Amitava Roy, J.

1. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 19/2003, whereby the accused-Appellant has been found guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, as well as of fine of Rs. 5000/-. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment to further 3 (Three) months is under challenge in the instant appeal from the Jail.

We have heard Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-Appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. The run up of facts to the instant appeal, in short, is necessary. Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 170/2000 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered on an FIR dated 26.06.2000 lodged by one Bangshilal Urang with the Incharge, Joypur Police Outpost alleging that in the previous evening that is, 25.06.2000 his brother Kalababu Urang while returning from Ainachara Market had been attacked by some miscreants with Dao and that he had succumbed to the injuries sustained. The FIR disclosed that the informant had been apprised of the incident by his co-villagers Shri Harilal Urang and Shri Sudur Gore who stated to have seen the deceased returning home with the accused-Appellant, also a resident of the same village. The informant in the FIR, on this premise expressed his doubt that the accused-Appellant might have caused his brother's death in-collusion with other accused.

3. On the completion of the investigation that followed, the police submitted charge-sheet under the above provisions of law against the accused-Appellant. He was also charged thereunder to which he pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses including the investigating officer and the doctor who had performed the postmortem examination. After the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded, the statement of the accused-Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record, thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as above.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae has strenuously argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution taken together does not prove the charge against the accused-Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore his conviction and sentence ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice. According to him, the so-called eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3 having contradicted with each other on material particulars, the sub-stratum of the prosecution case was destroyed thereby and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order ought to be set aside. He further argued that neither the FIR nor the seizure of the weapon of assault has been proved in accordance with law and therefore considering the state of evidence on record the view taken by the learned trial Court against the accused-Appellant is apparently erroneous.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, in reply has argued that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, if cumulatively read, proves the guilt of the accused-Appellant and therefore the impugned Judgment and Order is valid in law. According to him, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 proved the FIR, as well as the seizure of the Dao by which the offence had been committed by the accused-Appellant. Referring to the evidence of the doctor, the learned Public Prosecutor has urged that as the findings recorded by him in course of the post-mortem examination wholly tally with the ocular evidence, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court ought not to be interfered with in the interest of justice. Before we record our final conclusions, it would be appropriate to conduct a brief survey of the evidence on record.

7. PW-1 Shri Harilal Urang stated on oath that in the afternoon of the date of occurrence i.e. 25.06.2000 r e had been returning from the Ai