Paran Kumar Phukan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 42(JJ)/2006 convicting the accused appellants under Sections 302/147/148/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 3 (three) months under Sections 302/149 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC and simple imprisonment for 3 months under Sections 323/149 of the IPC.

2. The case as projected by the prosecution is that on the evening of 21.05.2005 at about 8.30/9.00 PM, the accused appellants armed with dao, lathi and bow and arrow attacked the house of the informant Suren Ganju situated at Meleng Balijan Basti under Teok Police Station and the accused appellant Dania Orang caused fatal injury to Ranu Ganju by shooting him with an arrow from a bow on his chest and the accused appellant Tarun Karmakar inflicted cut injury on the neck and head of his mother Ghaneswari Ganju. The other accused appellants damaged their house by cutting the walls and doors and windows. Both the injured persons were taken to hospital in a pushcart but Ranu Ganju died on the way to hospital and Ghaneswari Ganju was admitted to hospital for treatment of her injuries.

3. The written FIR having been lodged by the informant Suren Ganju on 22.05.2005 with the In-Charge, Lahdoigarh Police Outpost and on being forwarded to O.C. Teok Police Station on the same day, Teok Police Station Case No. 39/2005 was registered and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused appellants.

4. The case come up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat. During the trial as many as 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution including the official witnesses. Defence pleaded innocence but no witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

5. There is no dispute regarding the death of Ranu Ganju as a result of the injuries sustained by him on his chest caused by the arrow. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted by PW 10, Dr. Bivucharan Baruah in the Jorhat Civil Hospital on 22.05.2005 and on examination of the dead body, he found the following injuries :

Injury :- There is a penetrating wound at the level of right 10th intestinal space of size 2.5 cm x 2 cm with the foreign body in situ. The outer portion of the FB is a bamboo stick directing obliquely and downwards. The surrounding skin is lacerated.

Liver :- The right lobe of the liver is pierced by the foreign body and a triangular arrow is found to be fixed. Extensive laceration found after exploration there is massive haemorrhage from the liver. The injuries described were ante-mortem.

6. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased was due to syncope as a result of injuries sustained. His evidence also reveals that he removed the arrow from the dead body of the deceased which was stained with blood and the same was handed over to the Investigation Officer which was seized by him vide Ext. 3. The doctor also put his signature in the seizure. In cross-examination also, he reaffirmed that the arrow which was removed from the dead body of the deceased pierced into his liver. The uncontroverted testimony of the doctor coupled with the P.M. Report, Ext. 6 established that the death of the deceased was due to the injury he sustained on his chest which was caused by the arrow which was removed from his chest by the doctor himself and was handed over to the I.O.

7. There is also no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by Ghaneswari Ganju, mother of the informant. She was also treated in the Jorhat Civil Hospital as a