JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State. 2. This appeal from jail has been preferred by the sole appellant assailing the judgment dated 08-12-2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 85(J-J)/2015 convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of Lebu Rajowar and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The allegation brought against the appellant is to the effect that on 15-03-2015 at around 02:00 p.m. he had intercepted the deceased Lebu Rajowar on the road while the later was coming from his home and dealt blows on the face of the victim with axe, as a result of which, the victim had suffered grievous injuries leading to his death on the spot. On 17-03-2015, Sri Bipul Rajowar, i.e. the brother of the victim had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Titabor Sub Police Station reporting the incident. On receipt of the ejahar on 17-03-2015 Titabor P.S. Case No. 61/2015 was registered under Section 302 of IPC. The matter was entrusted to S.I. Sri Nakul Chandra Phukan for carrying out investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer (I/O) under Section 302 IPC. Based on the charge-sheet, the learned trial court had framed charge against the accused/ appellant under Section 302 IPC. However, since the accused had pleaded innocence, he was subjected to trial. 4. The prosecution case is based on the testimony of as many as 07 (seven) eye witnesses, which also included the father of the accused Sri Birsha Rajowar. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and claimed innocence. Upon completion of trial and evaluation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Lebu Rajowar and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. The witnesses PWs-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Upon completion of trial and evaluation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Lebu Rajowar and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. The witnesses PWs-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence. All these witnesses have deposed before the court in more or less one voice by stating that on the date of the occurrence, at about 02:00 p.m. they had seen the accused/ appellant assaulting the deceased Lebu Rajowar on his head with a ‘Kuthar’ (Axe), as a result of which, the victim had died on the spot. According to PW-2 Sri Boloram Rajowar, the accused had struck the victim with the axe twice on his head. PW-3 Sri Ajit Rajowar has, however, stated that the accused had given three blows on the deceased on his head with an axe. After seeing the incident, he had chased the accused but in the meantime, he ran away towards Bandar Chaliha Outpost by leaving behind the axe at the place of occurrence and thereafter, the accused had entered the police outpost. 6. PW-4 Sri Sukumoni Rajowar is the mother of the victim and she had also seen the occurrence. This witness has deposed that the accused had struck the victim with an axe on his head, as a result of which, he died on the spot. The accused had fled the scene after throwing away the axe. 7. PW-6 Sri Dina Rajowar had seen the accused assaulting the victim on his head with a ‘Kuthar’ (axe), due to which, the victim fell down on the ground and died on the spot. The accused ran towards the police station. Likewise, PW-8 Sri Biren Bhuyan, who is another eye witness to the occurrence, had also deposed that the accused had struck the victim thrice on his head with an axe leading to his death. PW-8 has further deposed that he saw the incident from a distance of 15 ft. and there was no quarrel between the accused and the victim. PW-10 Sri Birsha Rajowar is the father of the accused and he has also deposed before the court that it was accused Bhaikon Rajowar who has assaulted the victim on his head thrice due to which, Lebo Rajowar fell down and died on the spot. 8. and there was no quarrel between the accused and the victim. PW-10 Sri Birsha Rajowar is the father of the accused and he has also deposed before the court that it was accused Bhaikon Rajowar who has assaulted the victim on his head thrice due to which, Lebo Rajowar fell down and died on the spot. 8. The evidence adduced by all these eye witnesses find due corroboration from the medical evidence brought on record through the PW-11, viz. Dr. Nitu Kumar Gogoi, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body at the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital. PW-11 has proved the postmortem report Exhibit-4 and has also opined that the death was caused due to coma as a result of injuries sustained over the head. All the injuries, according to the PW-11, were ante mortem and caused by moderately heavy to heavy sharp edged weapon which was homicidal in nature. PW-11 has further deposed that he had found the following wounds on the dead body: “1. Chop wound of size 7 cm X 3 cm X cranial cavity deep over right temporal region middle part of the head. 2. Chop wound of size 7 cm X 2 cm X cranial cavity deep over the vertex of head. 3. Chop wound of size 7.5 cm X 3 cm X cranial cavity deep over forehead middle part horizontally.” 9. PW-1, Sri Bipul Rajowar is the informant in this case. He is related to the victim. PW-1 has deposed before the court that (Exhibit-1) the FIR was lodged by him. This witness had proved his signature in the FIR and has further deposed that as he was busy in the funeral of his deceased brother, there was delay in lodging the FIR. During cross-examination this witness could not be shaken. 10. PW-5, Sri Bijoy Rajowar did not see the incident but later on came to know that the accused had killed the deceased with an axe. 11. PW-9, Smti. Sabita Rajowar is the wife of the deceased. She also did not see the occurrence but saw the accused coming from the backside of the house with an axe in his hand by saying something. She tried to stop the accused but without listening to her, the accused went ahead with the axe in his hand. 11. PW-9, Smti. Sabita Rajowar is the wife of the deceased. She also did not see the occurrence but saw the accused coming from the backside of the house with an axe in his hand by saying something. She tried to stop the accused but without listening to her, the accused went ahead with the axe in his hand. By the time, she had reached the place of occurrence, the accused had already assaulted her husband with the axe and fled away towards the police station by leaving behind the axe. 12. PW-12, Sri Nakul Chandra Phukan is the I/O in this case. This witness has deposed before the court narrating the manner in which the investigation was carried out by him. PW-12 has deposed that he had recorded statements of all the eye witnesses, collected the postmortem report as well as the inquest report, seized one axe from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet. According to PW-12, on 15-03-2015, he had received a message from Havildar of Bandar Chaliha Police Outpost that one murder has been committed and thereafter, made G.D. Entry 393 dated 15-03-2015. During the cross-examination, PW-12 has stated that he had received information about the incident at about 03:00 p.m. on 15-03-2015 and went to the place of occurrence at 04:00 p.m. on the same day. 13. PW-13, Sri Chinmoy Baruah was the SDJM posted at Titabor on 23-03-2015. He had recorded the statements of the three witnesses, Boloram Rajowar (PW-2), Ajit Rajowar (PW-3) and Biren Bhuyan (PW-8) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-13 has deposed as regards the manner in which steps had been taken by him for recording the statements of these three witnesses. PW-13 has also proved Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-3, which are the respective statements of the above witnesses recorded by him. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him has aforesaid. 14. By referring to the evidence available on record, Ms. Barman, learned amicus curiae has argued that since the prosecution case is based on eye witnesses account, she is not seeking acquittal for her client. However, contending that there was a pre-existing land dispute between the families of the accused and the victim, Ms. 14. By referring to the evidence available on record, Ms. Barman, learned amicus curiae has argued that since the prosecution case is based on eye witnesses account, she is not seeking acquittal for her client. However, contending that there was a pre-existing land dispute between the families of the accused and the victim, Ms. Barman, learned amicus curiae has made a prayer before this Court to convert the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The said prayer has, however, been opposed by Ms. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam on the ground that there is no material before this Court to show that present case would come under the exceptions of Section 300 IPC. She further submits that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. 15. From a careful reading of the materials available on record including the testimony of the eye witnesses, we are convinced that the charge brought against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC has been firmly established. The evidence of the eye witnesses not only find due corroboration from the testimony of one another but is also duly supported by the medical evidence brought on record. Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the charge brought against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Insofar as the prayer made by the learned amicus curiae for conversion of the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I and II of the IPC, we find from the scrutiny of the materials available on record that there is nothing to suggest that the present case would come within the sweep of any of the Exceptions of Section 300 of the IPC. Rather, it appears that the accused had acted with pre-meditation and had assaulted the victim with heavy and sharp weapon on the vital parts of his body, with the intent to kill. Evidence available on record further indicates that immediately before the incident, the accused had left behind his wife in the house of his father-in-law and on his way back, he had also picked up the axe from the house of PW 5. Evidence available on record further indicates that immediately before the incident, the accused had left behind his wife in the house of his father-in-law and on his way back, he had also picked up the axe from the house of PW 5. All these preparation made by the accused go to show that there was sufficient pre-mediation on the part of the accused/ appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Such being the position, we are unable to accept the prayer made by the learned amicus curiae for conversion of the conviction of the accused/ appellant. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Send back the LCR. Before parting with the record, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the valuable services rendered by Ms. M. Barman, learned amicus curiae appearing in this case and direct the Registry to make available to her, just remuneration as per the notified rate.