JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Mr N Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Sessions Case No. 142 (DM)/2016, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months each for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 04.10.2015, one Kandarpa Deka lodged an FIR before the OC, Mangaldoi Police Station, stating inter alia that on 03.10.2015, at about 04:30 pm, his elder brother Kamala Deka and his uncle Saruram Deka, while returning home from Khodoumara Chapori, the accused persons, namely, Arun Deka and Hema Deka @ Bhotok Deka, killed his elder brother Kamala Deka by hacking him on his neck. They also caused grievous injuries to his uncle Saruram Deka, with a sharp cutting weapon.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Mangaldoi PS Case No. 851 of 2015, under Sections 302/326/34 IPC and investigation has been commenced. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the weapon of offence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused appellants, before the learned JMFC, Mangaldoi, under Sections 302/323/34 IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case has been committed accordingly.

5. During trial, 13 (thirteen) witnesses were examined to prove the case of prosecution and exhibited six documents before the learned trial Court. After completion of trial, statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put before them to which they denied the same. According to them, they have been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial Court has delivered the judgment by convicting the accused appellants as aforesaid.

6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr N Mahajan has argued that the learned trial Court has heavily placed reliance on the evidence of PW-6, who claimed to be an injured person, but no medical evidence of PW-6 was proved by the prosecution to establish the fact that PW-6 had also sustained injury in the same set of incident along with the deceased.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is vital contradiction regarding time of the incident. According to PW-6, the incident occurred at 04:30 pm and after that the appellant No. 1, Arun Deka went to the residence of PW-9, whereas PW-9 categorically stated in his evidence that the appellant No. 1 came to his residence at about 01:30 pm and threw the dao in his courtyard and after taking water went away. That being the position, the learned trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the accused appellants.

9. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Medical Officer (PW-13) stated in his evidence that he examined the injured Saruram Deka, PW-6 on 08.10.2015 and he found the injury fresh and simple, caused by blunt weapon, whereas the alleged incident had occurred on 03.10.2015. As such, the injury sustained by the victim, Saruram Deka cannot be related to the incident of 03.10.2