JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction as also sentence dated January 31, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial Case No.XLIII of April 2004 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as under:- 3. On September 8, 2001 at about 20.00 hours, one Kurshed Ali since deceased and some others were playing cards at Hadira More of village-Ballichak, District–Paschim Midnapore. They heard shouting from Dakshin Para of the above village. They rushed towards the spot and on the way found that the appellant with “vojali” in his hand, Habibul with a “lathi” in his hand, Fazil with a knife in his hand and Jamal, who were moving towars them. According to the prosecution case, they also found one Aklima Bibi, the sister of the appellant, with bleeding injury on her hand. She stated in excited manner that one Akbar, son of Daulat Khan, made an attempt to kill the appellant with the help of some outsiders. The aforesaid Daulat Khan was the brother of aforesaid deceased person. According to the above Aklima Bibi, she got injury on her hand while she made an attempt to resist them. Khurshed Ali told his associates to find out the aforesaid Akbar. 4. Suddenly, Fazil and Jamal caught hold of the hands of Khurshed Ali saying that Kalimuddin, one of their brothers, had been killed under the instruction of the above Khurshed Ali. The appellant assaulted Khurshed Ali with a sharp cutting weapon “vojali” on the chest of the above Khursid Ali. He was shifted to the chamber of Bablu Doctor, who declared him dead. 5. According to prosecution case, two years prior to the above incident, the elder brother of the appellant, namely Kalimuddin, was beaten to death by public on the ground of his attempted snatching. The appellant and his associates were under impression that the aforesaid Khurshed Ali was the mastermind of planning for killing their aforesaid brothers. They also used to threaten him with dire consequences. 6. The appellant and his associates were under impression that the aforesaid Khurshed Ali was the mastermind of planning for killing their aforesaid brothers. They also used to threaten him with dire consequences. 6. A written complaint dated September 8, 2001, was lodged in the Debra Police Station, Ballichak, District-Paschim Medinipore at 20.35 hours by PW 3, the son of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR bearing Debra P.S. Case No.92/2001 dated September 8, 2001 was drawn against the appellant, Sk. Fazil, Sk. Habibul Rahaman, Sk. Jamal Ali with reference to U.D. Case No.52/2001. 7. Inquest examination over the dead body of the deceased was conducted at the southern verandah of the residence of the deceased on September 8, 2001 at 23.45 hours by PW 14, the investigating officer. The names of the appellant and his brothers Sk. Hafijuddin as also nephew Sk. Jamal Ali appeared in the above inquest report on the basis of preliminary investigation. PW 9 was one of the witnesses of the above inquest report. 8. PW 14 prepared rough sketch map of the place of occurrence in course of his investigation on the date of occurrence with reference to Debra P.S. Case No.92 of 2001. 9. Post mortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased by PW 5 on September 9, 2001 at 15.15 hours at Medinipore Medical College & Hospital with reference to Debra P.S. Case No.92/2001 dated September 8, 2001. 10. The following injuries were detected in course of post mortem examination over the body of the deceased:- “1. 1” deep injury on left chest wall. 2. ½” deep injury on the left side lower chest wall. 3. Fracture in lower rib on the left side.” 11. According to the opinion of the autopsy surgeon PW 5, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries, which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 12. After completing the investigation, charge sheet bearing No.99 of 2001 was submitted on November 28, 2001 against the appellant and Sk. Fazil, Sk. Jamaluddin, Sk. Habibul Rahaman for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. On August 9, 2002 Sk. Fazil breathed his last. on August 25, 2004, Charge was framed against the appellant, Sk. Habibul Rahaman and Sk. After completing the investigation, charge sheet bearing No.99 of 2001 was submitted on November 28, 2001 against the appellant and Sk. Fazil, Sk. Jamaluddin, Sk. Habibul Rahaman for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. On August 9, 2002 Sk. Fazil breathed his last. on August 25, 2004, Charge was framed against the appellant, Sk. Habibul Rahaman and Sk. Jamaluddin for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Thereafter, by order no.16 dated March 29, 2005, the accused Sk. Jamal was forwarded to the Juvenile Board considering that he was a juvenile in conflict with law. So, the trial commenced against the appellant and the accused Sk. Habibul Rahaman. 13. After considering the evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidences, the impugned judgement was passed convicting the appellant and passing an order of acquittal in respect of the accused Sk. Habibul Rahaman. 14. It is submitted by Ms. Meenal Sinha, learned amicus curiae that the identification of the appellant in darkness at the place of occurrence was not proved in the trial beyond reasonable doubts. No torchlight was seized from any of the prosecution witnesses. 15. According to Ms. Sinha, all the prosecution witnesses claiming to be the eyewitnesses, namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 were interested witnesses. 16. It is also her submission that though PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 carried the body of the deceased to the chamber of PW 10 but surprisingly, their cloths were not stained with blood. 17. Drawing our attentions towards the post mortem report it is submitted by Ms. Sinha that though according to prosecution case, the post mortem examination was conducted within 24 hours from the time of occurrence of the incident, no rigor mortis was present on the dead body of the deceased. It created reasonable doubt with regard to the manner in which the prosecution case was sought to be projected. 18. She added that sustaining of injury by Aklima Bibi, the sister of the appellant was not proved in trial. 19. It is also submitted by Ms. Sinha that the motive of the appellant for assaulting the deceased was not proved beyond reasonable doubts in view of the fact that the submission of mass petition as stated by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 in Court was not proved. 20. 19. It is also submitted by Ms. Sinha that the motive of the appellant for assaulting the deceased was not proved beyond reasonable doubts in view of the fact that the submission of mass petition as stated by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 in Court was not proved. 20. It is further submitted by Ms. Sinha that due to the aforesaid reasons the witnessing of the incident by the eyewitnesses, namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 were doubtful. 21. According to Ms. Sinha, the recovery of weapon of offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because in the alleged statement of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exbt.-8), no place from which the weapon of offence could be recovered was mentioned. She added that in the statement made by the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated in reply to question no.9 that his signature on the seizure list was obtained forcibly by the investigating agency. It is also submitted by Ms. Sinha that the PW 6, who was the grandson of the deceased person, one of the witnesses of recovery of weapon of offence. Therefore, he was interested witness and the other independent witness of such seizure, namely, Safiruddin was not produced before the Court as prosecution witness. Drawing our attentions towards the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it is submitted by Ms. Sinha that no question relating to the statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was put to him. 22. According to the Amicus Curiae, it was a matter of doubt that the sons of the deceased did not make any attempt to save their father while he (the deceased) had been assaulted by the appellant and his associates. 23. Reliance is placed by Ms. Sinha on the decisions of Lakshmi Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , Lakshman Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 22 and State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan & Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 390 in support of her above submissions. 24. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , Lakshman Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 22 and State of U.P. vs. Madan Mohan & Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 390 in support of her above submissions. 24. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State that the prosecution case was proved from the evidence of six (6) eyewitnesses. According to him, two out of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, namely PW 3 and PW 6, were relations of the deceased but the rest four (4) eyewitnesses namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 were independent natural witnesses. He added that the incident was reported to the police by an independent eyewitness namely, PW 1. 25. According to him, the prosecution case, as appeared from the evidence of the eye-witnesses was corroborating with the post mortem report of the deceased and the evidence adduced by the autopsy surgeon. 26. It is submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that non-seizure of torch lights from the eyewitnesses may be a fault on the part of the investigating officer but the same should not vitiate the entire trial in view of the fact that the miscreants were known to the prosecution witnesses who could be identified in darkness in the open space in accordance with the settled principles of law. 27. It is submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the place from which the weapon of offence could be recovered was not mentioned in the statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But in addition to such statement his signature appeared on the seizure list of the weapon of offence. With regard to the alleged withholding of the one seizure list witness, namely Safiruddin, our attention has been drawn towards a number of orders passed by the learned trial Judge issuing summons for appearance of the aforesaid Safiruddin and the order dated July 21, 2005 by which warrant of arrest was issued against him. It is also submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that due to the alleged error in mentioning any of the incriminating circumstances to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no prejudice was shown before the Court for such error. It is also submitted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that due to the alleged error in mentioning any of the incriminating circumstances to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no prejudice was shown before the Court for such error. As a result, no prejudice was caused to the appellant for such alleged error in recording the above statement. 28. Reliance is placed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury on the decisions of Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 238 in support of his above submissions. 29. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties as also giving our anxious considerations to the facts and circumstances of this appeal we find that the prosecution case was based on the evidence of the six (6) eyewitnesses. Out them four (4) were natural independent witnesses namely, PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7. The remaining two (2) were the relations of the deceased. The above evidence was corroborated by the evidence of the autopsy surgeon namely, PW 5 read with the post mortem report. The weapon of offence was shown to the PW 5 also. 30. With regard to the first contention of the appellants, we can recollect that in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2008)11 SCC 425 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if there is insufficient light, a witness can identify a person, with whom he is fairly acquainted or is in intimate terms, from his voice, gait, features etc. 31. In Nathuni Yadav Vs. State of Behar, reported in (1998)9 SCC 238 , it has been observed by the Apex Court that even the assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targeted without any mistake from among other persons, why should one think that the same light was not enough for the others who would certainly have pointedly focused their eyes on the faces of the intruders standing in front of them. 32. Recently a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta, J) was the presiding Judge, delivered a judgment in Ram Chandra Mondal @ Ram Mondal & Anr. 32. Recently a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta, J) was the presiding Judge, delivered a judgment in Ram Chandra Mondal @ Ram Mondal & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal, reported in (2016) 3 CAL LT 73 (HC), discussed the the above settled proposition in details not to accept the contention of the appellant that darkness could not stand in the way of identifying known assailants in most of the cases. 33. Coming back to the instant case, we are of the opinion that non-seizure of torch light, might be a fault on the part of the investigating officer but for such fault and/or laches, the prosecution case should not be vitiated in identifying the assailants who had been well known to the prosecution witnesses. 34. With regard to the next contention of the appellant that the prosecution case was based on the evidence of interested witnesses, as indicated hereinabove, four (4) out of six (6) eyewitnesses were natural witnesses having no interest to support the prosecution case. 35. That apart, in Dharampal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2010)9 SCC 608 , it has been held by the Apex Court that the case of the prosecution witness cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is an interested witness in the event the evidence is otherwise acceptable. In the instant case the evidence of two relations of the deceased corroborated with those of the other four eyewitnesses. So, the impugned judgment does not require our interference on that ground. 36. Regarding the absence of blood stain in the clothing’s of the prosecution witnesses who had carried the body of the deceased to the chamber of the doctor, in view of the over all assessment of the evidence of the eye witnesses and the evidence of the autopsy surgeon read with the post mortem report, we are of the opinion that the prosecution case has not been vitiated on the above ground. 37. With regard to the absence of rigor mortis in the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination, the same cannot demolish the veracity of the evidence adduced by as many as six (6) eyewitnesses if those evidences were creditworthy on overall assessment of those evidences. 38. 37. With regard to the absence of rigor mortis in the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination, the same cannot demolish the veracity of the evidence adduced by as many as six (6) eyewitnesses if those evidences were creditworthy on overall assessment of those evidences. 38. Regarding the next contention of the appellant that no treatment paper of the sister of the appellant, namely Aklima Bibi, was produced in Court in support of sustaining injury by her, we are of the opinion that it was an isolated incident and the prosecution case was not dependent on the above fact. It will not be out of context to observe here that PW 13 found the appellant and his sister, amongst other miscreants, in the light of lamp (lampha) at a distance. Therefore, her evidence of finding no bleeding injury in the body of the aforesaid sister of the appellant is not a contradiction with the evidence of other eyewitnesses of material dimension. Noteworthy, that she was not shakened in cross-examination. 39. Similarly, with regard to the next contention of the appellant of non-production of any material before the Court by the prosecution to prove filing of mass petition against the appellants and his brothers is not relevant in view of the facts of this case. At the cost of repetition, we observe that the prosecution case was based on the evidence of four (4) eyewitnesses apart from to other eyewitnesses. 40. Regarding the next contention of doubt with regard to recovery of the alleged weapon of offence leading to the alleged statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anwarul Haq vs. State of U.P., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 581 that when there is description of weapon of offence, which is available from the evidence of eyewitness and the wounds noticed by the autopsy surgeon on the dead body of the deceased supports the prosecution case such evidence should not be totally wiped out merely because the weapon of offence has not been discovered. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “15. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “15. Eyewitnesses in the present case have described the knife, and merely because the knife has not been recovered during investigation same cannot be a factor to discard the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Wounds noticed by the doctor (PW 3) also throw considerable light on this aspect. The doctor’s opinion about the weapon, though theoretical, cannot be totally wiped out. In that view of the matter the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 324 IPC.” 41. In view of the above settled principles of law even assuming that the recovery of the weapon of offence cannot be taken into consideration for adjudication of the prosecution case the prosecution case is not vitiated on the above ground. 42. The contention of the appellant casting doubt of the credibility of the eyewitnesses drawing our attention towards the conduct of the son (PW 3) of the deceased not to put resistance at the time of assaulting their deceased father, we find from the evidence of PW 3 that the miscreants including the appellant were armed with sharp cutting weapon, lathi, etc. The incident of assault took place within a spar of moment. Therefore, we find no substance in the above submission made on behalf of the appellant. 43. Regarding the motive behind the commission of offence by the appellant we find from the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 9 that two year prior to the incident of murder of the deceased one of the brothers of the appellant, namely, Kalimuddin was caught in the act of dacoity and the public beat him to death. After the above incident the appellant and his other brothers used to hold threats to the deceased on the ground that he was the main person behind the killing of the aforesaid brother of the appellant. 44. In the decision of Lakshmi Singh & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court took into consideration the fact of evidence adduced by the interested or inimical witness. But in the case in our hand there were four (4) natural independent eyewitnesses out of six (6) eyewitnesses. Therefore, the above decision has no manner of application in this case. 45. 44. In the decision of Lakshmi Singh & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court took into consideration the fact of evidence adduced by the interested or inimical witness. But in the case in our hand there were four (4) natural independent eyewitnesses out of six (6) eyewitnesses. Therefore, the above decision has no manner of application in this case. 45. In view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the decision of Lakshman Prasad (supra) the same does not help the appellant so far as the question of possibility of the appellant having been falsely implicated due to enmity is concerned. The decision of Madan Mohan & Ors. (supra) was based on absence of independent witness to prove the prosecution case unlike the case in our hand. So the above decision also does not help the appellant in any way. 46. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, order of conviction or sentence. 47. Before parting with, we appreciate the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae in deciding this appeal. 48. This appeal stands dismissed. 49. Let this judgment together with the Lower Court’s records be sent back to the learned Court below expeditiously. Sahidullah Munshi, J. I agree.