JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 08.06.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali, in Sessions Case No. 239/2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali, convicted the appellant, namely, Shri Jahan Lagun (hereinafter called the "appellant") for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand), in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months for his conviction, under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. R. Islam, 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. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.09.2005, at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant visited the house of his step father, namely, Shri Rimish Lagun (hereinafter called, "deceased"), with a dao in his hand and caused death to his step father by inflicting dao blows on his person. Smti Priya Lagun (PW 1), wife the deceased lodged FIR with the police and the same was registered as a case under Section 302 IPC. 4. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body in the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence (Ext- 3), conducted inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses, seized a dao from the place of occurrence vide seizure list (Ext. 1). At the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant, under Section 302 IPC. 5. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 11 witnesses, including the medical officer (PW-10), who performed autopsy and the I.O. (PW-11). At the end of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), he denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence witnesses. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him, as indicated hereinabove. 7. At the end of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), he denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence witnesses. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him, as indicated hereinabove. 7. Mr. R. Islam, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that, except the oral evidence, given by the informant, who was the second wife of the deceased i.e. the step mother of the appellant, there is no other substantive and reliable evidence to believe that the appellant had caused death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW 1, who had no good relation with the mother of the appellant, cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy evidence for want of corroboration. It is also submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of PW 1 and other prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence; and that such discrepancies negate the prosecution version regarding involvement of the appellant. In view of the above, the learned Amicus curiae has submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 8. Refuting the argument, advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, referring to the evidence of PW 1, who was the only eyewitness, has submitted that her evidence remained un-demolished and as such, the same cannot be brushed aside. It is also submitted that the fact that the deceased died due to dao blow, given on his person on the fateful night, in his courtyard, lends sufficient corroboration in favour of the evidence, given by PW 1. In view of the above, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that prosecution could establish the charge, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the impugned conviction and sentence needs no interference. 9. The Medical Officer, (PW-10), who performed the autopsy, on the dead body of the deceased, on 17.09.2005, i.e. on the following day found the following injuries, on the dead body of the deceased: Injuries- (i). An incised wound, about 10 cm x 5 cm in size over right side of neck from the angle of the lower jaw to the cervical spine. An incised wound, about 10 cm x 5 cm in size over right side of neck from the angle of the lower jaw to the cervical spine. (ii) Facture dislocation of the cervical spine at the level between 3rd and 4th vertebrae. (iii) An oblique, incised wound from right mandible to right maxillary bone, about 12 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm size. (iv) A horizontal incised wound over the mandibular area about 15 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm size. (v) an oblique incised wound over lower abdomen of about 1 cm x 1.5 cm in size. Vertebrae: Fracture of the vertebral column at the level between 3rd and 4th cervical. The injuries cut skin, muscle, nerves and blood vessels. There are marks of extensive hemorrhages and staining of the tissues. There are refraction of the edges of the wounds The said medical officer opined that the death was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure due to extensive haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. He further opined that injuries were ante-mortem and that the facture injury, on the vertebral column, was not caused by any sharp weapon and that the said injury was caused due to hit by hard substance. He also ruled out the possibility of receiving such type of injuries by falling on hard substance. He also failed to given any opinion regarding type of weapon used in causing cut injuries. 10. From the above discussed evidence, given by the Medical Officer, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the injuries aforesaid sustained by him. The said Medical officer does not suggest use of sharp cutting weapon like dao. According to the medical officer, weapon used in causing the fracture of the vertebral column at the level between 3rd and 4th cervical was other than the sharp weapon (i.e. dao). In the FIR lodged by the informant, it has been alleged that the appellant inflicted the injuries by means of a dao. 11. The wife of the deceased (second wife), who lodged the FIR, deposing as PW 1 stated that the appellant, who was a son of the first wife of the deceased, visited their house, with a dao in his hand at about 9.00 p.m. on the night of occurrence. 11. The wife of the deceased (second wife), who lodged the FIR, deposing as PW 1 stated that the appellant, who was a son of the first wife of the deceased, visited their house, with a dao in his hand at about 9.00 p.m. on the night of occurrence. According to this witness, at the relevant time the deceased was sitting on the verandah and she was feeding her child inside the house. She further stated that after arrival of the appellant, in their house, on being informed by the deceased, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his father asking him to relinquish his post of Chowkidar in his favour. On being refused by the deceased to comply with the said demand, the appellant inflicted dao blow on the neck of the deceased. She further stated that after assaulting the deceased, the appellant had fled the place of occurrence. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the relevant time, there was no electrical light in their house and that the appellant had given a single blow. She further stated that she had no good relation with the mother of the appellant due to previous grudge. 12. From the evidence of the said witness, it is found that the occurrence took place in their Verandah and that appellant had given a single blow on the neck of the deceased, in her presence and she had rushed to the house of the nearby people, more particularly to the house of one Mr. Rafi, who was also her adjacent neighbourer. Therefore, the place of occurrence was the verandah of their house. Accordingly to this evidence, the death of her husband was instantaneously caused, at the place of occurrence, due to dao blow, given by the deceased. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness, it is clearly found that the deceased died on the verandah of his house and PW 1 had rushed, immediately after the incident, to the house of one Mr. Rafi (not examined) to inform about the incident. 13. In our considered opinion, as Mr. Rafi was the first person, who was informed by PW 1 about the incidence, was a vital witness to the occurrence., but for the reason best known to them, the prosecution failed to examine the said witness. Rafi (not examined) to inform about the incident. 13. In our considered opinion, as Mr. Rafi was the first person, who was informed by PW 1 about the incidence, was a vital witness to the occurrence., but for the reason best known to them, the prosecution failed to examine the said witness. Non-examination of such a material witness raises doubt about the prosecution story, more particularly, the veracity of the evidence of PW 1. 14. Shri Joseph Kerketta deposing as PW 2 stated that he came to know that the deceased was killed by his son. 15. In tune with the evidence of PW 2, Shri Jiban Bawri, PW 3, stated that the chowkidar of the tea garden had informed him that the deceased was killed by some body. 16. Shri Suphal Bawri, deposing as PW 4, stated that, on the next morning, he visited the house of the deceased. He further stated that PW 1 had informed him that the deceased's son i.e. the appellant had killed his father. 17. Shri James Guria, deposing as PW 5, stated that, on the nigh of the occurrence, Mr. Rafi had informed him that the deceased was killed by some person. This witness not was informed about the identify of the appellant by Mr. Rafi. He further stated that coming to know about the incident, he rushed to the house of the deceased and found his dead body lying near the house. According to PW 5, subsequently, he came to know from PW 1 that the appellant had killed the deceased. PW 1 also stated that she had informed Mr. Rafi about the incident. Thus, it appears that PW 1 had disclosed the identity of the assailant i.e. the appellant. If that was so, there is no reason not to disclose the name of the appellant before PW 5 by Mr. Rafi. According to PW 5, Mr. Rafi Said that some one had killed the deceased. This indicates that Mr. Rafi was not told by PW 1 about involvement of the appellant. Therefore, evidence given by PW 1 that she had informed Mr. Rafi about the involvement of the appellant is not believable. Further, PW 5, who was a chowkidar of the tea garden, in his cross-examination clearly stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying at a distance of 25 poles (1 pole = 12 feet). Therefore, evidence given by PW 1 that she had informed Mr. Rafi about the involvement of the appellant is not believable. Further, PW 5, who was a chowkidar of the tea garden, in his cross-examination clearly stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying at a distance of 25 poles (1 pole = 12 feet). He also stated that PW 4 was also with him. PW 4 also stated that the dead body was on the road near the home of the deceased. This witness further stated that after visiting the house of the deceased, he did not find any body including the informant i.e. the second wife of the deceased, in the house of the deceased. The absence of the informant in her house, at the time of arrival of PWs 4 and 5, also raises doubt as to whether PW 1 was present at the time of the occurrence in her house. 18. Though PW 1 stated that the occurrence took place in the verandah of her house and that the deceased died instantaneously therein, the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 contradicted her said evidence. According to PWs 4 and 5 the dead body of the deceased was found lying at a distance of about 300 feet (25 poles) from the home. 19. Shri Geragori Badra, deposing as PW 6 refused to support the prosecution version. Though he was cross examined, on behalf of the prosecution, no incriminating materials could be elicited from his evidence against the appellant. However, this witness, in his cross-examination, clearly stated that the dead body of the deceased was found at a distance of about one pharlong from the house of the deceased. 20. Shri Puniram Goala, who deposed as PW 7, was also declared hostile by the prosecution, but nothing incriminating, could be elicited from his cross examination, made by the prosecution. 21. Shri Ram Kerkeria @ Tanti, deposing as PW 8, stated that he visited the place of occurrence along with PW 5 and found the dead body of the deceased near his house. He stated he came to know from the people, who had gathered there, that the deceased was killed. This witness was silent about the involvement of the appellant. Shri Dhiraj Bauri, deposing as PW 9 expressed his ignorance about the involvement of the appellant. 22. He stated he came to know from the people, who had gathered there, that the deceased was killed. This witness was silent about the involvement of the appellant. Shri Dhiraj Bauri, deposing as PW 9 expressed his ignorance about the involvement of the appellant. 22. From the above discussed evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and 8, who appears to be independent witness, it is found that the dead body of the deceased was lying at a little distance from the verandah i.e. the house of the deceased. There is nothing on record to find that they had any reason to falsely depose. Therefore, we find that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. From the evidence of the said witnesses, it is clearly found that the dead body of the deceased was found lying at a little distance from his house. But accordingly, PW 1, who claims to be the eyewitness of the occurrence, wherein the deceased incident took place in the veranda of the house, wherein the deceased was sitting therein and he died instantaneously due to the dao blow, given by the appellant. If the deceased had died in the in the Verandah of their house, it is not known as to how the dead body could be available on the road or away from the Verandah. Therein in nothing on record to find that the dead body was carried by any person to the place where the same was found by PWs 4, 5, 6 and 8. Therefore, it is quite doubtful if the PW 1 had witness the same. 23. In view of the above contradiction and discrepancy, in the evidence of PW 1 and the witnesses aforesaid, the evidence of PW 1 is found to be without corroboration on material point. That a part, according to PW 1, the appellant had given a single blow that too with a sharp cutting weapon i.e. dao, but the medical officer, who performed the autopsy found as many as 5 injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he clearly opined that the facture of the vertebral column was not caused by sharp weapon. Therefore while causing the facture injury aforesaid; the assailant might have used a weapon other than a sharp cutting object (i.e. dao etc.) The prosecution has failed to reveal the identity of the weapon, which was used in causing the said facture injury. Therefore while causing the facture injury aforesaid; the assailant might have used a weapon other than a sharp cutting object (i.e. dao etc.) The prosecution has failed to reveal the identity of the weapon, which was used in causing the said facture injury. That apart, the number of injuries found by the medical officer do not support the evidence of PW 1, who stated that a single blow was given to the deceased by the appellant, causing his instant death. Law is well settled, in a criminal jurisprudence, prosecution is required to prove the case, beyond all reasonable, doubt and title benefit of doubt should always go in favour of the accused person(s). 24. As discussed above, the prosecution in the present case, could not the prove charge, brought against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. 25. In view of the above, we do not find it safe to uphold and affirm the impugned conviction and sentence. Therefore, we find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. We record our appreciation for the services, rendered by Mr. R. Islam, 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. 27. The death of the deceased was certainly a great loss of the dependent family member(s), if any. Therefore, the dependents are entitled to get compensation under Section 357A Cr.P.C. 28. 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 Sonitpur District within a period of two months from this date. 50,000/- be deposited by the State Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Sonitpur 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. Return the LCR. Appeal allowed