JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. B. Borah, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1 2. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 233 (N) of 2005 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of G.R. Case No.2113 of 2004 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) by each in default to undergo a further term of simple imprisonment of 1(one) year for the aforesaid offences. 3. As can be gathered from the records, it appears that the incident had occurred in the evening at around 6.15 P.M. of 19.12.2004 in which the deceased Nurul Islam was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons with sharp weapons in connection with which a General Diary (GD) Entry No.361 dated 19.12.2004 was made on the basis of which necessary investigation was initiated by the I.O of the case by visiting the place of occurrence and soon thereafter, formal F.I.R. was also lodged on the next day on 20.12.2004 by the complainant who is the brother of the deceased, namely, Baharul Islam who also testified as PW1. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the four accused, namely, Md. Iman Ali, Md. Nuruddin, Md. Moniruddin and Abdul Kuddus were charged for committing murder by intentionally causing death of Nurul Islam in furtherance with common intention on 19.12.2004 at around 6:15 P.M. at Uttar Khatowal. 5. In connection with the aforesaid prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Doctor who performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased as well as the I.O. of the case. 6. All the accused pleaded ignorance and also denied the charges against them. The defence did not adduce any evidence. 7. The Trial Court after considering the evidences on record convicted Md. Iman Ali, Nuruddin and Md. Moniruddin under Sections 302/34 IPC. As far as the other accused Abdul Kuddus is concerned, the prosecution stood abated vide order dated 29.11.2010 on his death. 8. The defence did not adduce any evidence. 7. The Trial Court after considering the evidences on record convicted Md. Iman Ali, Nuruddin and Md. Moniruddin under Sections 302/34 IPC. As far as the other accused Abdul Kuddus is concerned, the prosecution stood abated vide order dated 29.11.2010 on his death. 8. The Trial Court while convicting the appellants had laid great emphasis on the testimonies of PW1, Baharul Islam as well as PW4, Mainul Hoque which according to the Trial Court was corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, Dr. S.M. Rahman who was examined as PW10. The Trial Court also considered the defence put up before the trial that the place of occurrence was not properly established and secondly, the incident could not have been witnessed inasmuch as the said occurrence took place in the late evening at around 6:15 P.M. of December in absence of any electric light near the place of occurrence. The Trial Court also considered the plea of the defence that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution. However, the Trial Court did not find substance in the aforesaid grounds and accordingly, held that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons/present appellants committed the aforesaid crime punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 9. Before us also, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has raised similar pleas. 10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid pleas, we would refer to the critical evidences on record specially the evidence of PW1, PW4 and the Medical evidence. Reference will also be made to evidences of the other witnesses in due course. 11. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who was the complainant and the brother of the deceased, namely, Baharul Islam, he had testified before the Trial Court that he knew all the accused persons including one Abdul Salam who was absconding at the relevant time. PW1 stated that the occurrence took place on 19.12.2004 at about 6.10 P.M. in the evening on the road in front of the residence of accused Abdul Kuddus. The road starts from Khatowal centre towards their residence and his residence is about 1½ furlong away from the residence of the accused. He also stated that the residence of all the accused were just near the place of occurrence. The road starts from Khatowal centre towards their residence and his residence is about 1½ furlong away from the residence of the accused. He also stated that the residence of all the accused were just near the place of occurrence. He also stated that there was an altercation prior to the date of occurrence between deceased Nurul and the accused persons regarding raddish cultivation. Thereupon the accused persons had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. PW1 also stated that on the day before the occurrence when the witness was taking meal deceased Nurul Islam told them that he was threatened by the accused persons. However, they did not take the matter seriously. PW1 deposed that on the next day, the deceased Nurul Islam had gone to Khatowal centre as usual for recreation and PW1 also went to Khatowal and met his deceased brother Nurul Islam. When they were coming back along with Mainul Islam who was examined as PW4 towards their residence and they reached in front of the residence of the accused, all the accused persons, namely, Abdul Kuddus, Nuruddin, Moniruddin, Iman Ali and Abdul Salam obstructed them on the road near their residence. Thereafter, the accused persons attacked them and two of them were pushed on the ground and his brother Nurul Islam was assaulted by means of dagger and knife on his chest. Deceased Nurul Islam accordingly fell on the ground. PW1 also stated that all the accused persons are co-villagers and neighbours. He also stated that immediately thereafter, many people gathered at the place of occurrence and his injured brother Nurul Islam was taken to a local pharmacy and he later succumbed to his injuries. PW1 also mentioned about the presence of other persons at the place of occurrence, namely, Nizamuddin, Joinal Abedin who was examined as PW5, Abdul Mannan who was examined as PW3 and Nur Mohammad who was examined as PW8, who came to the place of occurrence. He also deposed that the police was informed by the local people and on the next day he lodged the formal ejahar. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that at the time of occurrence, it was a full moon and he could not say the exact “Tithi” of the day. He denied that the accused persons had come covering their face and body with warm clothes and as such, he could not recognize them. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that at the time of occurrence, it was a full moon and he could not say the exact “Tithi” of the day. He denied that the accused persons had come covering their face and body with warm clothes and as such, he could not recognize them. He also stated that he tried to catch hold the accused persons but they pushed him and he fell down on the ground because of which he could not catch them. He also stated that while writing the F.I.R. by the subscriber, he told him about the weapons held by the accused persons but he did not know whether the same was mentioned in the F.I.R. or not. PW1 also denied many of the suggestions made by the defence as to whether he had stated those statements before the police while his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. PW4, Mainul Hoque is another important witness relied upon heavily by the prosecution for establishing the case. PW4 had deposed that he knew all the accused and were residents of Khatowal and also knew the deceased Nur Islam. He stated that while he along with the said deceased were returning from Katowal Bazar through the paddy field, the accused Nuruddin, Moniruddin, Iman Ali, Salam and Kuddus came near them and accused Moniruddin and Nuruddin struck blows with daggers to Nur Islam and thereafter, Nur Islam sustained injuries on his abdomen, chest and other parts of the body. PW4 also stated that place of occurrence is at paddy field. He clearly stated that the accused persons were known to him. Thereafter, Baharul, Nijam and PW4 took injured Nur Islam to Khatowal Chariali, just near the pharmacy. After that the dead body was lifted to Rupahihat Police Station. He also stated that it was a moon-lit night and by the moon-light he could recognize the accused persons. In the cross-examination, PW4 stated that he did not know whether there was any previous dispute between the accused and the deceased. He mentioned about the altercation at the place of occurrence and also that there was no electric light. He also stated that on eastern part of the place of occurrence, there was a bamboo grove. He also stated that his house was at a distance of about 70/80 metre from the place of occurrence. He mentioned about the altercation at the place of occurrence and also that there was no electric light. He also stated that on eastern part of the place of occurrence, there was a bamboo grove. He also stated that his house was at a distance of about 70/80 metre from the place of occurrence. He also stated that the houses of the accused were situated near his house. He mentioned about noticing of injuries on the chest and abdomen of the deceased and blood coming out from the wounds, he used gamocha to cover the injured portions. He also stated that Baharul informed the police of Rupahihat Police Station who came to the place of occurrence and they also saw blood stains on the ground. He also mentioned about bringing the dead body to the Chariali because of which his cloth also was stained with blood. He also mentioned about the presence of Nijam, who was a neighbor at the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination he stated that he knew one Nijam who is his neighbor as well as another Nijam who is the VDP Secretary. PW4 denied the suggestion made by the defence as to whether he stated certain incriminating things before the police. In the cross-examination, he also stated that the faces of the accused were not covered and they also did not wear any chadaar. He also saw the accused persons from a close distance and denied that he could not have seen the accused persons without the help of torchlight and also denied that it was not a moon-lit night at the time of occurrence. He denied that the place of occurrence was under darkness. 13. Apart from the aforesaid PW1 and PW4, we will also make reference to other prosecution witnesses. 14. PW2, Nijamuddin who is a co-villager had deposed that when he heard the hulla on the day of occurrence in the evening at about 6.15 P.M., he went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased Nurul Islam with dagger and also saw the deceased falling down on the ground. He stated that the three accused after beating Nurul Islam fled from the place of occurrence and Nurul Islam died on the spot. He stated that the three accused after beating Nurul Islam fled from the place of occurrence and Nurul Islam died on the spot. He also stated that he along with other three persons lifted the deceased and brought him to Khatowal Bazar and put him in a bench. Thereafter, they informed the Rupahihat Police Station and Nijamuddin, the President of VDP of the village also came after being informed and the police directed them to take the dead body to the Police Station and accordingly, they took the dead body to the Police Station on a thela. He stated that the deceased is his co-villager. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that he along with three other persons had gone to the place of occurrence and there they found Nurul Islam lying on the field and there were injuries on the abdomen of the deceased and thereupon, they tied the gamocha on the wounds and took him to Khatowal Bazar in a pharmacy. PW2 denied that he did not state before the police that he saw the accused persons assaulting Nurul Islam. He denied that he had stated before the police that someone else had killed Nurul Islam. He also denied that he did not state the above mentioned facts before the police. 15. PW3, Abdul Mannan though was not an eye witness came to the place of occurrence and after seeing the body of the deceased fainted. He also stated that he met Baharul and found him crying and reported to him that Nuruddin and Moniruddin had assaulted Nurul Islam. Of course, in the cross-examination, PW3 stated that he heard about the incident and he could not remember whether he had stated before the police that he heard that Nuruddin and Moniruddin had assaulted his son. 16. Another witness, PW5 is one Joinal Uddin who claimed to have seen some people running away after he came running towards the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. He stated that he saw Nuruddin, Moniruddin, Suto @ Iman Ali and his father running away. He also saw Nur Islam found lying on the road and noticed injuries on his body. He along with others lifted him to Khatowal Centre after covering the injured part with the gamocha. He stated that he saw Nuruddin, Moniruddin, Suto @ Iman Ali and his father running away. He also saw Nur Islam found lying on the road and noticed injuries on his body. He along with others lifted him to Khatowal Centre after covering the injured part with the gamocha. In the cross-examination, PW5 reiterated that he found Baharul on the spot where the incident took place and found that the accused persons were fleeing away from the place of occurrence. However, he did not chase the accused persons. He also stated that though there was no electric light, there was moon-light. He also stated that it was not a full moon night. 17. PW6, Nijamuddin Ahmed is one Councilor of the village who was not an eye witness but had witnessed the dead body of the deceased in a market place and as such, his testimony may not be very highly relevant. 18. The next witness, Aktaur Ali was examined as PW7 who was also not an eye witness and as such, not very relevant. 19. PW8 is one Noor Mahammad who stated that on hearing the hue and cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found his brother Nurul Islam lying injured on the paddy field and his brother Baharul Islam and other persons including Mainul Haque (who was examined as PW4) were present there. Thus, he was also not an eye witness. 20. The testimony of PW9, Abdul Salam is also not very relevant inasmuch as he was not an eye witness who heard about the incident from others. 21. PW10, Dr. S.M. Rahman who performed the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries on examination:- “Injuries (1) One oblique step wound over the left enterior chest wall at 2nd and 3rd rib space of size 1” X ½” and depth upto the chest cavity. Margin of the wound clean cut (2) One stab wound over the third and fourth rib space over the left enterior chest wall. Margins are clean cut. Size 1” X ½” X depth to the chest cavity. (3) One incise wound over the enterior abdominal wall in left side at umbilical level 1¼” lateral from the umbilicas. Size of the wound 1” X ½”. Margin is clean cut. (4) One insize wound over the right lateral abdominal wound. Size 1” X ½” X ½” depth. Size 1” X ½” X depth to the chest cavity. (3) One incise wound over the enterior abdominal wall in left side at umbilical level 1¼” lateral from the umbilicas. Size of the wound 1” X ½”. Margin is clean cut. (4) One insize wound over the right lateral abdominal wound. Size 1” X ½” X ½” depth. Margin is clean cut.” PW10 opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased above mentioned. In the cross-examination, he reiterated about the nature of injuries and also stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased must have been caused by a sharp weapon which may be long in size and narrow in breadth and all the injuries may be caused by the same weapon. He also stated that the incised wound mentioned above may also be caused if two persons standing in opposite directions facing towards each other. He also stated that since the margin of the cut injuries were clear which means that sharp weapon was used. 22. One Heramba Bora, who was examined as PW11, stated that he was serving as the SI of Police and attached as 2nd Officer at Rupahihat Police Station. On that day, the I.O. of the P.S. received a telephonic information from one Mohd. Nizamuddin of village Khotawal that a murder had been committed at Uttar Khatowal village. Accordingly, the O/C registered Rupahihat P.S. GD Entry No.361 dated 19.12.2004 and he was entrusted to investigate the case. Thereafter, he proceeded towards the village and arrived at Uttar Khatowal Chariali at around 7.40 P.M. There he found one dead body lying on the PWD road at a distant of 50 metre from Uttar Khatowal Chariali. Since it was late night, inquest on the dead body could not be conducted due to insufficient light and accordingly, he kept the dead body at that place by making sufficient guard for the same. He also examined the witnesses in connection with the occurrence and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He conducted search in the house of the accused person, namely, Abdul Kuddus but no incriminating material was found and neither the accused persons were found in their houses. On the next morning, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map. On the next morning, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map. He also stated that he did not seize any incriminating materials or blood stain from the place of occurrence. PW11 was also subjected to intense cross-examination as regards the statement made and not made by the witnesses while recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of which we will make a reference at a later stage. 23. As mentioned above, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts for the following reasons. (i) The place of occurrence was not ascertained definitively which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. It has been submitted that while some witnesses mentioned the place of occurrence in a paddy filed as also reflected in the sketch map, PW1, the brother of the deceased who was alleged to be accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence and who gave the first evidence as PW1 stated that the deceased was assaulted on the road and as such, there is inconsistency. On the other hand, other witnesses stated that the deceased had died on the paddy field. Therefore, there is a clear inconsistency as regards the place of occurrence. While one witness stated that it is the road where the death had occurred, other witnesses stated that it was in the paddy field. Therefore, the fact that the prosecution has not been able to establish the exact place where the incident had occurred would throw a doubt on the veracity of their case. (ii) It has been also submitted that it is an admitted position that the incident occurred in the evening of December, i.e. around 6.15 P.M. It is also admitted fact that there was no electricity near the place of occurrence. The only source of light through which the witnesses claimed to have witnessed the incident was the moon-light. It was mentioned by the witnesses that it was not a full moon night. Therefore, under the circumstances, it will be highly doubtful to witness such an occurrence on a very poor moon light. It is not a case of the prosecution that it was a full moon light and there were other sufficient means of light. It was mentioned by the witnesses that it was not a full moon night. Therefore, under the circumstances, it will be highly doubtful to witness such an occurrence on a very poor moon light. It is not a case of the prosecution that it was a full moon light and there were other sufficient means of light. Under the circumstances, it will be doubtful as to whether the witnesses could have identified the accused properly. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had assaulted the deceased. (iii) It has been also contended that though there is evidence on record that the deceased was bleeding and he fell down on the ground, in which event, there would have been blood on the soil. This fact had not been denied and the fact also remains that the police did not seize the soil with traces of blood which would have conclusively established the place of occurrence. However, the police opted not to seize any such material and as such, there is definitively certain doubt about the exact location of the place of occurrence. (iv) It has been also submitted that though the deceased is alleged to have died due to injuries caused by sharp weapons, none of such weapons was recovered. In such event, the role of the accused persons with the crime cannot be said to have established. It would have been a different matter if the investigating authority had recovered the weapons of crime from or through the accused persons. (v) It has been further submitted that in order to convict a person under Section 302 IPC, the motive or intention must be clearly established. In the present case, apart from mere oral statement of the PW1 that there was a quarrel a day before the incident, there is no other evidence on record to establish the motive or intention of the accused in committing such a crime. (vi) It has been also submitted that the records would show the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day, i.e. on 20.12.2004 though the incident had occurred on the previous evening on 19.12.2004 and as such, the investigation so carried out by the police was without any authority inasmuch as the police initiated the investigation before the F.I.R. was lodged. (vi) It has been also submitted that the records would show the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day, i.e. on 20.12.2004 though the incident had occurred on the previous evening on 19.12.2004 and as such, the investigation so carried out by the police was without any authority inasmuch as the police initiated the investigation before the F.I.R. was lodged. (vii) It has been also submitted that the witnesses had been deposing very vital facts which were not mentioned in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, any such facts which have been brought on record in course by way of deposition, not mentioned in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., cannot be relied upon. (viii) It has been also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to pin-point the actual assailant and merely roped in all the accused by invoking Section 34 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, it has been submitted that when there is a possibility that the accused were not properly identified, more so, in the light of vagueness about the actual place of occurrence, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. 24. In support of his claim, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions, i) Ganesh Datt Vs. State of Uttarkhand, (2014) 12 SCC 389 . (ii) Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors., 2016 16 SCC 418 . 25. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellants, relying on para 22 of Ganesh Datt (supra) submits that the situs of the incident has to be established by the prosecution and in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there were inconsistences about the place of occurrence in the testimonies and as such, it creates a doubt about the prosecution version/the prosecution case. Para 22 of Ganesh Datt (supra) reads as follows, “22. The situs of attack is also alleged to be not established by the prosecution. In the First Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00 a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them. In the testimony, PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they were sitting in front of their house when the assault took place. In the First Information Report the complainant PW3 Ram Lakhan has stated that he and his sons were sitting in their flour mill and were chatting at about 6.00 a.m. when the assailants came and attacked them. In the testimony, PW1 Bali Raj has stated that they were sitting in front of their house when the assault took place. PW2 Moti Lal has testified that the attack did not occur on flour mill but occurred in the verandah of house of Prabhunath. PW3 Ram Lakhan has testified that the place of occurrence is about 50 steps away from the flour mill. Thus there is inconsistency about the place of occurrence in their testimonies and a doubt creeps in. Though blood- stained earth was claimed to have been seized from the occurrence place by the Investigating Officer PW7 Surender Singh, it was not sent for chemical examination which could have fixed the situs of the assault. In almost all criminal cases the blood- stained earth found from the place of occurrence is invariably sent to the chemical examination and the report along with the earth is produced in the Court and yet this is one exceptional case where this procedure was departed from for reasons best known to the prosecution.” 26. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that if two views are possible and if one of the views is favourable to the defence, the Court ought to give preference to the view which is favourable to the accused even if the view of the prosecution is also possible. In this regard, Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has referred to para 11 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh (supra), which reads as follows, “11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram Vs. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242 ].” 27. On the other hand, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel/Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that there are sufficient evidences on record to implicate the present appellants for committing the crime charged against them. It has been submitted that there are two ocular evidence in the form of PW1 and PW4 who were very much present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence who witnessed the assault of the deceased with sharp weapons and their evidence has not been shaken. Ms. Bhuyan submits that on the other hand their evidence also stand corroborated by other witnesses, namely, PW2, Nijamuddin, though he was not present at the time of occurrence. He (PW2) upon hearing a hulla came running towards the place of occurrence and he saw the accused running away. He went to the place and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased as mentioned in his evidence-in-chief. Therefore, to that extent, it can be said that PW2 is also an eye witness to a limited extent though he may not be present at the place of occurrence along with the accused and the deceased as in the case of PW1 and PW4. 28. It has been further submitted that the injuries received by the deceased are fully corroborated by the evidence of PW10, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem report. 28. It has been further submitted that the injuries received by the deceased are fully corroborated by the evidence of PW10, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem report. It has been submitted that the said Doctor (PW10) had categorically mentioned about the nature of the injuries and also the cause of such death of the deceased which was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased and such injuries could have been caused by more than one person also and by using sharp weapons. 29. Coming to the other issue regarding the visibility which has been questioned by the defence, it has been submitted by Ms. Bhuyan that first of all, it is not the case that there was total darkness. It is evident from records that there was moon-light and in a village setting when the accused were known to other witnesses, it would not be difficult for them to identify inasmuch as they were not strangers to one another and were staying in some other locality. They were their own villagers and there is no reason to implicate their own villagers unless they had seen. It has been submitted that PW1 though may be a relative of the deceased, PW2 was not a relative. So is PW5, Joinal Uddin who was not a relative. It has been submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW4 are corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW5 who cannot be considered to be interested witnesses at all, inasmuch as they were not at all related to the deceased. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the witnesses had not identified the accused merely because it was dark but merely because it was a late evening and there was no sufficient light and according to the learned Senior Counsel for the State, moon-light was sufficient for identification of the assailants. 30. As regards the other inconsistencies, learned Senior counsel for the State submits that there is no inconsistency in the vital areas of the evidence and mere inconsistencies here and there would not make the evidence of the prosecution liable to be ignored. 31. Coming to the non-seizure of incriminating articles and weapons, it has been submitted by Ms. 30. As regards the other inconsistencies, learned Senior counsel for the State submits that there is no inconsistency in the vital areas of the evidence and mere inconsistencies here and there would not make the evidence of the prosecution liable to be ignored. 31. Coming to the non-seizure of incriminating articles and weapons, it has been submitted by Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel for the State that if the prosecution’s story is able to stand on the other evidences merely because the weapon of crime was not recovered will not vitiate the prosecution. 32. In support of the her claim, learned Senior counsel for the State has relied on the following judgments, 1. Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and Ors., [MANU/SC/1349/2016 : 2016(3) ACR 3418 : AIR 2016 SC 5160 ]. 2. Paramjit Singh alias Mithu Singh Vs. State of Pujab through Secretary (Home), (2007) 13 SCC 530 . 3. Naim and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 1 SCC 397 . 4. Pawan Kumar @ Manu Mittal Vs. State of UP and Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 148 . 33. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel for the State further submits that the minor inconsistencies in the evidence would be of no significance to vitiate the prosecution’s case in the light of the consistent and credible evidences which have been brought on record. In this regard, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel for the State has referred to para 32 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar @ Manu Mittal (supra) which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “32. As regards the allegation of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, we do not find any major contradictions which require our attention and consideration. When a witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence [See: Rammi Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ]. There is no doubt that when two views are possible, the one which favours the accused should be taken and the accused should be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 ]. There is no doubt that when two views are possible, the one which favours the accused should be taken and the accused should be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. But in the instant case, the evidence on record is trustworthy and consistent, and there is only one view, which points to the guilt of the accused. Though the learned counsel for the appellants sought to point out minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but in the light of the above judgment of the court, we are of the considered opinion that such minor discrepancies should not come in the way of the other strong circumstantial evidence, cumulatively taken together, forms a complete chain of events, pointing towards the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime.” 34. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel for the State has also relied on para 24 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh alias Mithu (supra) which reads as follows, “24. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were not sufficient to cause the death of the victim and, therefore, the common intention to kill is not evident and therefore, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We are unable to agree. The evidence of PW-3 and 4 the direct witnesses is consistent and they had deposed that the appellant inflicted injuries with gandasa to kill the deceased. The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly weapon itself shows that he had also shared the common intention. In order to convict the person vicariously under Section 34, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in such overt act inflicting deadly injuries. It is enough if the material available on record discloses that the overt act of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of common intention. The common intention shared by the appellant is evident from the fact that he was armed with deadly weapon and inflicted two injuries on the victim. All the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention to murder the deceased. The common intention shared by the appellant is evident from the fact that he was armed with deadly weapon and inflicted two injuries on the victim. All the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention to murder the deceased. In such a situation the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death pales into insignificance. The appellant was not a curious onlooker and had not accompanied the assailant who gave a deadly blow out of any ideal curiosity. Each one of them is liable for that act of murder as if the act of murder was done by each one of them. It is true that if the High Court had adopted this reasoning even Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) could not have escaped from conviction. However, we do not propose to express any firm opinion on that aspect of the matter since there is no appeal by the State against their acquittal.” 35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we would like to examine as to the view of the Trial Court as regards the various issues raised before us. 36. The issue of situs of place of occurrence has been also dealt with by the Trial Court in its judgment which is to be found in the later part of para No.9 of the judgment which reads as follows, “9......................................................The learned counsel for the accused persons during argument further submitted that in the present case the place of occurrence which is very vital has not been ascertained in as much as P.W.1- Baharul Islam deposed that the place of occurrence is on the road in front of the house of the accused persons while according to the other witnesses, the place of occurrence is at the paddy filed and such discrepancy in the statements of material witnesses is sufficient to create a doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution case and no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.4. He further pointed out that evidence of P.W.2- Nizamuddin is also not trustful as because this witness did not state before the police that he saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. He further pointed out that evidence of P.W.2- Nizamuddin is also not trustful as because this witness did not state before the police that he saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. Referring the case Laws:- (1) Abdul Rahman-Vs.-State of Assam reported in 2009(4) G.L.T. 437, (2) Ganesh Gogoi-Vs-State of Assam reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2955, (3) T.T. Antony-Vs.-State of Kerala reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 3329, (4) Lal Kalandi & Anr-Vs- State of Assam reported in 1997(2) G.L.J., the learned counsels for the accused persons further submits from the evidence of I.O.-Heramba Bora, it reveals that in the instant case, the entire investigation was completed on basis of G.D. Entry No.361 dated 10/12/2004 and hence, the F.I.R. vide Ext.1 which is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C. has no evidentiary value and inadmissible in law. Referring further to the case Law, (1) Hemraj and Others-Vs.-State of Haryana reported in 2005 Cri.L.J.2152, the learned defense counsels further submits that from the evidence of P.W.2- Nizam Uddin, it is seen that there was no electric light available at the place of occurrence while after taking judicial notice of the day of occurrence, it is sufficiently established it was Austomi Tithi of moon on the night of occurrence which was a cold night in the month of December and in the shadow of bamboo grove standing on the North-west direction of the place of occurrence as reveals from the evidence of P.W.2, it is not possible for the alleged eye witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Baharul Islam and P.W.4-Mainul Hoque to identity the accused persons with insufficient light and hence, evidence of this P.Ws. having suffered from inconsistency, the credibility of these P.Ws. stands sufficiently be impeached and no reliance can be placed on their evidence. Referring to another case Law (1) Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal & Ors.- Vs.- State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 705, he also submits the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses who are closely related to the deceased and having interested in the case, their evidence is full of contradiction and embellishment and hence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony and such loophole in the prosecution is sufficient to cast a serious doubt as to the genesis of the prosecution case for which accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned defence counsels also submits that the cumulative value of the evidence in the present case shows that the circumstances which were proved by the prosecution against the accused persons suffer from inconsistencies and the chain of circumstances is not complete to link the nexus of the accused persons with the alleged offence U/S 302/34 of I.P.C. His further submission is that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that when two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused person and the other of his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and in this case, from analyzing of the evidence adduced by the P.Ws., it is found that the alleged eye witnesses are wholly unreliable and hence, the evidence adduced by these P.Ws. is liable to be rejected by this Court.” 37. The Trial Court recorded that the learned counsel for the accused persons had submitted that in the present case the place of occurrence which is very vital has not been ascertained inasmuch as PW1, Baharul Islam had deposed that the place of occurrence is on the road in front of the house of the accused while according to the other witnesses, the place of occurrence is the paddy field and such discrepancy in the statements of the material witnesses is sufficient to create a doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution’s case and as such, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1 and PW4. 38. The Trial Court also noted the submission advanced that the evidence of PW2, Nijamuddin is also not reliable as this witness did not state before the police that he saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. 38. The Trial Court also noted the submission advanced that the evidence of PW2, Nijamuddin is also not reliable as this witness did not state before the police that he saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. As regards this issue, the Trial Court made the finding in para 10 of the judgment in which the Trial Court made the following observation and finding, “Now so far as the contention raised by the learned defense counsel that in the present case the place of occurrence has not been ascertained in as much as P.W.-1 Baharul Islam deposed that the place of occurrence is on the road in front of the house of the accused persons while according to the other witnesses, the place of occurrence is at the paddy field, it is seen from the oral evidence of P.W.1 that while he, deceased Nurul Islam and one Aminul Islam was returning home from Khatowal, on the road, in front of the house of the accused persons, all the above mentioned accused obstructed them and attacked them for which two of them dashed against the ground while Nurul Islam was assaulted by means of dagger and knife and as a result, he fell down on the ground while P.W.4 stated that while they were returning from Khatowal bazar through the paddy field then accused Nuruddin, Moniruddin, Iman Ali, Salam and Kuddus came near them and accused Moniruddin and Nuruddin struck blows to Nur Islam. Thus, from analyzing the evidence adduced by P.W.1 in his evidence does not necessarily means that it was a public road but it means any road for the passage of the those witnesses for proceeding towards any place. Hence, simply because P.W.1 stated that the deceased was assaulted on the road in front of the house of accused persons and others stated that occurrence took place in a paddy field, that is not sufficient to negate the happenings of the occurrence and brush aside the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4.” 39. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court. We are also of the view that even though PW1 stated in his deposition that the incident occurred on the road, in a village setting, where the roads normally are located adjacent to the fields as also reflected in the sketch map and villagers usually use paths in the paddy field and as such they generally use such pathways as road also. 40. According to us, if PW1 had mentioned road, it may not necessarily mean a metallic road or a proper PWD/public road as is generally understood. It can also mean any village pathway passing through a paddy filed. In fact, this is a critical issue which was never questioned in course of the cross-examination. No attempt was made during the cross-examination of the witnesses as regards the exact location of the place of occurrence. 41. PW1 in his deposition stated that while three of them including the deceased were coming, they were accosted on the road near the residence of the accused. The sketch map which was exhibited also shows certain pathway in front of the place of occurrence which is located near the residence of one of the accused, namely, Md. Iman Ali which is marked as (E) in Ext.5, though the place of occurrence is not on the actual public road leading to Khatowal. Apart from PW1 who did not mention of the place of occurrence as the paddy field, all other witnesses have consistently stated that the place of occurrence was the paddy field as also mentioned in the sketch map. If that is so, even assuming PW1 has not correctly mentioned the place of occurrence, in our view, such inconsistency does not go to the root of the matter as contended by the learned Senior counsel for the State inasmuch as even the formal road is appeared to be closely located to the place of occurrence. 42. Accordingly, in our view, even if it is assumed that there is some inconsistency as regards the place of occurrence that inconsistency is not of such a vital nature inasmuch as it is admitted position in terms of evidence of all other material witnesses that the deceased was found lying on the paddy field. 42. Accordingly, in our view, even if it is assumed that there is some inconsistency as regards the place of occurrence that inconsistency is not of such a vital nature inasmuch as it is admitted position in terms of evidence of all other material witnesses that the deceased was found lying on the paddy field. PW4, an eye witness who was with the deceased had testified that the deceased was assaulted at the place of occurrence at the paddy field, but nothing was suggested in the cross-examination about the location of the place of occurrence. PW2 who also came soon after hearing the hulla to the place of occurrence also mentioned in the cross-examination that the place of occurrence is situated in the field and the body of the deceased person was thereafter brought to Khatowal Bazar near the pharmacy. 43. In our view, even if it is held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the exact situs of the place of occurrence, considering the above, the said discrepancy cannot be said to be fatal inasmuch as the place of occurrence was also very near to the public road and there were paddy fields near the public road also. 44. It is not a case of anybody that the actual place of occurrence was far away from the alleged place of occurrence which would make the case doubtful considering the nature of injuries received. For example, if it is a case of road accident, obviously, the place of occurrence has to be on the road and the dead body is expected to be found on the road and such dead body cannot be found in a paddy field or some other’s house and in such an event, the situs of the place of occurrence would be of vital significance. Such is not the case in the present case. 45. Coming to the second plea of the appellants that since it was evening of December and when there is no proper light, the identification of the accused by the witnesses is very doubtful as it is on record that none of them were having any torch light or electricity nearby so as to easily identify the assailants. As we consider this aspect, the evidence on record must not be re-stated. As we consider this aspect, the evidence on record must not be re-stated. Though it was a winter evening and expected to be dark, yet, there was evidence to the effect that there was moon-light and as such, it is not a question of pitch darkness where it will be almost impossible to identify any person. In the present case, there is clear evidence to the effect that there was moon-light. There is also clear evidence that the accused were known to the witnesses. In other words, they were not strangers but familiar to one another. 46. It may be noted that identification of a person is not merely by sight. Familiarity can be due to sound and figure or shape. It is on record that the accused persons were in the neighbourhood of the witnesses as mentioned in their evidences and as such were well acquainted with each other. Moreover, PW4 has stated very categorically in the cross-examination that he saw the accused persons from a close distance and the faces of the accused were not covered. If that is so, if a person has seen another person who happens to be of a same village and from a very close distance, that too in the moon-light, it cannot be said that such an evidence of witnessing and identifying the person would be within the realm of speculation. If a person is familiar to the other person, absence of light will be insignificant and will be directly proportionate to the familiarity. In other words, even in absence of proper lighting, familiar persons can be identified without much difficulty. 47. Therefore, we do not find that merely because it was late evening of winter, it would not be possible to identify the appellants when the witnesses, PW1 and PW4 have very categorically stated their presence and having witnessed them assaulting the deceased. The other witness, PW2 had also very categorically stated that he saw the accused persons running away. He also saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with a dagger even though he was not right at the spot but came after hearing the hulla. The other witness, PW2 had also very categorically stated that he saw the accused persons running away. He also saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with a dagger even though he was not right at the spot but came after hearing the hulla. This aspect was also considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court made the following observations and conclusions as reproduced hereinbelow: “Learned counsel for the defense further argued that the occurrence took place on the night of Austomi Tithi of moon in winter season and the place of occurrence having bamboo grove standing on the way of coming moon light and there having no electric light near the vicinity of the place of occurrence, it is not at all possible for the P.W.1 and P.W.4 to identify the accused persons in the insufficient light. Here it is seen that the defense admitted that it was Austami Tithi of the moon on the night of occurrence. From evidence of P.W.1, it is also seen that occurrence took place at evening 6:10 P.M. Hence, the accused persons being the co villagers of the witnesses, it is not unbelievable that the witnesses could identify the accused persons at evening 6:10 o’clock even though it was a night of December and the Austomi moon was in the sky as admitted by defense and hence, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned defence counsel that there is no possibility for the eye witnesses to identify the accused persons at the time of occurrence.” We are also in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court for the reasons we have discussed above. 48. Coming to the submission advanced that since the F.I.R. was lodged on the subsequent day and not on the day of occurrence, the consequential actions taken on the basis of the F.I.R. would vitiate the proceeding, we are not able to persuade ourselves to accept the view for the reason that it is clearly on record that even though the F.I.R. was registered on the next day, the police had been activated after being informed on the same day of occurrence and the police had also registered the Laharighat P.S. G.D. Entry No.361 and thereafter the investigation was carried on. 49. 49. In our view, merely because the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day will not have the effect of vitiating the investigation carried out after the police were informed on the day of occurrence on the basis of G.D. Entry No.361 made on the same day. This aspect was also considered by the Trial Court in the following words, “Learned defense counsel for the defense further argued that the F.I.R. exhibited vide Ext.1 on the basis of which the instant case was registered has no legal consequence as the entire investigation was conducted on basis of G.D. Entry No.361 dated 10/12/2004. In this connection, it is seen from the evidence of I.O. that on basis of a telephonic information from one Mohd. Nizamuddin of village Khatowal stating that there occurred a murder at Uttar Khatowal village, the O/c registered Rupahihat P.S. G.D. Entry No.361 dated 19-12-04 and he was entrusted to investigate the case. He also exhibited the extract copy of GD Entry No.361 dated 19-12-04 vide Ext.3. Thus, it is seen that only investigation was done on basis of the GD Entry No.361 dated 19-12-04 and thereafter, the F.I.R. was filed by the informant, that will not vitiate the trial as the I.O. was entrusted by the O/C of the P.S. to conduct the investigation after receiving telephonic information by recording G.D. Entry of the P.S. and as such, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused persons and there is defect in the investigation of the case by the I.O.- Heramba Bora.” We thus do not find any infirmity in the said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court for the reasons we have discussed above. 50. As regards the other submission advanced that failure to seize the incriminating materials and articles would vitiate the prosecution case, we are of the view that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding such lapse. Ideally during an investigation, the investigating authorities are expected to recover and seize the incriminating articles. Nevertheless, merely because such incriminating articles and weapons were not seized cannot have the effect of vitiating the trial if there are other credible evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 47 of Yogesh Singh (supra) which is also relied on by Ms. Bhuyan, the learned Senior counsel for the State. Nevertheless, merely because such incriminating articles and weapons were not seized cannot have the effect of vitiating the trial if there are other credible evidences as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 47 of Yogesh Singh (supra) which is also relied on by Ms. Bhuyan, the learned Senior counsel for the State. Para No.47 of Yogesh Singh (supra) reads as follows: “47. The next line of contention taken by the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the recovery evidence was false and fabricated. We feel no need to address this issue since it had already been validly discarded by the Trial Court while convicting the Respondents. In any case, it is an established proposition of law that mere non-recovery of weapon does not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence. [See Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar and Anr. MANU/SC/0359/2000: (2000)9 SCC 82 ; State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/1017/2011 : (2011) 9 SC 115 and Manjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0936/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC 746 ].” 51. Coming to other grounds raised by the appellants that the actual assailant was not identified and prosecution has merely roped in everybody by invoking Section 34 of IPC, we are of the view that such submission is also not borne by record inasmuch as PW1 in categorical terms had stated that all the accused persons had attacked them and assaulted Nurul Islam. PW4 also very clearly mentioned the names of Moniruddin and Nuruddin who had struck blows on the deceased Nurul Islam because of which he sustained the injuries on the abdomen, chest and other parts of the body. 52. In our view, considering the manner in which the assault had taken place, it was not fatal on the part of the prosecution not to have identified the actual person who wielded the dagger and assaulted the deceased inasmuch as all the accused were together at the same place when they had attacked the deceased and PW1. 53. Since the role of the said Moniruddin and Nuruddin had been clearly mentioned in striking the fatal blow to the deceased, merely because the others have not been named by all the witnesses as have been seen striking the deceased will not absorb of the joint culpability of having assembled together to commit the crime. 53. Since the role of the said Moniruddin and Nuruddin had been clearly mentioned in striking the fatal blow to the deceased, merely because the others have not been named by all the witnesses as have been seen striking the deceased will not absorb of the joint culpability of having assembled together to commit the crime. Certainly, others accompanying Moniruddin and Nuruddin were very much part of the group which assaulted the deceased and as such, they cannot also be absolved of the responsibility of charge of committing murder which have been found by the Trial Court. The appellant No.1 was identified by the witnesses as one who accompanied the other accused when the incident occurred. Though his name has not been specifically mentioned by PW 4 as having struck the deceased, he was part of the party who assaulted the deceased and others. He was also seen running away from the place of occurrence along with the other appellants by the PW5. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naim and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (supra) is also of relevance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 of the aforesaid decision in Naim Vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra) held as follows: “10. In the instant case the FIR lodged by PW-1 within two hours of the incident had named all three accused ascribing particular weapons in their hands and also definite role to them. The FIR further stated that the incident in question was witnessed by Farid and Taimur and that along with the complainant his brother Behroj and nephew Wasim were also sleeping in the verandah. The FIR thus in clear terms disclosed not only the identity of the accused but also the role played by them, so also the names of the persons who subsequently were examined as prosecution witnesses. The entire case of the prosecution insofar as the conviction of Sabbir is concerned rested on the very same testimony coming from the witnesses which case was accepted right upto this Court. The only discordant note that was struck by the trial court was on the applicability of Section 34 IPC insofar as the role ascribed to and played by other two accused, namely, Kabir and Naim. 11. The only discordant note that was struck by the trial court was on the applicability of Section 34 IPC insofar as the role ascribed to and played by other two accused, namely, Kabir and Naim. 11. We must observe that Kabir was armed with pharsa and Naim was armed with a lathi, that all three accused had entered the house of the deceased and the complainant at midnight in the company of Sabbir who was also armed with a sharp-cutting weapon. When three persons separately armed with weapons storm into the house of the victim in the dead of the night, merely because only one out of them uses the weapon and gives the fatal blow, would not absolve the others. The others may not be required to use their weapons but that by itself does not change the role of such other accused to that of a mere bye-stander. The circumstances can show that the others shared the same intention. In the instant case the common intention to bring about a definite result is evident from the circumstances on record. Additionally, the role of exhortation is also ascribed to the present appellants. In the circumstances, in our considered view, Section 34 IPC is definitely attracted and the High Court was completely justified in setting aside the order of acquittal. The order of acquittal as regards Kabir and Naim was perverse and unwarranted. Having thus considered the matter in its independent perspective we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one which weighed with the High Court.” 54. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that there are sufficient evidences on record to uphold the conviction of the appellants. We are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The incident had happened in a rural setting amongst familiar persons. It is not a case of any outsider or stranger committing a crime of murder, in which event, identification of the assailant becomes very critical and crucial but in the light of the evidences as brought on record, identification of such assailants cannot be said to be doubtful at all. 55. We have also noted that the defence has not led any evidence. 55. We have also noted that the defence has not led any evidence. Though we are not upholding the conviction because of their silence, yet, it is important to observe that the defence has not taken any plea as mentioned above. However, this silence of the appellants cannot be a reason to draw any adverse inference against them inasmuch as we have found there are credible material evidences against them to uphold the conviction. 56. It may be also noted that the incident had occurred in 2004 and except for PW1, other remaining witnesses were examined sometime during the period 2012 to 2015 and as such, having deposed after long gap of time, if any such minor discrepancies had crept in, we do not consider the same unusual or serious enough to vitiate the prosecution case. 57. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we dismiss this appeal and uphold the conviction of the appellants in terms of the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No.233(N) of 2015. 58. The appellant No.1, Md. Iman Ali had been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2016 passed in I.A.1992/2015. Since the present appeal, Crl. Appeal No. 258/2015 has been dismissed upholding the conviction of the appellants including the appellant No.1, he shall immediately surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon who shall forthwith remand him (appellant No.1 Md. Iman Ali) to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon vide judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed in Sessions (T-1) Case No.233(N) of 2015. 59. LCRs be remitted immediately to the concerned Court.