make the confession and if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. On being satisfied that he (accused) has made the confession voluntarily, his confessional statement was recorded by P.W. 9. 17. P.W. 10, S.I. of the Police stated that the VDP Secretary of the village called him over telephone and informed him that the accused has killed two minor boys. On receipt of the information, he entered the information in General Diary and went to the place of occurrence with his Police Staff. He found the Dead body of 10 year's old boy near the house of the accused. He held in quest on the Dead body of Sariful Islam. The Dead body of Sariful was brought to Police Station and inquest on the Dead body was also held at the Police Station. When formal written FIR was lodged, the O.C. of Lakhipur Police Station registered the case and entrusted the task of investigation to P.W. 10. Then, P.W. 10 sent both the dead bodies for Post Mortem Examination. The accused was produced at the Police Station by the Public. As the accused confessed before the Police, he was sent to court and his confessional statement was recorded by the Court. P.W. 10 examined the witnesses. Then, P.W. 10 sent both the dead bodies for Post Mortem Examination. The accused was produced at the Police Station by the Public. As the accused confessed before the Police, he was sent to court and his confessional statement was recorded by the Court. P.W. 10 examined the witnesses. P.W. 10, then drew sketch map of the sites of occurrence of both incidents. The first incident occurred in the House compound of the accused and the subsequent incident took place in the courtyard of P.W. 1. 18. In this case, P.W. 2 Sarifa Khatun, P.W. 3, Gahirul Islam @ Gabbar, P.W. 5, Md. Al Masadur R. Azad are the eye witnesses to the occurrence in respect of the murder of the deceased Sariful Islam. Their evidence has been corroborated by other witnesses who immediately went there and chased the accused who was hiding himself in a nearby stream. So far as causing death of Sarif Uddin is concerned there is no eye witness account save except, the confessional statement of the accused before the public as well as before the Magistrate. Apart from eye witnesses' account of P.W. 2, 3 & 5 in respect of death of Sariful Islam, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated about dying declaration made by the deceased Sariful. P.W. 1 & PW. 6 have deposed about the Extra Judicial Confession made by the accused in respect of causing death of both the victims. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime for causing death of the accused Sariful Islam. It is well settled law that when there is eye witness account, it is not necessary to establish any motive for the offence. Here, there is eye witness account of 3 witnesses in respect of causing death of deceased Sariful Islam. So far as death of Sarif Uddin is concerned, the accused in his confessional statement has stated that the conduct of the deceased provoked him and he caused his death. The deceased Sarif Uddin was only a little boy of 10 years old. Even if the accused statement is believed that he disobeyed his direction and subsequently abused the accused it will not come to the purview of grave and sudden provocation to take shelter of any exceptions under Section 300 IPC. The deceased Sarif Uddin was only a little boy of 10 years old. Even if the accused statement is believed that he disobeyed his direction and subsequently abused the accused it will not come to the purview of grave and sudden provocation to take shelter of any exceptions under Section 300 IPC. Here, the accused has caused death of two innocent children. 20. The Dead body of the deceased Sarif Uddin was lying in the courtyard of the accused. Sarif Uddin was an employee of the accused. When the accused was assaulting the deceased, the deceased raised hue and cry for help which was heard by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The accused person shouted that Sarif Uddin is being assaulted by their father. PW. 3 went there and asked the accused as to why he is doing so and also asked him to stop. Thereafter, the accused went to the courtyard of P.W. 2 snatched away her son and killed him. The confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded after giving ample time for reflection. Apart from the Judicial Confession there was Extra Judicial Confession by the accused corroborating the Judicial Confession recorded by the Magistrate. 21. The Judicial Confession recorded by the Magistrate appears to be free from any infirmity. In the Judicial Confession, the accused confessed that he killed Sarif Uddin. The Confessional statement with regard to the injuries inflicted on the persons of Sarif uddin has been corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. Post Mortem Examination. Undisputedly, immediately after the incident the accused was found hiding in the water stream and he was caught by the Public. The incident was immediately reported to the Police over telephone and it was entered in the General Diary and was exhibited during the trial. 22. From the aforesaid eye witness account as well as the circumstances appearing against the accused leads to only the conclusion that the accused killed both the deceased with an intention to cause their death. Learned Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC. Thus, we found that this appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly we affirm and uphold any sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 23. Return the LCRs along with a copy of this order.