Point of Law : Any outsider or stranger committing a crime of murder, in which event, identification of assailant becomes very critical and crucial but in light of evidences as brought on record, identification of such assailants cannot be said to be doubtful at all.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. B. Borah, learned counsel for the State/respondent No.1

2. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 233 (N) of 2005 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of G.R. Case No.2113 of 2004 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) by each in default to undergo a further term of simple imprisonment of 1(one) year for the aforesaid offences.

3. As can be gathered from the records, it appears that the incident had occurred in the evening at around 6.15 P.M. of 19.12.2004 in which the deceased Nurul Islam was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons with sharp weapons in connection with which a General Diary (GD) Entry No.361 dated 19.12.2004 was made on the basis of which necessary investigation was initiated by the I.O of the case by visiting the place of occurrence and soon thereafter, formal F.I.R. was also lodged on the next day on 20.12.2004 by the complainant who is the brother of the deceased, namely, Baharul Islam who also testified as PW1.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the four accused, namely, Md. Iman Ali, Md. Nuruddin, Md. Moniruddin and Abdul Kuddus were charged for committing murder by intentionally causing death of Nurul Islam in furtherance with common intention on 19.12.2004 at around 6:15 P.M. at Uttar Khatowal.

5. In connection with the aforesaid prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Doctor who performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased as well as the I.O. of the case.

6. All the accused pleaded ignorance and also denied the charges against them. The defence did not adduce any evidence.

7. The Trial Court after considering the evidences on record convicted Md. Iman Ali, Nuruddin and Md. Moniruddin under Sections 302/34 IPC. As far as the other accused Abdul Kuddus is concerned, the prosecution stood abated vide order dated 29.11.2010 on his death.

8. The Trial Court while convicting the appellants had laid great emphasis on the testimonies of PW1, Baharul Islam as well as PW4, Mainul Hoque which according to the Trial Court was corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor, Dr. S.M. Rahman who was examined as PW10.

The Trial Court also considered the defence put up before the trial that the place of occurrence was not properly established and secondly, the incident could not have been witnessed inasmuch as the said occurrence took place in the late evening at around 6:15 P.M. of December in absence of any electric light near the place of occurrence. The Trial Court also considered the plea of the defence that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution.

However, the Trial Court did not find substance in the aforesaid grounds and accordingly, held that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons/present appellants committed the aforesaid crime punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

9. Before us also, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has raised similar pleas.

10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid pleas, we would refer to the critical evidences on record specially the evidence of PW1, PW4 and the Medical evidence. Reference will also be made to evidences of the other witnesses in due course.

11. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who was the complainant and the brother of the deceased, namely, Baharul Islam, he had testified before the Trial Court that he knew all the accused persons including one Abdul Salam who was absconding at the relevant t