JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. Both these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bajali in Sessions Case No. 189 of 2016 are taken up for hearing and disposal by this common judgment By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants u/s. 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution case, on 7.4.2016 some miscreants killed the victim Amarendra Das @ Joon and left his body on the verandah of the house of Benoy Deka. The next morning PW-11, the wife of the deceased lodged the FIR (Ext. -2), on the basis of which, police registered Barpeta P.S. Case No. 725 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, seized some incriminating articles and prepared the sketch map. Smt. Santa Bora (PW-17) prepared the inquest report and the post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Deepak Kumar Das (PW-19), who found the following the injuries on the body of the victim.

"1. One cut injury on the front of right shoulder it. (4" x 2 x 1") (LxBxD) with fracture of right clavicle on lateral third.

2. One deep cut injury on left shoulder with decomposition of muscles of vessels.

3. One cut injury on middle of the scalp (3"x2"x1")(LxBxD) =coming out of brain matter with fracture of both remittal found.

4. Scrotum swollen.

5. Ligature marks on both wrist joint. All injuries caused by sharp weapon and they are grievous, ante-mortem in nature."

In the opinion of the doctor death was due to coma resulting from the injuries sustained on the head. Injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact. Death was within 12/24 hours from the post mortem.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the three accused persons including the present appellants and all of them stood trial for the offence of murder before the Court of Sessions.

4. In course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused persons, including the present appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charge and on appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred the instant appeals.

6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. Dutta assisted by Mr. NNB Choudhury for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 204/2017 and Mr. B.K. Mahajan assisted by Mr. A. Ali for the appellant in Crl. Appeal 196/2017. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

7. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellants and the conviction and sentence of the appellants were solely based on circumstantial evidence, being the "last seen theory" and extra judicial confession. Contention of the learned counsels was that the prosecution has not been able to prove the circumstance of "last seen theory" against the appellants and the confessional statement relied by the learned trial court was also inadmissible, being made while the appellants were in police custody, and as such, the conviction of the appellants was based on no legal evidence, submits Mr. Dutta and Mr. Mahajan.

8. Supporting the conviction and sentence of the appellants, learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan would submit, that the charge against the appellants were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for.

9. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl. P.P. and also meticulously scrutinised the evidence and materials on record.

10. Appa