A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. The accused/appellants above named were put on trial for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC in Sessions Case No. 60 (NT/K) 2010, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Koilasahar. On conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 years and also to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in short, is that on 15.9.2009 while Mahim Debnath (PW 1) was returning home at about 10.30 p.m. in the night, he heard hue and cry in the house of Tarani Debnath and he saw that accused Shankar Debnath and Nripendra Debnath, fleeing away from the place of occurrence. PW 1 rushed to the house of Tarani and found his brother, Prabar Debnath with bleeding injuries on his person. Tarani and his wife both were pouring water on head of the injured. Thereafter an auto-rickshaw was arranged for shifting the injured to the hospital. While the injured was carried to the hospital in the Auto, the victim reportedly told PW 1 as follows :

Shankar Debnath and Nripendra Debnath apprehended me in front of the house of Nripendra. At that moment Shankar had a 'dao' (sharp cutting weapon) in his hand. In this condition out of fear of life I entered the house of Tarani Debnath by running and knocked the door saying save (me), save (me). At that time Shankar Debnath dealt hacking blows on my head with the help of 'dao' and Nripendra Debnath also dealt hacking blows on my head with the help of 'dao'.

Thereafter, the accused lost his senses. On the next date at 6.45 a.m. an FIR was lodged in the police station. Subsequently the injured was taken to Silchar Medical College Hospital, where the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, in the incident.

3. On the basis of the FIR so lodged, a case was registered and investigation was launched. The Investigating Officer also utilized the services of tracking Dog, during the investigation of the case to identify the accused persons, involved in the commission of offence.

4. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet alleging commission of offence under Section 302/34, IPC, against the accused/ appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 302/34, IPC against the accused/appellants. On reading over and explaining the charges aforesaid, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses to establish the charge against the accused/appellants. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded in terms of provision of Section 313, Cr PC. In their statement under Section 313, Cr PC, both the accused pleaded not guilty and took the stand of total denial. The accused appellants did not come forward to adduce evidence in their defence. On conclusion of the hearing, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid, giving rise to this appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. Gosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Tripura.

8. Mr. Barman, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no eye-witness to the occurrence and the only eye-witnesses, PW 1, Mahim Debnath, who reportedly witnessed the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence after the commission of offence, was not relied upon by the trial Court, since his evidence was not found to have been corroborated by the other witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dying declaration made by the deceased cannot be relied upon since the independent witnesses, who were present at the time of