JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. The judgment and order dated 23.6.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 16(DM)/2005 convicting the present appellant under Section 302/326/323 IPC has been called in question in the present appeal. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 IPC in default, to undergo further imprisonment of six months along with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment of six month under Section 326 IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. 2. The prosecution story as revealed in Charge Sheet No. 80 of 2004 dated 27.5.2004 is that one Md. Nasu Sheikh lodged an ejahar with the Dalgaon Police Station on 11.2.2001 informing that while his two sons, namely, Sukur Ali and Mansur Ali accompanied by his nephew Mannan Ali were coming from Dalgaon, accused persons, namely, Hazar Ali, Ahizul Haque (appellant herein) and Jamiruddin intercepted them at road No. 1 of Sialmari Gaon and caused grievous injuries to them. Sukur Ali died on the way to hospital. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 under Section 302/341/326/34 IPC was registered and investigation held. The investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses and prepared sketch map. At that time, accused Sukur Ali was alive but he died on the way to hospital. After completion of the investigation, police submitted the aforesaid charge sheet under Section 341/302/326/324/34 IPC against accused Ahizul Haque. The learned SDJM, Udalguri by his order dated 14.2.2004 committed the case to Sessions. However, the learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the material under Section 173 Cr.P.C. framed charges against both Ahizul Haque as well as Hazar Ali under Section 302/326/323/34 IPC. 3. During pendency of the trial, accused Hazar Ali was killed and so trial proceeded against Ahizul Haque, the appellant only. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including two medical officers and one investigating officer. It is to be noted that the accused did not engage counsel to defend himself during the course of trial and the learned court also did not appoint any legal aid counsel. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including two medical officers and one investigating officer. It is to be noted that the accused did not engage counsel to defend himself during the course of trial and the learned court also did not appoint any legal aid counsel. Relying on the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial court by his judgment and order dated 9.4.2008 had convicted the appellant under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as well as to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. The accused preferred an appeal before this court and this court by judgment and order dated 14.3.2013 allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and conviction dated 9.4.2008 and remanded the case for fresh trial with direction to consider the GD Entry dated 10.2.2001. Accordingly, upon remand, the witnesses were reexamined. The learned Sessions Judge also appointed a legal aid to defence the accused to cross examine the prosecution witness. The GD Entry was exhibited as Exhibit-7 which shows that deceased Sukur Ali was in a position of speaking at the time he was taken to the police station. On being interrogated, he told police that Md. Hazar Ali and Md. Ahizul Haque had assaulted him. Thus, name Ahizul Haque was there in the GD Entry itself. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on remand passed the impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant under Section 323/326/302 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Dr. BN Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 5. PW-1, being the informant and father of deceased Sukur Ali stated that when his son, Sukur Ali and Mannan Ali along with Mansur Ali were coming from Dalgaon, on way, Zamir Ali lifted the wearing apparels of Sukur Ali and Ahizul caught Sukur Ali from behind and Hazar Ali stabbed Sukur Ali in the belly as a result of which his intestine came out. The injured immediately tied his belly with the muffler. Having come to know about the incident, PW-1 claimed to have rushed to the place of occurrence and found his son lying on the road. The injured immediately tied his belly with the muffler. Having come to know about the incident, PW-1 claimed to have rushed to the place of occurrence and found his son lying on the road. At that time, he was capable of speaking and told his father that Zamir had lifted his wearing apparels, Ahijul had caught hold of him from behind and Hazar Ali stabbed him in his belly. The deceased was initially taken to Mangaldoi civil Hospital. Having noticed that the injuries were serious, the doctor referred him to GMCH but he died on the way. 6. PW-2, Md. Izzat Ali stated that Hazar Ali had produced a dao with wooden handle and a iron rod from the wheat field of Gulsha Ali to the police which the police seized. Similar statements were made by PW-3, Md. Idrish Ali. He is a witness of the seizure list, Exhibit. 1. Dr. Kanak Chandra Das, being PW-4 held post mortem over the dead body of Sukur Ali and he found the following injuries: (1) One stab wound present on front of the abdomen; left side size -3cm x 2cm x abdominal cavity deep situated 1.5 cm left from midline and 1 cm above the umbilicus. Through, the wound mesentry and small intestine coming out. On opening the abdomen it is found that peritonour and mesentry perforated. One perforating injury present on jijunal part of the small intestine, size = 1.5 cm x 1 cm x intestinal cavity deep. Abdominal cavity contains about 900 ml. Of liquid and clotted blood mixed with the intestinal content. 7. PW-5, Abdul Latif is a shop keeper of the nearby area. He stated that after the incident, Mannan Ali came to his shop running and told him that Hazar Ali and Ahizul had assaulted him. It was about 7 p.m. Thereafter, Mannan Ali and Mansur Ali were taken away on a push –cart by their inmates. 8. PW-6 is Dr. Pulin Chandra Kumar. He examined Mannan Ali and gave his injury report which is not relevant for the purpose of the present appeal. 9. PW-7, Md. Zafar Ali is yet another witness who corroborated PW-2 and PW-3 in regard to recovery of weapon on being led by Hazar Ali. This witness was not cross examined. 10. PWs-8 and 9 are two witnesses. PW-8, Md. Mannan Ali stated that when he along with PW-9 , Md. 9. PW-7, Md. Zafar Ali is yet another witness who corroborated PW-2 and PW-3 in regard to recovery of weapon on being led by Hazar Ali. This witness was not cross examined. 10. PWs-8 and 9 are two witnesses. PW-8, Md. Mannan Ali stated that when he along with PW-9 , Md. Mansur Ali and deceased Sukur Ali were going from Dalgaon P.S. at around 8 p.m. on the P.W.D. road at Sialmari, Zamiruddin caught hold of the deceased Sukur Ali and immediately Ahizul Haque hurt him with a dagger. They also sustained injuries in the marpit. PW-9, Md. Mansur Ali also repeated the same thing like PW-8. Thus, these two witnesses implicated the present appellant, Ahizul Haque in the incident. According to PWs-8 and 9, both Hazar Ali and Ahizul Haque stabbed deceased Sukur Ali while Jamirudin caught him from behind. This Jamiruddin on the other hand appears to have taken the injured persons to police station and hospital. He was also an accused in the FIR. But he was not charge sheeted and rather he was examined as witness being PW-10. But evidence of these two witnesses, PWs-8 and 9 regarding stabbed injury by Ahizul Haque and Hazar Ali is in contradiction with the statements of PW-1 who stated that Zamiruddin had lifted the shirt of Sukur Ali and Ahizul caught him from behind while Hazar Ali stabbed Sukur at his belly. According to PW-1, deceased himself said so to him before his death. To verify as to whether there were two stabbed injuries in the belly of the deceased, we have perused the post mortem report and the evidence adduced by PW-4, Dr. Kanak Chandra Das. The injuries on the person of the deceased have been described above which shows that there was only one stab injury and so it could be inflicted by only one person. In that view of the matter, the evidence of PW-1 appears to be more plausible than the vague allegation of PWs-8 and 9. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the sole stab injury was caused by two persons. The specific roles played by the two persons are not disclosed in the evidence of PWs-8 and 9. PW-1 is more certain in giving the description of the incident. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the sole stab injury was caused by two persons. The specific roles played by the two persons are not disclosed in the evidence of PWs-8 and 9. PW-1 is more certain in giving the description of the incident. It cannot be lost sight of the stage that this Hazar Ali who had inflicted stab injury on the person of Sukur Ali was subsequently murdered and so it is Ahizul against whom the trial was held. Considering the medical evidence as to injury disclosed in Exhibit-2, post mortem report and the evidence of PW-4, Dr. Kanak Chandra Das, we are of the view that there being only one injury, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the present appellant had any role to play in causing the stab injury. All the witnesses have implicated Hazar Ali in inflicting stab injury on Sukur Ali. This is in conformity with the deposition of PW-1, which is the statement of deceased before his death. There is no reason as to why the victim would have told a lie before his death. Police also supports the deposition of PW-1. 11. Considering the evidence of PWs-8 and 9 vis-a-vis medical evidence including deposition of PW-4, Dr. K.C. Das, it appears that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ahizul Haque had inflicted any stab injury. The witnesses have stated in one tone that Hazar Ali had inflicted stab injury. By all means, Hazar Ali was implicated by all witnesses and during the course of trial, this Hazar Ali was murdered. There is allegation against Ahizul as well but even if PW-1 is to be believed in that event, his involvement was only to the extent of catching hold of Sukur Ali. PW-10, Jamiruddin was lifting the shirt of the accused Sukur Ali at that time but he has been examined as witness and not as accused. There is one stab injury and Hazar Ali has been implicated by all the witnesses for stabbing the deceased. It is not possible on the part of Ahizul, therefore, to inflict stab injury. If the deposition of all witnesses are read together and medical evidence is also considered at the same time, it appears that there is reasonable doubt about involvement of accused Ahizul Haque in inflicting any stab injury or for that any grevieous hurt. It is not possible on the part of Ahizul, therefore, to inflict stab injury. If the deposition of all witnesses are read together and medical evidence is also considered at the same time, it appears that there is reasonable doubt about involvement of accused Ahizul Haque in inflicting any stab injury or for that any grevieous hurt. The accused Ahizul Haque is entitled to benefit of doubt because of apparent contradiction in the deposition of PW-1 on one side and PWs-8 and 9 on the other. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Accused Ahizul Haque is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 12. He shall be released from jail forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. 13. Send down the records.