C.R. Sarma, J.— The judgment and order, dated 22.2.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No. 48(NL)/2005 is under challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, convicted Shri Mono Das (hereinafter called the "appellant") for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,00/- (Rupees Five hundred), in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 1 (one) month for his conviction under Section 302 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. We have also perused the materials on records. 4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 13.09.2004, at about 6.30 a.m., in front of the office of the UBI at Dhakuakhana, the appellant assaulted Shri Krishna Konwar (hereinafter called, "deceased") by means of sharp cutting weapon. The appellant was apprehended by the police, who arrived here and took him to the police custody, after seizing the weapon from him, in presence of the witness. Though the deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 5. Shri Rajiv Konwar (PW 4), who was the brother of the deceased, lodged FIR (Ext. 3) with the police, informing about the incident. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Section 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. 6. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses got the inquest done, forwarded the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and recorded the statement of the witnesses. At the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant, under Section 302IPC, and forwarded him to the court to stand trial. 7. The offence, being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which, on being explained and read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty. 8. 7. The offence, being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which, on being explained and read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty. 8. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 11 witnesses. The accused person was examined, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr. P.C.1), he denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence witnesses. 9. Considering the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of the eyewitness, the learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the prosecution could establish the charge, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated hereinabove. 10. Mr. U. J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, referring to the evidence on record, has submitted that the appellant was a labourer, by profession and that he had no intention to cause death of the deceased. With the above submissions, the learned Amicus Curiae has prayed for reducing the punishment. 11. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, taking us through the evidence of eye witnesses, has submitted that the eye witnesses i.e. PW Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 11, who claimed to have seen the occurrence, clearly stated that the appellant had given the fatal blows by means of sharp cutting weapon and as such the prosecution could prove that, with the intention to cause death of the deceased, the appellant had inflicted the injuries and thus, caused his death. Referring to the multiple injuries, sustained by the deceased, who was un-armed, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the number and nature of injuries inflicted, on the deceased, clearly indicate that the said injuries were inflicted with an intention to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that the impugned judgment and order need no interference by this Court. 12. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and carefully perusing the evidence, on record, more particularly, the post-mortem report, as well as the inquest report (Ext. Therefore, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that the impugned judgment and order need no interference by this Court. 12. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and carefully perusing the evidence, on record, more particularly, the post-mortem report, as well as the inquest report (Ext. 2), we find no difficulty in accepting the prosecution version that the deceased died, on 13.09.2000, due to injuries sustained by him 13. Shri Jitu Kumar Das, Election Officer, Dhakuakhana, who deposed as PW 8, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, on 13.9.2000. The defence declined to cross-examine this witness. Therefore, the inquest report, prepared and exhibited by him, remained un-challenged. The inquest report indicates that the dead body bore several injuries, caused by sharp cutting weapon. 14. Dr. Utpal Kumar Das, Medical Officer (PW-7), who performed the post-mortem examination, on the dead body of the deceased, on 14.09.2000, found the following injuries: "Injuries- (A). One head, neck & Face: (i) One cut injury over occipal region 1 "x ½ "x ¼" (ii) There stab wounds over face 1 "x ¼ ". (iii) Cut injuries below lower lip size-4"x 1"x bone deep, (iv) Three stab wounds in front side of the neck. Size -1" x ¼" x ¼". (B) On chest: (i) Three stab wounds on the right side and one on left side of the chest. Size 1 ½" x ¼" into lung deep. (C) On abdomen: (1) Five stab wounds on the anterior abdominal wall. Size- 1" x ¼" x abdominal wall. (D) On right hand: (i) Cut injury on right wrists - 1"x ½" x ½". (ii) Cut injury right elbow-2" x ½" x ½". (iii) Cut injury in between right thumb. (E) Left hand: (i) Cut injury below left elbow. 2" x ½" x ¼"."(ii) Cut injury on left wrist. 2" x 1" x 1". (iii) Cut injury on dorrum of left hand. ½" x½ "x ½ ". (F) On left leg: (i) Front of left leg 1"x ½" x ½ ". (ii) Two cut injuries over the left knees. 1" x ¼"x¼". (G) On right leg: (i) Cut injury on medial side of right knee. 2" x ½" x ½". (ii) Stab wound on right groin. 1" x ¼" x ¼". (H) Back: (i) Cut injury below left scaple 2 "x½"x½". (ii) Two cut injuries over the left knees. 1" x ¼"x¼". (G) On right leg: (i) Cut injury on medial side of right knee. 2" x ½" x ½". (ii) Stab wound on right groin. 1" x ¼" x ¼". (H) Back: (i) Cut injury below left scaple 2 "x½"x½". (ii) Two cut injuries over left scrapple. 1" x ½" x ¼" & 2" x1/4" x 1/2". Five stab wounds on the abdominal wall. Pertitoneal cavity contains some amount of blood. Stomach contains digested food particles. Large intestine loaded with fecal matter. Right plurae is punctured in 3 sites and left plurae is punctured in one site plurael cavity is full of blood. Lungs- collapsed. Heart- healthy but empty. More detail description: The body is of a 17 years old boy. It bore multiple cut and stab injuries all over the body". The said medical officer opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by him, which were ante mortem in nature. He also opined that the injuries on the chest wall were fatal. His evidence remained unchallenged. 15. As revealed by the said Medical Officer, the deceased, apart from various injuries, sustained three stab wounds on the right and left sides of the chest and five stab wounds on the anterior abdominal wall. The said multiple injuries, sustained by the deceased, indicate that the accused had repeatedly stabbed, on various parts, including the vital parts of the body of the deceased. The number and nature of the said multiple injuries reveal that the assailant had inflicted those injuries with an intention to kill the deceased. 16. As indicated by the above mentioned eye-witnesses, the occurrence took place on a public place i.e. in front of the office of the UBI, which was a place for parking super bus vehicles. 17. Shri Kushal Konch, deposing as PW 1, stated that he had a 'Bus counter1 near the place of occurrence and after opening his counter, he heard cry, raised by the deceased and saw that the appellant was inflicting stab injuries, on various parts, including abdomen and chest of the deceased, with a sharp cutting iron weapon. He further stated that the police, from the nearby police station, arrived there and took away the deceased. He also stated that police had seized the weapon from the deceased. He further stated that the police, from the nearby police station, arrived there and took away the deceased. He also stated that police had seized the weapon from the deceased. He was a witness to the said Seizure and he exhibited his signature in the seizure list as Ext. 1(1) and seized weapon as material Ext. No. 1. Though this witness was cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction could be elicited to discredit his evidence. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 1, it could be established that the appellant had given the fatal blows on the deceased by means of material Ext. No. 1. 18. Supporting the evidence of PW 1, Mr. Prodip Bora, another eye-witness, deposing as PW 2, stated that he had a shop near the place of occurrence and on the fateful morning, while opening his shop, he saw that the appellant inflicting blows on the deceased. In tune with the evidence given by PW 1, this witness also stated that the police had seized the weapon from the deceased vide Ext. 1. He has exhibited his signature on the said seizure list. Though this witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence, nothing material could be brought out to demolish his evidence. 19. Smti Nayanti Konwar, sister of the deceased, deposing as PW 3, stated that she saw the appellant, inflicting stab injuries on the deceased with dagger. She rushed home to inform the members of her family, about the incident. She also stated that, on being so informed, her elder brother (Rajib), proceeded to the place of occurrence. She was a witness to the inquest, prepared by the magistrate. She has exhibited the inquest report as Ext. 2 and her signature thereon as Ext. 2(1). 20. Shri Rajib Konwar, who lodged the FIR, as informant, deposing as PW 4, stated that, on being informed by her sister, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the Hospital, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. He has exhibited the FIR as Ext- 3 and his signature thereon as Ext. 3(1). 21. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the Hospital, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. He has exhibited the FIR as Ext- 3 and his signature thereon as Ext. 3(1). 21. Shri Nitya Konwar, PW 5 and Shri Lakhan Kuli, PW 6, who visited the place of occurrence, on the date of occurrence, in connection with their personal matter, stated that the police had brought the deceased to the police station and that his blood stained wearing garments were seized by the police vide Ext. 4. 22. Shri Pranjal Chutia, who deposed as PW 8 was also an eye-witness. He stated that in the morning of the date of occurrence, while proceeding to his shop, situated in front of the UBI office, he saw the appellant inflicting dao blows on the deceased, who was laid on the ground. He further stated that the police had immediately arrived there and took the appellant to the police Station. He was also an witness to the seizure of the weapon aforesaid. He exhibited the seizure list as Ext 1 and his signature as Ext 1(3). No contradiction could be elicited from the cross examination of this witness. 23. Shri Ganesh Konwar, who deposed as PW 9 stated that he was informed by one Sunu Das that his brother i.e. the deceased had expired in the hospital. He was also a witness to the inquest report Ext. 2. He has exhibited his signature as Ext. 2(2). 24. Shri Kameswar Das, who deposed as P W 10 was also a vital eye witness to the occurrence. He was a rickshaw puller, by profession. This witness stated that while proceeding to the bus stand riding his rickshaw, he saw the deceased and the appellant scuffling with each other and that the deceased had given two fist blows on the accused. He further stated that a mit dao (i.e sharp cutting weapon), which was kept attached with waist of the appellant had taken down and the appellant, picking up the said dao, inflicted blows on the abdomen of the deceased. He further stated that finding the appellant giving the blows to the deceased, with the said dao, out of fear, he had left the place. He further stated that finding the appellant giving the blows to the deceased, with the said dao, out of fear, he had left the place. As he had left the place of occurrence, it can be understood that, though this witness had seen the initial part of the occurrence, he did not remain there till the end of the incident. From his evidence, it also transpires that the appellant, who was armed with a dao had given blows with the said weapon, on the deceased, who was unarmed. 25. A careful perusal of the evidence of the said eye witnesses i.e. PW Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10, reveals that all of them had seen the occurrence themselves and that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a dao. Though they were cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, no material contradiction or omission could be elicited to make their evidence disbelievable. There is nothing, on record, to show that they had any grudge or adverse interest to falsely implicate the appellant. From their un-demolished evidence, it is found that they were the natural and reliable witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, we find sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the said eye-witnesses to believe that the appellant had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased. That apart, the evidence of PW Nos. 5 and 6, that they had seen blood stain in the wearing apparels of the appellant and that police had seized the same, sufficiently supports the prosecution version. The seizure of blood stained clothe is a strong circumstantial evidence. 26. Though PW 10 stated that the deceased had initially given fist blows on the appellant, the said blows given by the deceased cannot be treated as sufficient provocation, on the part of the appellant, so as to induce to give multiple fatal injuries with a dao on the deceased, who was unarmed. The appellant also did not take such plea during his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As discussed above, the defence failed to establish that the offence, committed by the appellant, falls under any of the exceptions prescribed by Section 300IPC. Therefore, the nature and the number of the injuries, inflicted by the deceased and the weapon used, indicate that the appellant had given the dao blows with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. 27. Therefore, the nature and the number of the injuries, inflicted by the deceased and the weapon used, indicate that the appellant had given the dao blows with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. 27. In the light of the above discussion, we find no difficulty in holding that the prosecution could establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had caused death of the deceased, by inflicting the fatal blows, with an intention to cause his death. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned single Judge committed no error by holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and thereby recording the impugned conviction and sentence, as indicated hereinabove. We find no merit in this appeal, requiring interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are affirmed. 28. The death of the deceased was certainly a great loss to the dependent family members, if any. Therefore, the dependents are entitled to get compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. 29. For the sake of brevity, without repeating the discussions, made in the Criminal Appeal No. 93(J)/2005 (disposed of on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357A Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: (1) As an interim relief, and without prejudice to the right of the dependants of the victim to claim higher amount, an amount of Rs.50,000/- be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Lakhimpur District within a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether, there is dependant(s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and also if such dependent (s) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation." (2) Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent(s), if any, need rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be prescribed by the scheme to be prepared by the State Government. It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrives at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependent(s) of the deceased/victim does not require any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, without delay, in favour of the State Government. 30. We record our appreciation for the services, rendered by Sri U.J. Saikia, as Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to him as his remuneration, by the State Legal Services Authority. 31. Return the LCR. _____________