JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.(J) 57/2019 and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel representing the appellants in Crl. A. 224/2019. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent no.2.

2. By the judgment and order dated 14/02/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 2 (FTC) Tinsukia, in sessions case No. 70(T)/2015, the six appellants in Crl. A. (J) 57/2019 and two appellants in Crl. A. 224/2019 had been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of Subhash Boraik and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

3. By this common judgment and order, we proposed to dispose of both the appeals.

4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that on 06/10/2010, Smt. Chandmoni Boraik (PW-1) i.e. the wife of the deceased Subhash Boraik had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Doom-Dooma Police Station reporting that on 05/10/2010 at around 9-30 p.m. (1) Sri Kamand Karmakar, (2) Sri Kesu Karmakar, (3) Sri Dhanda Karmakar, (4) Fusoi Karmakar, (5) Sri Raja Karmakar, (6) Sri Budhu Karmakar, (7) Sri Rabin Karmakar, (8) Sri Dhanda Karmakar, (9) Sri Tutu Karmakar, (10) Sri Amar Karmakar, (11) Sri Putlu Karmakar and (12) Sri Dulen Mukhiar, all resident of Line No. 14, had called her husband Subhash Boraik from their home and killed him in front of the house by assaulting him.

5. On receipt of the ejahar dated 06/10/2010, Doom-Dooma Police Station Case No. 331/2010 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completion of usual investigation, the I.O. had submitted charge sheet on 09/04/2015 against eight accused persons, viz. (1) Putlu Bhumij @ Karmakar, (2) Robin Karmakar, (3) Dulen Karmakar, (4) Dhando Karmakar, (5) Fusai Karmakar, (6) Amar Karmakar, (7) Chutu Karmakar and (8) Keso Karmakar.

6. It appears from the record that one of the FIR named accused persons, viz. Raju Karmakar had committed suicide on 11/09/2014 i.e. before charge sheet was laid in this case by the I.O.

7. On the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the I.O., the learned Court below had framed charge against all the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Since the accused persons had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

8. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses including the doctor (PW-2) who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body, the IO (PW-6) who had carried out investigation in the aforesaid Police case in part and the I.O. (PW-7) who had completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

9. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. However, the defence side did not adduce any evidence.

10. The prosecution case is primarily based on the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Chandmoni Boraik, who was called as an eye witness. In her deposition, PW-1 had stated that she knew the accused persons. The accused persons had murdered her husband on being armed with lathi(sticks), hand etc. According to the PW-1, the incident took place at about 7-8 p.m. when the accused persons had barged into her house and forcefully took her husband outside the house and assaulted him. As a result of the assault made on him, her husband had succumbed to his injuries. PW-1 has also stated that at that time, she was pregnant and that is why and also on account of nightfall, she could not inform anybody. Next morning, the neighbours and the people of the locality came to know about the incident. Subsequently, she had lodged the ejahar before the Police Station. PW-1 has further stated that FIR was written by the Police and she had put her thumb impression in the ejahar. The