C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 31.3.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 88/2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants, under section 302 IPC and sentenced both of them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. We have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 27.11.2005 at about 6 P.M., at village Roumari Gaon, Tezpur, the dead body of Shri Robert Bhutkowar (hereinafter called the deceased) was found lying dead, in injured condition, on the public road. Though the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. Shri Suren Bhutkowar (PW 1), brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR (Exhibit 1) with the Officer-in-Charge, Bokahat Police Station. After receipt of the FIR, Police registered a case and launched investigation into the matter. During the investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report in respect of the deceased, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination, seized the incriminating weapon and examined the witnesses. The prosecution version is that on the date of occurrence, both the deceased and appellant Sri Kundan Singh took liquor together and thereafter the said appellant left the place, followed by the deceased. According to the prosecution, the appellants made extra judicial confession.

3. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the appellants, under sections 302/34 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge, under section 302/ 34 IPC. The evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined, under section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations, levelled against them and declined to adduce defence evidence. Their plea was a denial one.

4. Considering the evidence, on record, more particularly the circumstantial evidence, surfaced from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. Mr. MH Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, taking this Court through the evidence, on record, has submitted that there is no direct, cogent and substantive evidence against the appellants and that the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction only on presumption, without sufficient evidence on record. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the charge, brought against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted and set at liberty.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, referring the circumstantial evidence, revealed by the prosecution witnesses, that the appellants and the deceased had taken liquor together, that the deceased had left the place of taking liquor, immediately after the appellant, that the dead body of the deceased was found near the house of Shri Kundan Singh, appellant, that the incriminating weapon i.e. an axe was found in the house of the appellant, that Kundan Singh, appellant, was found uttering the name of the deceased immediately before the death of the deceased, that the deceased sustained cut injuries which were the causes of death of the deceased, has submitted that the said circumstantial evidence forcefully indicate that none other than the appellants had caused the death of the deceased. Referring to the evidence of PW 2 and PW 7, learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the appellants had made extra judicial confession before the said witness and that the said