JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel representing the informant/respondent No.2.

2. This appeal against conviction has been preferred by the five appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in connection with Sessions Case No.251/2014.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials available on record, is to the effect that on 03.02.2013, at about 4.00 p.m. the appellant No.1, Abdul Kadir, had picked up the victim Sahab Uddin Choudhury from his residence and took him to Bhojkhowa Chapori Bazar. Later on, at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening, the appellants, in association with some others, had killed the victim behind the Bhojkhowa Balipara L.P. School, by assaulting him with sharp weapon resulting to his death.

4. On 04.02.2013 the son of the victim viz., Md. Akhtar Hussain Choudhury (PW-1) had lodged an ejahar before the In-charge of Borghat Police Outpost reporting the incident. Based on the said ejahar, Tezpur P.S. Case No.141/2013 was registered under Sections 120(B)/302/34 of the I.P.C. and the matter was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge-sheet against 8 accused persons viz. 1) Abdul Kadir, 2) Tahir Uddin, 3) Ala Uddin, 4) Rustam Ali, 5) Abdul Kadir Gilani, 6) Momruj Ali, 7) Nur Islam and 8) Nurul Islam under sections 120(B)/302 of the I.P.C which included the present appellants. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O., charges were framed against the accused persons under sections 302 read with section 149 of the IPC. The charges were read out and explained to them but the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter went up for trial.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW-8) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer (PW-11). PW-4 Md. Saidur Ali had claimed to have seen the occurrence and therefore, he was examined as an eye-witness. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur had convicted the appellant Nos.1 to 5 viz., Abdul Kadir, Alaluddin, Abdul Kadir Gilani, Nur Islam and Nurul Islam and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months each. However, the two accused persons, viz., Momruj Ali and Tahir Uddin were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accused Rustam Ali had died before conclusion of the trial and hence, the proceeding stood abated against him.

6. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 the learned trial court had held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges brought against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, both by direct evidence of the eye-witness (PW-4) as well as by the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court was also of the opinion that the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons and therefore, the circumstance of “last seen together” would also be an additional link in the chain of circumstances which would support the prosecution case. By rejecting the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel to the effect that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were full of inconsistencies and material contradictions raising serious doubt on the prosecution story, the learned court below has held that those were minor discrepancies which would have no bearing in the prosecution case. It has also been held that the defence side had failed to