P.K. Musahary, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 31.3.2006, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 101/2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 147/ 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer additional 1 (one) year simple imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; to undergo 2(two) years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer additional 1(one) year simple imprisonment under Section 149 IPC with direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 6.12.2002 at about 2-30 AM the appellants murdered one Bijoy Karmakar, son of late Bishram Karmakar of Bubrighat T.E, a resident under Patharkandi Police Station. A case, being Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 197/02, was registered under Section 147/ 302 IPC on the basis of a written Ejahar received from one Nripen Karmakar. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead body, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses and despatched the dead body to Karimganj Civil Hospital for holding post mortem examination. On completion of investigation and after collection of post mortem report, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the present appellants under Section 147/ 302 IPC. The learned Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karimganj, for disposal. The case was made over to the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Karimganj, for trial. Accordingly, the learned trial Court, on consideration of the materials on record and upon hearing the parties, framed charge under Section 147/ 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The aforesaid charges were read over and explained to appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. Thus, they stood the trial.

2. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses including the medical and the investigating officers and at the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses examined the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied all the incriminating evidence placed against them. The appellants also examined 2 witnesses in their defence. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the order of conviction and sentence as indicated above which is under challenge by the appellants from jail.

3. We have heard Mrs. R.D. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and also Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl.P.P. Assam, for the respondent State.

4. We have carefully perused the evidence on record. For arriving at a correct decision and disposal of this appeal, we, first of all, undertake to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

5. We start with the evidence of PW 3, Nripen Karmakar. He is the informant in this case and nephew of the deceased. As per his evidence he was at home on the night of occurrence at about 2 AM. He was informed by Prakash Karmakar and Sankar Tanti, both co-villagers, that Bijoy Karmakar and his wife Sumila Karmakar were quarrelling in their house. On being so informed, he came to the house of Bijoy Karmakar alongwith the said-person but they were not found in their house. Thereafter, Sankar Tanti took him to the house of the accused Gobinda Tanti where Bijoy Karmakar was found sitting on a bench in an injured state. Bijoy Karmakar told him that the accused Govinda Tanti, Prakash Karmakar, Ganga Tanti, Dulal Karmakar and Jitesh Karmakar strangulated him by neck and rained kicks, blows and hits on his person. They took Bijoy Karmakar to his house but on the next morning he was informed that Bijoy Karmakar had died at 4 PM. He testified that h