The testimony of an eye witness can be relied upon for conviction, even if the medical evidence does not completely rule out the possibility of injuries as described by the eye witness.

JUDGMENT

N. Kotiswar Singh, J. - Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned amicus curiae for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. These 2 (two) jail appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.148/2014 (G.R. Case No.1086/2014) by which the appellants were found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- only each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month each. The appellants were also convicted under Sections 341/34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case as unfolded in course of the trial was that an FIR was lodged on 30.04.2014 by one Smt. Sita Lohar, wife of the deceased late Dilip Lohar, stating that at 2.30 P.M. on 30.04.2014 Sri Anan Nayak @ Pappu Nayak and Mangra Nayak, appellants herein, both residents of Maijar Pathartoli Line, confronted her husband Dilip Lohar on the road of Pathartoli Line. The appellant Mangra Nayak held her husband's hand and the appellant Anan Nayak @ Pappu felled her husband by striking a blow on his head with a shovel. Before killing her husband he was struck on his neck which incident was witnessed by complainant's son Rajib Lohar. On the basis of said FIR, investigation was held and both the appellants were charge-sheeted.

4. The prosecution produced as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the son of the deceased, Rajib Lohar and the complainant. On the basis of the evidences which were adduced in course of trial, learned Session Judge, Dibrugarh convicted the appellants under Section 302 as well as 341 IPC as mentioned above against which the present 2 (two) appeals have been preferred.

5. A brief reference to the evidence adduced in course of the trial may be appropriate.

6. P.W.1, Smt. Sita Lohar, wife of the deceased late Dilip Lohar, the complainant, lodged the FIR on the basis of the information furnished by her son Rajib Lohar. She testified that on the day of incident she was returning home after working in the Tea Estate and noticed a gathering on the road inside the Line and when she went there, she found her husband lying on the ground in an unconscious state. Her son was sitting near her husband. When she asked her son, Rajib as to what happened to his father, her son narrated the incident and told her that after assaulting her husband with a shovel, the appellants ran away towards the Tea Estate. Thereafter, someone called a 108 Ambulance and his father was taken to the Dibrugarh Medical College where he was declared dead.

7. P.W. 2, the son of the deceased, namely, Rajib Lohar is the eye witness of the case, who stated that both his father and the co-accused are the co-villagers. The incident took place at around 3 P.M. on the day of occurrence. He stated that his father came home taking a fish along. As his father had Rs.10 (ten) less for the price of the fish, he took the same from his home and went to the appellant Mangra's house, where the P.W.2 followed his father. His father came across both the appellants on the road. The appellant Mangra held his father's hands by bending on the back and the appellant Anan dealt three blows on his father's head with a shovel. On receiving the blows, his father fell on the ground. Thereafter, P.W. 2 sat near his father. When his mother reached the place of occurrence, he narrated to her as to what had happened. Thereafter, a lot of people assembled there and his maternal uncle called a 108 Ambulance and took his father to the Dibrugarh Medical College, where he was declared dead. The police also came to the place of occurrence and questioned him about the incident and the police took him to the court and he made a statement before the Magistrate.

8. The Doctor, who performed