JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. The sole appellant Monomohan Baruah @ Monoranjan Baruah has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in connection with Sessions Case No. 2(BGN)/2016 whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his elder brother Mantu Baruah and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 20.09.2010 the accused Monomohan Bauah, armed with a crowbar, had arrived at the house of Sri Rabilochan Nath (PW-2) and assaulted him on his head causing grievous injury. The victim was shifted to the hospital in a 108 ambulance but after a few days, he had succumbed to his injuries. 4. The informant in this case is Sri Khargeswar Baruah, who is the father of the accused as well as the deceased. On 22.09.2010, PW-1 had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station reporting the said incident. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 445/2010 was registered under Section 326/307 IPC and S.I. Sri Sailen Kalita was entrusted with the task of carrying out the investigation in connection with the aforesaid police case. However, after the death of the victim in the hospital, section 302 of the IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, based on which charge was framed against him under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant/accused had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter went for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge brought against the appellant, the prosecution side has examined as many as 10 witnesses including the doctor (PW-6) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body and the I.O. (PW-10) who had conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet. Based on the evidence brought on record, the learned Sessions Judge had held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence brought on record, the learned Sessions Judge had held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. There is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution case is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. The incident occurred in the residence of Sri Rabilochan Nath i.e. PW-2 and he had seen the accused at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. Therefore, although not an eye-witness, PW-2 is a key witness in this case and his testimony has also been heavily relied upon by the learned trial court for convicting the appellant. 7. PW-2, Sri Robi Lochan Nath, has deposed before the court that the deceased Mantu Baruah was his friend and both of them used to do masonry work together. The incident took place in the year 2010. On that day, around 8.30 p.m. the deceased and he was having a talk on the verandah of his house. As the night progressed, the members of his family went to bed after diner and both of them were talking to each other. At that time, deceased Mantu wanted to have betel nut. So he had come inside the house to fetch betel nut. While he was inside the house, he heard a sound as if someone was assaulted. Then he came out of the house and saw that Mantu Baruah had fallen down on the ground and the accused Monomohan Baruah was standing there, armed with a crowbar. Blood was oozing out from the neck of Mantu Baruah. Then he had pushed Monomohan asking him as to what had he done. Monmohan went out of his house taking the crowbar along with him. He then sounded an alarm. The members of his family woke up and arrived there. He went out of his house with the intention to give information in the house of Mantu and also called his neighbour Govinda Sutradhar and asked him to call a 108 ambulance. PW-2 has also stated that on reaching the house of Mantu he met Monmohan’s wife and after giving her the information, he had returned home. While returning home, he had called other people whom he had met on the way. PW-2 has also stated that on reaching the house of Mantu he met Monmohan’s wife and after giving her the information, he had returned home. While returning home, he had called other people whom he had met on the way. When the 108 ambulance had arrived and the brother of Mantu arrived at his house, the victim was taken to the hospital. Later on, Mantu died in the hospital. During his cross-examination, the testimony of this witness could not be shaken. 8. PW-2 is not a member of the victim’s family and there is nothing on record to indicate any reason as to why he would give false evidence to implicate the brother of the victim. On a careful reading of his testimony, we find that the evidence of PW-2 is consistent and the same appears to be truthful. 9. As mentioned above, PW-1, Sri Khargeswar Baruah i.e. the informant in this case is the father of the accused as well as the victim. PW-1 has deposed that on the day of the incident the accused, armed with a crowbar, went in search of his second son (Mantu Baruah) with the intention to kill him. Later, the PW-2 came to his house and informed that accused Monmohan has struck Mantu on his head with a crowbar in his house while he was sitting on the verandah of the house of PW-2. Mantu Baruah was shifted to the hospital in injured condition but after undergoing treatment at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital, he died. The ejahar was lodged two days after the incident since he was busy in connection with the treatment of Mantu Baruah. 10. PW-3, Smti Ratneswari Baruah, is the mother of the accused as well as the deceased. She has deposed that a quarrel took place with Mantu Baruah for not paying money for maintenance of the family. On the day of the incident, PW-2 came to their house and informed that Mantu had a fight with the accused Monmohan where Mantu had sustained injuries. She then went to the house of PW-2 but by that time Mantu had already been taken to the hospital. 11. PW-4, Smti Sima Nath, is the wife of PW-2. On the day of the incident, PW-2 came to their house and informed that Mantu had a fight with the accused Monmohan where Mantu had sustained injuries. She then went to the house of PW-2 but by that time Mantu had already been taken to the hospital. 11. PW-4, Smti Sima Nath, is the wife of PW-2. She has deposed that on the night of the incident when she was sleeping along with her child in the evening hours, her husband had told her that accused Monmohan had assaulted Mantu Baruah in their verandah. Then she got up and came there. In the meanwhile, 108 ambulance had arrived and Mantu was taken away. During her cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that her husband never told her as to how the incident had happened. 12. PW-5, Dilip Barman, was serving as the Secretary of Dewangaon Gaon Committee. He has deposed that on the day of the incident at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening while he was standing on the road, PW-2 had told him that accused Monmohan had struck Mantu Baruah. Then he went to the place of occurrence i.e. the house of PW-2 and saw Mantu Baruah lying there in an injured state. This witness has stated that 108 ambulance had been called before he had reached the place and after his arrival the ambulance came and took the injured to the hospital. Later on, Mantu Baruah had expired. 13. PW-7, Rabi Lochan Boruah, is one of the brothers of the accused and the victim. He had deposed that on the day of the incident at around 8/8.30 p.m. when he went to bed after having his meal, his neighbour PW-2 came and informed that his brother Mantu Baruah had been assaulted. Then he went to the house of PW-2 and found Mantu in an injured condition. PW-8, Sri Khargeswar Boruah, is another brother of the deceased and he has also deposed in similar lines. Likewise, PW-9, Dhruba Baruah, another brother of the accused and the deceased, has adduced evidence which is consistent with the version of his other two brothers. The testimony of these witnesses had remained unshaken during their cross-examination. 14. PW-6, Dr. Diganta Choudhury, was the Medical & Health Officer on duty at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 23.09.2010 and he had conducted autopsy on the dead body. The testimony of these witnesses had remained unshaken during their cross-examination. 14. PW-6, Dr. Diganta Choudhury, was the Medical & Health Officer on duty at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 23.09.2010 and he had conducted autopsy on the dead body. According to the post-mortem report, there was one cut injury (3 x 2 cm) medial to the right shoulder and another cut injury on left parietal region of scalp of size (7 x 3 x ½ cm). According to the doctor’s opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury caused by sharp weapon which was ante mortem in nature. The PW-6 has proved his signature in the post-mortem report as Ext-1. 15. PW10, Sri Sailen Kumar Kalita, is the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in this case. From the testimony of the I.O. it appears that upon receipt of the ejahar, Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 445/10 was registered and thereafter, the matter was taken up for investigation. The I.O. has confirmed that PW-1, Khargeswar Baruah, is the informant in this case. He has deposed that the injured person had died in the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital while undergoing treatment. PW-10 has also stated that he had conducted inquest on the dead body and thereafter, had sent it for post-mortem examination. He had also got the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. During his cross-examination, PW-10 had admitted that he did not find the crowbar that was used in the incident. He also did not search the house of PW-2 for the crowbar since he was told that the accused had fled along with the crowbar. 16. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the failure on the part of the I.O. to recover the crowbar i.e. the weapon of assault coupled with discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses has caused a serious dent on the prosecution case, the benefit of which, must go in favour of the appellant/accused. 17. Opposing the said submission, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Addl. 17. Opposing the said submission, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances in this case by adducing cogent evidence which goes to show that it is none other than the accused/appellant who had fatally assaulted his brother Mantu Baruah and caused grievous injuries in his head which has resulted into his death. 18. As noted above, PW-2 is the key witness in this case and the incident admittedly took in the verandah of his house when he was chatting with the deceased Mantu Baruah during the evening hours of the day. This witness has categorically deposed that while he went inside to fetch betel nut at the request of the deceased then he heard a sound of someone assaulting and immediately came out to the verandah and saw the accused standing there with a crowbar and the victim Mantu Baruah was bleeding profusely. The aforesaid evidence of the PW-2 has not been challenged by the defence side during his cross-examination. 19. The post-mortem report Ext-1 and the evidence of the doctor (PW-6) clearly establishes the fact that the deceased had died a homicidal death due to the ante-mortem injuries suffered by him on his head. 20. It may be noted herein that the witnesses PWs-1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are all related to the accused and the victim. There is nothing on record to indicate any oblique motive on the part of these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant in the incident. Conjointly read with the testimony of PW-2 the evidence adduced by PWs-1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 appears to be consistent and corroborates the version given by one another. 21. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had denied of having gone to the house of PW-2 on the day of the incident but he did not adduce any evidence to prove the said fact. Moreover, in response to Question No. 7 the appellant had stated that sometimes the deceased Mantu Baruah used to pick up quarrel with him and used to scold him for not paying the household expenditure. From a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, we find that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over non-payment of household expenditure and therefore, the motive behind the incident is also clearly established. 22. From a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, we find that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over non-payment of household expenditure and therefore, the motive behind the incident is also clearly established. 22. For the reasons mentioned herein above, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In view of the above, this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24. Send back the LCR.