I.A. Ansari, J. - (1.)BECAUSE of the fact that both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and order of conviction and both these appeals have been heard together, the two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 30 -09 -2005, passed, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, the two accused -appellants have been convicted under Section 304, (Part -II) read with Section 34, IPC. However, while the accused -appellant, namely, Pradip Das, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, the other appellant, namely, Atul Des has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs. 500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus : On 09 -02 -2002, in the afternoon, when Khiroda Das (PW 4) and her daughter, Soraswoti Das (PW 5), were weaving clothes by placing the materials on the road near the entrance of the house of Ramesh Das (since deceased), Ramesh Das, on returning from the market, noticed that PWs 4 and 5 had been carrying on the act of weaving, as described hereinbefore, on the entrance of his house, he (Ramesh Das) asked them (PWs 4 and 5) to remove the instruments of weaving and, then, entered into his house. After some time, when Ramesh Das come out of his house, accused -appellant, Atul Das, called him, the house of Atul Das being situated opposite the house of accused -appellant. Pradip Das. On being called, when Ramesh Das went near accused Atul, Atul caught hold of Ramesh by both his hands and at that point of time, Pradip Das came out of his house and assaulted Ramesh with a dao on the tatter's neck killing Ramesh Das on the spot. On witnessing the occurrence, not only PWs 4 and 5, but some other persons, who were present near the place of occurrence, raised hullah and as the neighbours gathered at the place of occurrence, the two accused -appellants fled away. On 09 -02 -2002 itself, accused Pradip Das went to Komarkuchi outpost, at about 2.45 p.m. with a dao in his hand and his clothes having stains of blood, whereupon he made a statement and based, on his statement, a GD Entry was made. The said dao and the blood stained shirt of the appellant, Pradip Das were seized by the police, The police, then, visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body, prepared sketch map, examined the witnesses and also received a formal written ejahar from PW 1 (Hitesh Das). Based on the said ejahar and treating the same as the First Information Report (in short, 'the FIR'), a case, against both the accused -appellants, was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and, on completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was laid accordingly against both the accused.
To the charge, framed under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, at the trial, both the accused -appellants pleaded not guilty.

(3.)IN support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses. The two accused -appellants were, then, examined under Section 313, Cr PC and, in their examinations aforementioned, they denied to have committed the offence, which they were alleged to have committed, their case being that of alibi.