JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Sri Bhakta Hemram has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 2(two) years for causing death of a father and son duo i.e. Raja Ali Khan, aged about 40 years and Junmoni Khan, aged about 16 years. 2. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Pankaj Bora (PW-1) at 9 P.M. of 21.07.2008 stating that on the very same day at around 3.30 P.M. when a ‘bichar’ was on in the Office of the Tea Estate in question, the appellant along with two other persons i.e. Bubai Hemram and Bijoy Hemram had come with daos in hand and caused instantaneous death to his elder brother Raja Ali Khan by hacking and when his nephew Junmoni Khan put up resistance, grievous injury was inflicted upon him by hacking. Junmoni was thereafter taken to the Golaghat Civil Hospital in a critical condition. 3. Committed to trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13(thirteen) witnesses to prove the guilt of all the 3(three) accused. At the conclusion of the trial, Bubai Hemram and Bijoy Hemram were acquitted from the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and were set at liberty in the absence of any incriminating materials found against them. The appellant alone stood convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 4. The prosecution case primarily hinges upon the evidence of Sri Pankaj Bora (PW-1) and Ram Prasad Rajbhar (PW-4), who are independent witnesses. PW-1, in his deposition has given an account of the incident describing him self as an eye-witness to it. He deposed that on 21.07.2008, a ‘bichar’ had taken place at Ranijan Tea Estate where Bubai Hemram was brought apprehended on charges of stealing tea leaves. According to PW-1, he was present in that ‘bichar’. The Chowkidar of the Tea Estate, Jakir Hussain had stated that he had seen Bubai Hemram stealing tea leaves and to that, the appellant charged Jakir so as to assault him but the public interfered and separated them. According to PW-1, he was present in that ‘bichar’. The Chowkidar of the Tea Estate, Jakir Hussain had stated that he had seen Bubai Hemram stealing tea leaves and to that, the appellant charged Jakir so as to assault him but the public interfered and separated them. Thereafter, the appellant brought a dao from one Bolo Gosain’s house and inflicted a dao blow in Raja Khan’s belly and when Raja Khan’s son Junmoni Khan came forward to put resistance, the appellant also dealt a dao blow in the belly of Junmoni Khan. PW-1 also deposed that the appellant had also dealt a dao blow in Raja Ali Khan’s neck. In so far as Bubai Hemram and Bijoy Hemram are concerned, PW-1 deposed that they had assaulted both Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan with bamboo sticks. While Raja Ali Khan died instantaneously, Junmoni Khan was taken to the Golaghat Civil Hospital, but around 10/10.30 P.M. of the same day, Junmoni Khan died in the hospital. On cross, PW-1 reiterated the same account of the incident. 5. PW-4 also deposed that when the Chowkidar Jakir Hussain charged Bubai Hemram for having stolen tea leaves, the appellant slapped Jakir and at a time when hue and cry took place, the appellant brought a dao from Bolo Gosain’s house and dealt a dao blow in Raja Ali Khan’s abdomen. When Junmoni Khan came to save Raja Ali Khan, the appellant also hacked Junmoni randomly. Thereafter, the PW-4 fled away from the place of occurrence. On cross, PW-4 described the incident that had taken place consistent with the deposition made in-chief. 6. The two post-mortem reports, i.e. of Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan was brought into evidence as Ext-3 and Ext-4 through Dr. Manabjyoti Phukan (PW-7). Injuries present on the body of Raja Ali Khan were recorded as lacerated injury over the mid of the forehead, incised wound in front of the neck, one stab wound over the left upper thorax and another stab wound over the abdomen, all horizontally oriented, of the size and description indicated in the Report. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage because of injuries so sustained, with all injuries being ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage because of injuries so sustained, with all injuries being ante-mortem in nature. Injuries found present on the dead body of Junmoni Khan were an incised wound over the left anterior axilary fold with incised- punctured wound over the upper abdomen together with incised wounds on the left side of the waist, right forearm, palm surface of the right hand, of the size and description given in the said Report. In the opinion of the Meidcal Officer, death had caused due to excessive haemorrhage following penetrating injury of the liver, with all injuries being ante-mortem in nature. Significantly, the defence declined to cross-examine Dr. Manabjyoti Phukan (PW-7). 7. Based on the evidence on record and the direct evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 of having witnessed the crime, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. We have heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2. 9. The first argument advanced by Mr. S. Borgohain is that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 with regard to the manner of inflicting dao blows on the person of Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan do not tally with the nature and description of injuries as appearing from the respective post-mortem reports. Second, neither the PW-1 in his deposition had mentioned the presence of PW-4 at the time of the incident nor PW-4 in his deposition made mention of the presence of PW-1 at the scene of the incident. Mr. Borgohain also submits that although the incident had occurred on 21.07.2008, the Arrest Memo records the arrest of the appellant only on 23.07.2008, which stands as a vitiating factor in the prosecution’s case. Lastly, Mr. Borgohain submits that notwithstanding the failure of the defence to bring into evidence the police statement made by Junmoni Khan on 21.07.2008, the said statement clearly goes to show that it was Bubai Hemram who had suddenly inflicted cutting blows on them (Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan). 10. On the proposition that it is important to connect the injuries with the weapon of offence, which according to Mr. 10. On the proposition that it is important to connect the injuries with the weapon of offence, which according to Mr. Borgohain is singularly absent in the present case, reliance is placed in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 172 . Reliance is also placed in the case of Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, rendered by the Apex Court on 09.09.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.2135 of 2009 for the proposition that when evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. 11. Mr. P.P. Baruah and Mr. K. Goswami, having taken us to the evidence on record, submits that the weapon of offence used in the occurrence and as described in the Seizure List (Ext-5) clearly goes to establish that the injuries sustained by both Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan have been inflicted by the seized weapon. It is also submitted that evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 as to the nature and manner of injuries inflicted, finds absolute corroboration from the nature and description of injuries recorded in the post-mortem report. As regards the Arrest Memo being dated 23.07.2008, it is submitted that arrest had been made after obtaining the necessary evidence for apprehending the appellant. 12. From the facts above and the materials on record, what is discernible is that there is direct evidence of the guilt of the appellant flowing out from the deposition of PW-1 and PW-4. Although Mr. Borgohain have made submission that the prosecution have failed to establish any element of motive on the part of the appellant to cause the death of Raja Ali Khan and Junmoni Khan, the absence of motive is not deemed relevant in the context of the present case. It is well settled in law that if prosecution case finds established by reliable ocular evidence supported by medical evidence, the issue of motive practically loses all relevance. In this connection, support can be had from the case of Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 196 . 13. The evidence brought on record by PW-1 and PW-4 have received our close scrutiny. A perusal thereof, do not disclose any element of the same being without quality or credibility. In this connection, support can be had from the case of Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 196 . 13. The evidence brought on record by PW-1 and PW-4 have received our close scrutiny. A perusal thereof, do not disclose any element of the same being without quality or credibility. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 have been consistent at all stages, either in-chief or on cross or in their statements made before the police during the stage of investigation. The quality of their testimony are sufficient to rest conviction upon the appellant. We also do not find any discrepancies as to the nature and description of injuries appearing in the post-mortem reports being contrary to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4. The ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 finds corroboration with the medical evidence and both considered together are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. Also, the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased’ cannot in any manner be held as not connecting to the description of the weapon of offence as described in the Seizure List. This is not a case based on circumstantial evidence but on direct evidence of eye witnesses to the crime. As a passing observation it may be mentioned that the police statement of Junmoni Khan, relied upon by Mr. Borgohain, if read in its entirety, only goes to strengthen the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as, the said statement unerringly goes to show that the appellant had brought a dao from Bolo Gosain’s house and had dealt a blow in the belly of his father (Raja Ali Khan) and thereafter, on the person of Junmoni Khan. 14. The cases relied upon by Mr. Borgohain do not come to the aid of the appellant. From the discussions and findings above, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge at Golaghat in Sessions Case No.115/2008. As a result thereof, this appeal stands rejected/dismissed.