JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. This jail appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 174 (S-C)/2001 convicting the Appellants, namely, Shri Krishna Kanta Khodal and Shri Dinesh Garh @ Saru Garh under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing both of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. 2. Shri Sanjay Kr. Medhi, Advocate, was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to argue on behalf of both the Appellants. After hearing had proceeded, it appeared to us that there may be a conflict of interest between the Appellant No. 1, Krishna Kanta Khodal and Appellant No. 2, Dinesh Garh @Saru Gorh. The Appellant No. 1 was stated to have given a confessional statement which clearly put the blame on the Appellant No. 2. In view of the aforesaid, we had appointed Shri A.M. Bora, Advocate, also as an Amicus Curiae. Mr. Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae, was requested to address his argument on behalf of the Appellant No. l and Shri Bora, to represent the Appellant No. 2, and accordingly, they have been heard. We have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Smt. Durga Lama, had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Mathurapur police station on 21.1.97 stating that her husband, Gobin Lama @Kharka Bahadur, went missing on 19.1.97 from 3.30 P.M. from Mathurapur bazaar. She also stated that she had learnt that the Appellants had kidnapped him. Based on the said ejahar, Mathurapur P.S. Case No. 2/97 under Sections 364/365/34 IPC was registered. The investigation commenced and on 23.1.97, a headless body was recovered which was identified to be the body of Gobin Lama and accordingly, Section 302 IPC was added. On 14.3.97, ahead was also recovered. We would advert to details in this regard at a more appropriate place. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against both these Appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC showing the Appellant No. 2 as an absconder. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sivasagar for trial and accordingly, Sessions Case No. 9(S-C)/2001 was registered. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against both these Appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC showing the Appellant No. 2 as an absconder. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sivasagar for trial and accordingly, Sessions Case No. 9(S-C)/2001 was registered. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, charge under Sections 302/34 IPC was framed against the Appellant No. 1. The Appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The record of the case was subsequently transferred to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Sivasagar whereupon Sessions Case No. 174(S-C) 2001 was registered. In the meantime, the Appellant No. 2 was apprehended and he was also sent up for trial and accordingly, they were tried together. Charge under Sections 302/34 IPC was framed against Dinesh Garh and he also pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Defence did not adduce any evidence. 6. There were no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case is primarily based on the confession of Appellant No. 1, recovery of head on being led and shown by the Appellant No. 1, recovery of a dao recovered at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 as well as on the theory of last seen together. 7. PW-1, Shri Lengru Nayak, had no knowledge with regard to the incident. He was, however, not declared hostile. The same is the case with PW-2, Shri Hari Kanta Khodal. 8. PW-3, Shri Padma Bahadur Lama, is an uncle of the deceased and he was informed about the involvement of present Appellants in the crime by the PW-1. He claimed to have identified the body found in the drain of a paddy field to be that of Gobin and he identified the body with the help of a cut mark injury. He is also a witness to the seizure list, Exhibit-1, by which the police had seized a pair of slippers. 9. P.W.4, Shri Krishna Kumar Lama, was a Secretary of the Village Defence Party at the relevant time. He also deposed that P.W-1 had informed him about the Appellant No. 1 and another person being armed with dao, chasing Gobin. He is also a witness to the seizure list, Exhibit-1, by which the police had seized a pair of slippers. 9. P.W.4, Shri Krishna Kumar Lama, was a Secretary of the Village Defence Party at the relevant time. He also deposed that P.W-1 had informed him about the Appellant No. 1 and another person being armed with dao, chasing Gobin. Though he was present at the time when the body was found and was being identified, it is his categorical version that he had not identified the body. He is also witness to the Exhibit-1. 10. PW-5, Dr. Tapan Borbarma conducted the postmortem examination on the headless body. According to him, a sharp cutting instrument was used to severe the head from the body at the neck. He had also found a 3 1/2 inches linear scar at the back of left shoulder. 11. PW-6, Mrs. Durga Lama, is the wife of the deceased Gobin Lama. According to her, P. W-1 had informed her that the present Appellants had forcibly taken her husband away and accordingly, she had lodged ejahar. She had identified the body to be that of her husband with the help of the stitched injury mark in his arm, which the deceased had sustained by falling from a tree when he was a child. 12. PW-7, Shri Indra Dutta, is the Scribe who wrote the ejahar and he did not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 13. PW-8, Smt. Deepali Chachari, stated that she did hot know the deceased. She only stated that about 5-6 years back, a Nepali person had come to their place and the Appellant No. 2 had called him away. She was not aware of what has happened thereafter. 14. PW-9, Shri Lakhiram Nayak, stated that he saw police seizing a dao and a digging hoe from the house of the elder brother of the Appellant No. 2 and he was a witness to the seizure list, Exhibit-4. Hehad recognized the seized dao, Material Exhibit-1 and the hao, Material Exhibit-2. He stated that the Appellant No. 1 was present at that point of time. But in cross-examination, he had stated that he was not aware as to who had taken out the dao and the hoe. 15. Hehad recognized the seized dao, Material Exhibit-1 and the hao, Material Exhibit-2. He stated that the Appellant No. 1 was present at that point of time. But in cross-examination, he had stated that he was not aware as to who had taken out the dao and the hoe. 15. PW-10, Jalauddin Ahmed, was posted as a Judicial Magistrate at the relevant point of time at Sonari and on 15.3.97, he had recorded the confessional statement (Exhibit-5) of the Appellant No. 1. According to him, he had recorded the confessional statement of the Appellant No. 1 by following the necessary procedural safeguards and that he was satisfied from the searching questions that he had asked that the accused was going to make the confessional statement voluntarily and then only, he recorded the confessional statement. 16. PW-11, Shri Abhiram Tanti, stated that police had brought the Appellant No. 1 in a vehicle and he also joined them while they were proceeding towards the paddy field. He stated that Appellant No. 1 showed a human head in a nullah and he did not recognize whose head it was. It is his version that police also seized a digging hoe and a dao in the paddy field and he is a signatory to the seizure list Exhibit-4. In cross-examination, he narrated that many people had already assembled at the place where the human head was lying and he also stated that he had been shown the head by the police. 17. PW-13, Shri Jiten Sachari, stated about the Appellant No. 1 producing a dao from the paddy field. According to him, P.W-11 was present there. He is also a signatory to the seizure list Exhibit-4. He had identified the Material Exhibit-1, the dao. 18. PW-13, Shri Tulshi Mel, and PW-14, Shri Basu Tanti, did not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 19. PW-15, Shri Gopal Lama, is the younger brother of the deceased. He had recognized the body to be that of his brother from the old cut mark in his left hand. He had also deposed that the body was taken out from the nullah by the police with the help of many other people. 20. 19. PW-15, Shri Gopal Lama, is the younger brother of the deceased. He had recognized the body to be that of his brother from the old cut mark in his left hand. He had also deposed that the body was taken out from the nullah by the police with the help of many other people. 20. PW-16, Shri Samu Kandha, had also deposed that he saw recovery of the headless body of Gobin Lama and that he could identify the headless body to be that of Gobin with the aid of the old cut mark injury in the left arm. 21. PW-17, Shri Ghana Kanta Bhuyan, was the Investigating Officer. He had stated about exhuming the headless body from the nullah. He got some information from the Secretary, Village Defence Parry mat a nullah was filled up by digging its both sides and that aroused his suspicion. It eventually led to digging the place finding a headless body. PW-15, identified the body to be that of the deceased, his elder brother, and the Executive Magistrate, who had accompanied him, had held inquest. On 13.3.97, the Appellant No. 1 surrendered and accordingly, he was arrested on that day. On 14.3.97, the Appellant No. 1, took them to a pond where he had kept the head. The pond was about a furlong away from the place where the headless body was kept buried. According to PW-17, the head was floating in the water. He had recorded the statement of the Appellant No. 1 which was exhibited as Exhibit-8. He referred to the confessional statement made by the accused/Appellant No. 1. He also stated about the seizing of a Naga dao and a digging hoe on being shown by the Appellant No. 1. 22. PW-18, Dr. Prasanna Kumar Bordoloi, conducted postmortem examination on the skull. The skull was found to be decomposed and it could not be ascertained as to whether severed head was of a male or a female person. 23. PW-19, Shri Satrughan Gowala, is the Secretary of Village Defence Party of Mathurapur Tea Estate. After missing entry report was received, police had asked them to make searches. They had found a nullah being covered in the middle of a paddy field. He was present at the time when the police dug up the place and had exhumed Gobin Lama's headless body. 24. After missing entry report was received, police had asked them to make searches. They had found a nullah being covered in the middle of a paddy field. He was present at the time when the police dug up the place and had exhumed Gobin Lama's headless body. 24. PW-20, Shri Keshab lama, is a cousin of the deceased. He also deposed about the recovery of the headless body of Gobin Lama. He also claimed to have identified the body of Gobin through a cut mark in the right arm. 25. PW-21, Santa Kumar Lama, is a cousin of the deceased and he also stated that he could recognize the headless body to be that of Gobin Lama from the cut mark injury in the right arm. 26. PW-22, Shri Bhaskar Pegu, was the Executive Magistrate, who had conducted inquest upon finding a headless body lying in a nullah and accordingly, he had prepared the inquest report, Exhibit-10. He had stated that the headless body had a cut mark in the left side of the back, just below the left arm. He stated that PW-3, PW-4, PW-15, PW-16, PW-20, PW-21 and some others had identified the body to be that of Gobin Lama. The inquest report was made on 23.1.97. 27. The accused/Appellants were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellant No. 1 stated that he could not say as to whether he made the confessional statement, Exhibit-5, before the Magistrate. He stated that Dinesh Garh had killed Gobin. He confirmed that police had recovered and seized the Material Exhibit-1 dao, and Material Exhibit-2, hoe from the residence of the elder brother of the Appellant No. 2 and he made the said statement when a question was asked with regard to the evidence of PW-9 regarding seizing of a dao and a hoe. In response to the evidence adduced by Appellant No. 2 regarding production of Material Exhibit-1, a dao, in the paddy field and seizing of the same by the police, he reiterated that dao was not recovered there and that he did not show any dao to the police and that the dao was recovered from the premises of the Appellant No. 2. He further stated that the statement made by him in Exhibit-8 is true and that the Appellant No. 2 had killed Gobin Lama. He further stated that the statement made by him in Exhibit-8 is true and that the Appellant No. 2 had killed Gobin Lama. With regard to the head floating in the water, he had stated that public had showed the severed head. 28. On the other hand, Appellant No. 2 denied having killed Gobin Lama. He, however, confirmed that police had seized a dao and a digging hoe from the residence of his elder brother. 29. Both the counsel had argued that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the headless body was that of Gobin Lama, in view of the gross discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses regarding mode and manner of identification of the body. According to them, PW-20 and PW-21 had stated about identifying the body on the basis of the cut mark in the right arm whereas PW-3 and PW-6 did not indicate in which arm the stitched mark was noticed. PW-15 and PW-16, on the other hand, had identified on the basis of stitched mark in the left arm. 30. There is no dispute that the body had a prominent mark which, according to the PW-5, was at the back of left shoulder. The inquest report, Exhibit-10, also speaks about the cut mark on the left side of the back just below the shoulder. It is apparent that all the aforesaid witnesses identified the headless body on the basis of the stitched cut mark. Therefore, the contradictions relating to the location of the mark in the deposition of the witnesses is not very consequential. The wife of the deceased, PW-6, had recognized the body to be that of her husband on the basis of the mark which the deceased had sustained by falling from a tree when he was a child and, therefore, we are satisfied that there is no doubt that the headless body that was recovered on 23.1.97 was that of Gobin Lama. 31. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the confessional statement of Appellant No. 1 (Exhibit-5) which is as follows: One day about two years back, Sam Garh and I went to a family in Mathurapur to have some liquor. Going there, we found Gobin Lama having liquor there. There, we had an altercation with Saru Garh. The old woman who sold liquor asked us to leave the place. Going there, we found Gobin Lama having liquor there. There, we had an altercation with Saru Garh. The old woman who sold liquor asked us to leave the place. On the way, Saru Garh caught hold of Gobin and took him towards the paddy field. I, too, followed them. In the middle of the paddy field, Sam Garh struck Gobin in his neck with the blunt side of the dao that was in his hand. Gobin fell down unconscious. Then, Sara placed Gobin in between two 'ali's (walkable high ridges through the paddy field -Tr) and cut apart his head. After mat, I kept waiting nearby of Gobin's body while Saru Garh brought a digging hoe and buried Gobin's body. Thereafter, Saru Garh took Gobin's wearing and the severed head and kept those buried in a nearby pond. I also accompanied Gobin to the pond. Then, after absconding for some days, I surrendered to the Sivasagar PS. and informed police about the occurrence. This is what the incident is. 32. Mr. Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the Appellant No. 1, has submitted that the alleged confession (Exhibit-5) is not inculpatory and he has squarely blamed the Appellant No. 2. Therefore, it is not a confession of committing murder of the deceased. He has also argued that no statement was recorded in connection with recovery of the head allegedly at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is nothing on record to show that the dao and hoe seized by the police, had been used for the purpose of committing the offence. According to the learned Counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of events unerringly and conclusively pointing to the guilt of the accused/Appellant No. 1. It is also his contention that invocation of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act in the instant case, is wholly untenable. Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the conviction of the Appellant No. 1. 33. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of Appellant No. 2, has submitted that there is material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses with regard to the recovery of the dao and the hoe. Likewise, there are also grave discrepancies with regard to the discovery of the head. 33. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of Appellant No. 2, has submitted that there is material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses with regard to the recovery of the dao and the hoe. Likewise, there are also grave discrepancies with regard to the discovery of the head. With regard to Exhibit-5, his submission is that the same cannot be regarded as a confession for the purpose of using it substantively against the Appellant No. 2. According to him, non-examination of the lady, in whose shop, they had allegedly taken liquor, has cast a doubt about the entire prosecution case and in the circumstances, the last seen theory, sought to be stitched together, is not worthy of credence. It is also his submission that apart from the alleged confession, there is no other incriminating materials on record, connecting the Appellant No. 2 to the offence committed. It is also his submission that the prosecution has not brought any reliable evidence to show that the accused/Appellant No. 2 had absconded and that such ascendance is connected with the crime committed. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies in the prosecution case, the learned Counsel for the Appellant No. 2, also submits that the conviction of the Appellant No. 2 is not sustainable in law. 34. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the confession of Appellant No. l (Exhibit-1) is not exculpatory and it can be acted upon against both the Appellants. He submits that the materials on record would amply demonstrate that the plea taken by the Appellant No. 1 that there is nothing to suggest common intent in between the 2(two) Appellants, is misplaced and the overt actions of both the Appellants signify that there was common intention towards committing the offence. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to the fact that the head came to be recovered only on 14.3.97 after Appellant No. l had surrendered and had led the investigating team to show where the head was lying. From the aforesaid recovery of the head, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor wants us to rely upon the confessional statement (Exhibit-5) as also the statement made by the Appellant No. l under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit-8). He submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Public Prosecutor wants us to rely upon the confessional statement (Exhibit-5) as also the statement made by the Appellant No. l under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit-8). He submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 35. A perusal of Exhibit-5 would indicate that to an extent, there is admission of participation by the Appellant No. 1 in the entire episode. However, such statements of admission are not relating to commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. To what extent the confession of the Appellant No. 1 is not inculpatory. 36. In so far as the offence under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the Appellant No. 1 has squarely implicated the Appellant No. 2 without his involvement at all. Therefore, Exhibit-5 cannot be said to be a confession made by the Appellant No. 1 confessing his guilt under Section 302 IPC. 37. PW-6 lodged the ejahar based on her information received from PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 also implicated the Appellants based on the statements made by PW-1. PW-1, on the other hand, in the witness box, claimed to have no knowledge with regard to the incident. The prosecution also did not declare PW-1 to be a hostile witness. Deposition of PW-1 has a significant bearing in the prosecution case in view of the fact the prosecution case is depended on circumstantial evidence. P.W-8 was another witness, who was introduced by the prosecution possibly to establish that the deceased was seen in the company of the 2(two) Appellants. She, however, in categorical terms, denied to have known the deceased. She only refers to the presence of Appellant No. 2 on a day 5-6 years back and states that he had called a Nepali gentleman, who had also come to her place, away. Whether PW-8 is the same person, to whose place, according to the Exhibit-5, the Appellants had gone to have some liquor, is not clear. PW-8, in any case, does not refer to the presence of Appellant No. 1. In absence of any identification of the deceased in presence of Appellants, the chain of circumstances do not even begin to operate against the Appellants. Therefore, we have to conclude that the prosecution has failed totally to prove that the deceased was last seen together in the company of the Appellants. 38. In absence of any identification of the deceased in presence of Appellants, the chain of circumstances do not even begin to operate against the Appellants. Therefore, we have to conclude that the prosecution has failed totally to prove that the deceased was last seen together in the company of the Appellants. 38. The prosecution also attributes the recovery of the head of the deceased on 14.3.97 at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 as showing complicity of the Appellant No. 1 in the offence. According to PW-11, the police had brought the Appellant No. 1 in a vehicle and he also joined them while they were proceeding towards the paddy field. He stated that Appellant No. 1 had shown a human head in a nullah and further stated that many people had already gathered at the place where the head was lying. In cross-examination, he clarified that he was shown the head by the police. P. W-11 also stated that police had seized a digging hoe and a dao in the paddy field. PW-12, on the other hand, stated that the Appellant No. 1 had produced a dao to the police from the paddy field and at that point P.W-11 was also present. Both the P.W-11 and P.W-12 are witnesses to the Exhibit-4. P.W-12, however, does not even make a mention about the recovery of the head. He also does not depose about the production of a hoe by the accused. What is intriguing is that the P.W-9 had deposed that the police had seized a digging hoe and a dao from the house of the elder brother of the Appellant No. 2. He also makes a reference to the presence of the Appellant No. 1 at the time of such seizure. He is also shown as a witness to the seizure list, Exhibit-4. These glaring inconsistencies and contradictions with regard to recovery of dao and hoe cannot be reconciled. The dao and hoe are implements which are, otherwise, very commonly used in day to day life of the villagers. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to have seized articles examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that these implements had been used in the commission of the crime. With regard to the head, we only have the statement of PW-11, apart from the evidence of PW-17. There was no attempt on the part of the prosecution to have seized articles examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that these implements had been used in the commission of the crime. With regard to the head, we only have the statement of PW-11, apart from the evidence of PW-17. PW-17 stated that the head was recovered at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 from a pond. There was a huge difference between a nullah and a pond. It is also significant that in the confessional statement which was recorded on 18.3.97 (Exhibit-5), the Appellant No. 1 did not say that a digging hoe, a dao and the severed head were recovered at his instance by the police in the paddy field. Appellant No 1 in the statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, had stated that a dao and a hoe were seized from the house of the elder brother of the Appellant No. 2. P.W-9 who deposed in similar line, was categorical that he did not know who had taken out the dao and the hoe. The Investigating Officer had also not recorded the statement of the Appellant No. 1 with regard to leading to discovery. 39. The disclosure statement, to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not statutorily required to be reduced into writing. However, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajib Phukan and Anr. v. State of Assam reported in 2009 (2) GLT 414, on consideration of law laid down by the Apex Court and relying on the provisions contained in the Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in paragraph 56, stated as follows: (56) Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we conclude that a 'disclosure statement', to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is not statutorily required to be reduced into writing, though prudence into writing in order to enable the Court to know exactly as to what the accused is allegedly to have stated and the extent to which the information give by him is admissible. The reference shall stand answered accordingly. 40. The reference shall stand answered accordingly. 40. The materials on record, besides being scanty, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and we are not inclined to accept the version of the prosecution that the discoveries were made at the instance of the Appellant No. l. 41. The next question that arises for our consideration is how far and to what extent, confessional statement of Appellant No. 1 (Exhibit-5) or for that matter, statement of the Appellant No. 1 under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit-8) can be used against the Appellant No. 2. It is no longer res integra that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence. In criminal cases where evidence adduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a co-accused person, the presumption of innocence, which is the edifice of criminal jurisprudence, leans in favour of the accused person. In Haricharan Kurmi and Anr. v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 , the Supreme Court had stated thus: ...The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. 42. We have already discussed the evidence on record. Except the confessional statement (Exhibit-5) of Appellant No. 1 there is no other evidence against the Appellant No. 2. In such circumstances, we cannot make the said statement a basis for holding the Appellant No. 2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 43. Section 8 of the Evidence Act states that conduct of any person and offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The fact in issue in the instant case was the death of Gobin Lama. From the evidence of PW-17, the Investigating Officer, it does not appear that there was any serious attempt on his part to apprehend the Appellant No. 2. The fact in issue in the instant case was the death of Gobin Lama. From the evidence of PW-17, the Investigating Officer, it does not appear that there was any serious attempt on his part to apprehend the Appellant No. 2. There is also nothing on record to suggest that such abscondance as deposed to by the PW-17, was connected with the crime. Be that as it may, on totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are reluctant to take a view that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused. Prosecution case suffers from serious infirmity in respect of all the alleged incriminating circumstances appearing against the Appellants. 44. In the result, the appeal is allowed. We set aside the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. l74(S-C)/2001 and the Appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. They are set at liberty forthwith. 45. For the assistance rendered, both Shri S.K. Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae and Shri A.M. Bora, learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to a fee of Rs. 5000/- each. 46. Send down the trial Court record immediately. Appeal allowed