N. Chaudhury, J.:-- 1. The prosecution story as made out in the charge-sheet is that an ejahar was lodged on 01.10.2007 at 2.00 p.m. with Nellie Police Outpost of Jagiroad Police Station informing that one Ranjit Medhi had dealt repeated blows on the neck, chest and other part of his father-in-law Musal Konwar and mother-in-law Dipali Konwar with an axe causing grievous injuries. While Musal Konwar died on way to Gauhati Medical College Hospital, his wife Dipali Konwar was undergoing treatment. This ejahar was lodged by one Uttam Konwar, the brother of deceased Musal Konwar. The aforesaid occurrence of assault had taken place at around 9.30 p.m. of 30.09.2007. Upon such information being lodged, G. D. Entry No.11 dated 01.10.2007 was registered by Nellie Outpost of Jagiroad Police Station and investigation was started. Jagiroad P.S. Case No. 157/2007 under Sections 452/326/302 IPC was registered on the same day on the basis of the aforesaid G.D. entry. During investigation it came to light that Ranjit married Maromi Konwar, the daughter of deceased Musal Konwar and injured Dipali Konwar. He used to live in the family of his parents-in-law and committed assault on both of them in their house only. Uttam Konwar being the brother of the deceased went to the spot on hearing noise and witnessed the commission of offence. One Durgeswari Bordoloi also claimed to have seen the incident. Upon submission of the charge-sheet along with post mortem report, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions by his order dated 18.03.2010 and thereupon Sessions Case No. 42/2010 was registered. The learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, framed charges against the accused under Sections 452/326/302 IPC. The charges on being read over the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Apart from that two other court witnesses were also examined in the case. Having considered the depositions of the witnesses and the materials placed on record the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 452 and 326 IPC. Accordingly, accused Ranjit Medhi was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. 3. We have heard Mr. Accordingly, accused Ranjit Medhi was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. 3. We have heard Mr. M.B.U. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also perused the records. 4. There are three eye-witnesses in this case. PW 1, Uttam Konwar, PW 2, Durgeswari Bordoloi and CW 2, Dipali Konwar, are the three eye-witnesses. PW 1, Uttam Konwar, lodged the ejahar. In course of evidence he stated that accused Ranjit Medhi is a ‘ghar jowai’. Quarrel was a regular feature in their house. On the day of occurrence he was at home when the incident had taken place at around 8.00 p.m. Durgeswari (PW 2) told the PW 1 to go to the place of occurrence as they were shouting too much that day and accordingly both of them went to the house of deceased Musal Konwar. He saw accused Ranjit was cutting his father-in-law Musal Konwar on the chest with an axe. His mother-in-law was already lying on the ground in injured condition. He thereafter snatched the axe from the accused tactfully and then with the help of others like Juren Bodo, Jar and others fastened Ranjit. Then he informed the matter to the VDP and village headman. The village headman called police and thereupon ejahar was lodged. Police came and not only took the injured persons but also seized the axe and seized the violet blouse and gamosa stained with blood by which the accused was tied up. PW 2, Durgeswari Bordoloi, supported PW 1 on all material points. She stated that at the time of occurrence she was eating rice. She stays near the place of occurrence. At that time wife of accused Ranjit was raising alarm. Hearing the alarm she went near their house and tried to grasp what was going on. She saw Ranjit deal tdao blow on his father-in-law with axe. She saw him dealing the blow and then came back home out of fear. She disclosed it to police and also to Magistrate about the incident. PW 1 Uttam somehow snatched the axe from the hand of Ranjit and then accused was fastened. She saw Ranjit deal tdao blow on his father-in-law with axe. She saw him dealing the blow and then came back home out of fear. She disclosed it to police and also to Magistrate about the incident. PW 1 Uttam somehow snatched the axe from the hand of Ranjit and then accused was fastened. In course of cross-examination she stated that PW 1 Uttam had reached the place of occurrence before her and it is he who caught hold of the accused. CW 2, Dipali Konwar, was also injured in the incident. She stated on oath that accused is her son-in-law. Her husband died about seven years ago. He had quarreled with the accused and in the said quarrel accused Ranjit caused hurt to her husband who died in the hospital. She also sustained injuries in the incident and had to undertake treatment at the GMCH, Guwahati for two weeks. Thereafter she heard that her husband had died while on way to GMCH. None of these three witnesses could be dislodged by way of cross-examination from what they had stated in their examination in chief. 5. The other witnesses are not so relevant. PW 3 being the VDP Secretary visited the spot after the incident had occurred and saw injured Musal Konwar lying in pool of blood at the verandah of his house. His wife and son-in-law were also there. The people had already assembled and they informed him that Ranjit had assaulted his father-in-law and mother-in-law. Accordingly, he lodged the ejahar with police and informed the VDP Secretary. PW 4, Manash Kumar Deka, is a seizure witness. He was present when police seized the axe and the gamosa stained with blood. Ext-2 is the seizure list for gamosa and Ext-1 is the seizure list for axe. He signed on both seizure lists as witness. His signatures are Ext-1(2) and Ext-2(1). PW 5, Asomi Konwar, is the daughter of the deceased Musal Konwar. She was declared hostile. PW 6, Rahita Konwar, is yet another daughter of deceased Musal Singh Konwar. She claimed to be in the house of her maternal uncle when her father had died. She had only heard that accused Ranjit had killed her father. After she returned she found that her father and mother had already been taken to Guwahati. She said that police asked her to implicate Ranjit and accordingly she did so before the Magistrate. She claimed to be in the house of her maternal uncle when her father had died. She had only heard that accused Ranjit had killed her father. After she returned she found that her father and mother had already been taken to Guwahati. She said that police asked her to implicate Ranjit and accordingly she did so before the Magistrate. PW 7, Maromi Medhi is the wife of the accused and daughter of the deceased. She stated on oath that at the time of occurrence she was at the residence of her maternal uncle and she came to know about the death of her father. She asserted that her father died for illness. PW 8 is Dhiren Boro. He virtually said nothing in the witness box, PW 9, Md. Hatem Ali Ahmed, is the Investigating Officer in the case. He stated the prosecution story and proved the exhibits. PW 10 is Dr. Putul Mahanta, who held post mortem over the dead body of Musal Konwar. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- “1. External appearance : Male dead body of average built of dark brown complexion. Dressed with one black pant. Rigor mortis developed. Mouth and eyes closed. Anus and penis healthy. Injury No. 1 : Cut injury of size 6 x 3cm x chest wall deep over front of the chest 2 cm left from the mid line vertically placed 3 cm below the left nipple. Injury No. 2 : Incised wound of size 7 x 2.5cm x chest wall deep. Obliquely placed over front of the chest 4 cm right from mid line, 2 cm below the right shoulder griddle. Injury No. 3 : Incised wound of size 3 x 2cm over forehead x skull deep on mid line 6 cm above the bridge of nose. Injury No. 4 : Incised wound of size 7 x 3.5 cm x neck tissue deep just below the chin. Margins were found clean.” PW 11 is Dr. Hiten Chandra Chakraborty, who had examined CW 2 Dipali Konwar. He found a cut injury over her forehead about 1 ½ inch. There was yet another simple injury. Ext-9 is the injury report. PW 12 is Smti Arunima Baruah who is a retired Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati. She proved the serological reports as Ext-10. Ext-11 is the forwarding report. He found a cut injury over her forehead about 1 ½ inch. There was yet another simple injury. Ext-9 is the injury report. PW 12 is Smti Arunima Baruah who is a retired Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati. She proved the serological reports as Ext-10. Ext-11 is the forwarding report. By that report the blood stained on the axe and the gamosa was found to be human blood. CW 1 is a retired S.I. of police who stated on oath that he was in-charge of G.M.C.H. Police Outpost on 01.10.2007 when Musal Singh Konwar was admitted. He entered the information into the General Diary vide G.D. Entry No. 3 dated 01.10.2007 and went to the Casualty Department along with the staff for conducting inquest over the dead body. The dead body was thereafter sent for post mortem examination. Ext-7 is the inquest report and Ext-8 is the post mortem report. The evidence of CW 2 has been discussed at the beginning as she is one of the three eye-witnesses. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when he feigned ignorance about the incident. At the end he said that he did not know anything as he was fully intoxicated. By the said statement he virtually admitted that he was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae strenuously urged that prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. There was no proper evidence to show that accused had caused death to Musal Konwar. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the evidence given by PWs 1 and 2 cannot be correct as quarrels were going on at the place of occurrence over quite some time. The PWs 1 and 2 claimed to have seen the occurrence but it is merely impossible. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that CW 2 being the wife of the deceased was very much present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. She also sustained injury on her person and the medical evidence clearly shows that there were injuries on the person of Musal Konwar as well as Dipali Konwar. The incriminating weapon was seized by police which was found to have been stained with blood. Under such circumstances the testimony of the three eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved in any way. 8. She also sustained injury on her person and the medical evidence clearly shows that there were injuries on the person of Musal Konwar as well as Dipali Konwar. The incriminating weapon was seized by police which was found to have been stained with blood. Under such circumstances the testimony of the three eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved in any way. 8. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts brought on record we have noticed that at the time of occurrence there were three persons in the house. One was the accused Ranjit Medhi and the other two were deceased Musal Konwar and his wife Dipali Konwar. Apart from Ranjit Medhi nobody else was present at that time. The other two daughters of the deceased claimed to have been in the house of their maternal uncle at the relevant time. If all the witnesses are believed even then there is nothing to show that Ranjit Medhi was not present when Musal Konwar and Dipali Konwar had received grievous injuries on their body from sharp weapon. In course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he could not say anything as he was under influence of intoxication. This only strengthens the prosecution story. PWs 1 and 2 claimed to have seen accused Ranjit Medhi inflicting blows on the chest of Musal Konwar with an axe. These two witnesses have been duly cross-examined to find out any discrepancy in their version so as to render their deposition incredible or unreliable. In the absence of effective cross-examination the statements made by them on oath in course of examination-in-chief went unrebutted. After all, PWs 1 and 2 are next door neighbours of the deceased. They heard quarrels and since the pitch of the noise were unusually high they felt necessity to come to the place of occurrence and thereupon they noticed that accused was inflicting blows on the deceased. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of these two witnesses as there is no reason as to why they should falsely implicate Ranjit Medhi, the husband of their niece. Besides, Dipali Konwar also received injuries on her person. She specifically stated that accused Ranjit Medhi inflicted the injury on her. She remained firm even during cross-examination and did not deviate. Besides, Dipali Konwar also received injuries on her person. She specifically stated that accused Ranjit Medhi inflicted the injury on her. She remained firm even during cross-examination and did not deviate. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence given by these three eye-witnesses arrived at the definite finding that the accused had committed offence under Section 302 IPC by causing death to his father-in-law, Musal Konwar, by dealing blow with an axe. The injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the body knowing fully well that such injuries would result in death. The injuries were homicidal in nature and it also depicts that the accused wanted to kill the victim. In view of such clear evidence of three eye-witnesses there is no scope to interfere with the findings of conviction and sentence. 9. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge stand upheld. Send down the records.