JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 20.12.2006, passed by the Additional learned Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 92/2005. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 /34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default suffer imprisonment for another period of one year for their conviction under section 302 /34 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, as appellants, have come up with this appeal. We have heard Ms. A. Phukan, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 19.6.2005, at about 7.30 A.M., while Shri Lakhi Prasad Bhumij (hereinafter called the deceased) was working in the land of the informant namely Dilip Bhumij, the appellants, armed with sharp weapon, assaulted the deceased causing his death on the spot. Accordingly, the informant (PW1) lodged an FIR with the Police on the same day and the Police at the conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 302 /34 IPC. 3. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 /34 IPC, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined, as many as, 10 witnesses in support of their case. At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined, under section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations levelled against them and declined to adduce defence evidence. 5. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 6. Ms. A. Phukan, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants; referring to the evidence, on record, has submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence against the appellants and that the learned Sessions Judge committed error by convicting the appellants, without substantive reliable evidence. It is also submitted that, except the evidence of CW1, who deposed before the Court for the first time i.e. at the time of trial, there is no other direct or reliable evidence against the appellants. It is also submitted that the evidence of CW1 cannot be taken as the basis of conviction for want of sufficient corroboration on material point. 7. It is also submitted that the evidence of CW1 cannot be taken as the basis of conviction for want of sufficient corroboration on material point. 7. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting the prosecution version, has submitted that the evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of CW1 sufficiently indicates that the appellants committed the alleged offence and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed no error requiring interference with the impugned conviction and sentence. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the evidence, on record, more particularly the medical evidence rendered by PW6, who performed the autopsy of the dead body on 20/6/2005 i.e. on the next date, it is found that the deceased died due to the shock and haemorrhage, caused by the injuries, sustained by him. The Medical Officer i.e. PW6 found the following injuries:- There was a cut injury of 6"x4" size from below the right ear extending upto the upper part of the head. Fore neck is cut open including trachea and larynx on the right side only attached with the body with some skin on the left side. There is cut injury over mandible exposing whole of the mandible. Tongue is also cut. There is deep cut injury over the right side just below the chest on the abdomen wall cutting the whole lower part of latisemas dorsal muscle. There is also cut injury over right eye upper part. Cranium and spinal canal:- Scalp is cut. Skull is also cut over the right side. Thorax:- Lower chest wall cut with ribs and cartilages cut. Larynx and trachea divided. Abdomen:- Abdomen wall is cut over right side. Peritoneum cut open on right side. Whole lower lip and whole of the mandible cut. Upper lip is cut exposing teeth. Tongue is also cut. Muscles, bones and joints:- Cut injury over neck, right lower chest and abdomen. Mandible and facial muscles cut. Exhibiting the post mortem report as Exhibit 3, the Medical Officer stated that all the injuries were ante mortem and that the death was due to shock resulting from excessive haemorrhage, caused by the injuries on the neck and diversion of trachea. 9. From the above evidence, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the injuries aforesaid, sustained by him. 9. From the above evidence, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to the injuries aforesaid, sustained by him. The prosecution version is that the deceased sustained the said injury, on the previous evening i.e. 19.6.2005 at about 7.30 P.M. at the hands of the appellant. Now the question is as to whether the appellants had caused the fatal injuries, with intention to cause the death of the deceased. 10. Shri Dilip Bhumij, who lodged the FIR, deposing as PW1 stated that his neighbour Sri. Santosh Bhumij (PW2) had informed him that he had seen the deceased, lying in injured condition near his cultivated land. On being so informed, this witness rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. He noticed cut injuries on the head, neck and waist He further stated that he came to know from his brother-in-law Pradip Bhumij (CW-1), that the appellants Chutu, Bhola, Charan, and Bikram had caused the injuries by inflicting dao blows. Shri Pradip Bhumij has been examined as CW1. From the evidence of PW1, it is found that he did not see the occurrence himself. 11. Sri. Santosh Bhumij, deposing as PW2, stated that, one morning, while he was ploughing his land, he saw the appellants Chutu, Bhola, Charan, and Bikram ploughing in their nearby land and that the deceased was also working in his land, which was adjacent to the land of the appellant According to this witness, he left for home at about 9 A.M. and again returning after about half an hour and saw the deceased lying dead, in the field, with injuries on his person. He also stated that he had informed the members of the family of the deceased, including PW1. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he did not see the incident himself and he was not present at the time of occurrence. Though this witness did not see the incident, from his evidence, it is found that the appellant and the deceased were working in their lands situated near the land of PW2 and after about half of an hour, he found that the deceased was lying dead. Now the question is whether, during the said intervening period of half of an hour, the appellant had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. 12. Now the question is whether, during the said intervening period of half of an hour, the appellant had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. 12. Shri Malati Bhumij, who was the elder sister of the deceased deposing as PW3 stated that her son (PW2) had informed her that he had seen the deceased lying dead in the field. 13. Shri Kamalesh Munda (PW4) stated that he came to know from his brother Raju Munda that the deceased was killed. Though this witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, no incriminating evidence against the appellants, could be elicited from his cross-examination. 14. Shri Bimal Bhumij (PW5) stated that, on 19.6.2005, at about 9 A.M. while he was ploughing his land, he was informed by PW1 that the appellants had killed the deceased, on being so informed, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased. He was a witness to the inquest (Exhibit 4). 15. Shri Rahimuddin Choudhury, who was the Investigating Officer, deposed as PW7. He had no personal knowledge about the incident. 16. Shri Subrata Dutta, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (PW8) stated that, on 5.7.2005, he had recorded the: statement of one Manik Chouhan. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the said Manik Chouhan had implicated Mr. Bhola. But Mr. Manik Chouhan has not been examined as witness. 17. Shri Rajiv Goswami, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, (PW9), who recorded the statement of Kamalesh In his cross-examination, stated that the said witness had disclosed the name of Suraj Chaotal. But Kamalesh Munda (PW4) declined to support the prosecution version. 18. From the evidence of PW8 and PW9, it appears that they recorded the statement of two witnesses and both of the said witnesses had implicated two persons, namely Sri. Bhola (one of the appellants) and Sri. Suraj (@ Bhola). The said evidence of PW8 and PW9 raises doubt about the involvement of all the appellants, in as much as the witnesses did not implicate all the appellants. 19. The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 is nothing but hear say evidence. According to them, except PW2, they came to know about the incident from Shri Pradip Bhumij (CW1). For reasons best known to them, the Investigating Agency Med to examine Shri Pradip Bhumij, who appears to be a vital witness to the occurrence. 19. The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 is nothing but hear say evidence. According to them, except PW2, they came to know about the incident from Shri Pradip Bhumij (CW1). For reasons best known to them, the Investigating Agency Med to examine Shri Pradip Bhumij, who appears to be a vital witness to the occurrence. However, the said witness has been examined as Court Witness i.e. CW1. From the above discussed evidence, it is found that none of the non-official prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW5 saw incident themselves. They were reported by others and as such their evidence is nothing but hearsay evidence. 20. Though PW2 stated that he had seen the appellants and the deceased working in their respective land, his evidence does not indicate that the appellants had caused the crime. PW2 denied the suggestion, put to him, on behalf of the defence, that he did not tell the Police that he had seen the appellants and the deceased working in their respective land. This omission on the part of PW2 has been proved through the Investigating Officer who deposed as PW7. Therefore, it is found that PW2, at the time of making of statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. i.e. at the initial stage did not disclose that he had seen the appellants and the deceased working in their respective land. Even PW3 i.e. the mother of PW2 did not disclose that PW2 had told him that he had seen the appellants and the deceased working in their field. Therefore, we find no corroboration in the evidence of PW2 to believe that the appellants and the deceased were seen in the place of occurrence immediately before the incident. In our considered opinion, the said omission is a major one. If this witness had seen the deceased and the appellants working in their respective lands, there was no reason not to disclose such material facts to the Police. The withholding of such vital fact, if any, was a major omission raising doubt about the veracity of the evidence given by the witnesses. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether PW2 had actually seen the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence in their respective land. The said statement of PW2 appears to be a subsequent improvement of his earlier version. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether PW2 had actually seen the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence in their respective land. The said statement of PW2 appears to be a subsequent improvement of his earlier version. Therefore, we do not find it safe to believe the evidence of PW2 that he had seen the appellants and the deceased working in their field. 21. According to PW4, which was declared hostile, he came to know from Raju Munda about the incident. This witness had no personal knowledge about the involvement of title appellants. PW5, Shri Bimal Bhumij stated that while he was ploughing his land, Shri Pradip Bhumij (CW1), informed him that the appellants had killed the deceased. According to this witness, on being so informed, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying there. From the evidence of PW1 and PW5, it appears that they came to know about the incident from Sri. Pradip Bhumij (CW1). 22. Sri. Pradip Bhumij though not examined by the Investigating Officer, was examined as CW1. The deceased was the brother of his wife and at the relevant time, he was staying in the house of his father-in-law, for extending help in cultivation. According to this witness, on the date of occurrence at about 7.30 A.M., he went to a tilla (a high land) near the paddy field of his father-in-law and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with a dao, on his neck and face. According to this witness, he rushed to the house of Sri. Dilip (PW1), but failing to find him in his house, he returned to the field, i.e. the place of occurrence and found his brother-in-law, Sri. Harendra Bhumij (not examined) and Bimal Bhumij (PW5), whom he had told about the incident. He further stated that he had also informed the members of the Anchalik Panchayat about the incident and thereafter left to Tripura to bring back the wife of the deceased and after his return, on the next date, from Tripura, he came to know that PW1 had already filed the FIR, before he could meet him. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he did not meet the informant i.e. PW1 before the lodging of the FIR. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he did not meet the informant i.e. PW1 before the lodging of the FIR. But PW1, who lodged the FIR disclosing the names of the appellants stated that he came to know about the involvement of the appellant from the said CW1. In view of the evidence given by CW-1, it is not believable that PW1 could know about the involvement of the appellants from CW1. Therefore, the source of information indicated by PW1 is not believable. We find no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to believe that PW1 was informed by CW1 i.e. Pradip Bhumij. Therefore, the evidence of PW1, that he came to know about the involvement of the appellants from CW1 lacks corroboration. CW1 clearly stated that he had informed Sri. Harendra Bhumij and Sri. Bimal Bhumij and the members of the Anchalik Panchayat about the involvement of the appellants. Neither Harendra Bhumij nor any member of the Anchalik Panchayat, who was informed by CW1 has not been examined. Bimal deposing as PW5 stated that while he was ploughing his own land, CW1 had informed him about the involvement of the appellants and, on being so informed, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. According, to PW5, while he was ploughing his land, he was informed that the., deceased was killed in his own land. From the evidence of PW5, it appears that the place where he was ploughing and the place of occurrence were two different places. But according to CW1, failing to find Dilip (PW1) in his house, he returned to the field and found Sri. Harendra Bhumij and Sri. Bimal Bhumij there. CW1, in his evidence stated that he went to a tilla situated near the land of his father-in-law i.e. the land where the deceased was working. Therefore, his evidence that he had returned to the field, indicates that he rushed to the land where the deceased was working i.e. the land of his father-in-law. 23. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW5 and CW1 does not indicate that CW1 had informed PW5 in the land of PW5, while the latter was working in his own land. Therefore, there is major discrepancy in the evidence of PW5 and CW1 on material point. 23. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW5 and CW1 does not indicate that CW1 had informed PW5 in the land of PW5, while the latter was working in his own land. Therefore, there is major discrepancy in the evidence of PW5 and CW1 on material point. PW5 who rushed to the place of incident, on being informed by CW1 did not, state that he had seen the other witnesses including PW1 in the place of occurrence. PW5 did not tell that coming to know from PW1, he had informed PW1 about the involvement of the appellants. PW1 also did not tell that he was informed by PW5. CW1 clearly state that the FIR was lodged by PW1 before he could meet the informant: Therefore, as PW1 neither saw the incident himself nor was informed by any of the witnesses about the involvement of the appellants, it is doubtful as to how he could mention the name of the appellants in the FIR. From the evidence of CW1, it appears that he was a chance witness. However, his evidence indicates that he was a vital eyewitness to the occurrence. Non-examination of such witness during the investigation raises serious doubt. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of CW1, who stated before the Court, for the first time, about the involvement of the appellants. Except the said evidence given by CW1, there is no other evidence about the involvement of the appellants. Admittedly the deceased was found lying dead in the place of occurrence. Therefore, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is not believable that if CW1 had actually seen the occurrence, he would not have informed PW1 and PW2 about the involvement of the appellants, immediately after the incident. Therefore, CW1 being a chance witness and his statement regarding involvement of the appellants being the first statement made in the Court, we do not find it safe to solely rely on his evidence, without corroboration. 24. If the evidence of CW1 is not believed, there remains nothing against the appellant. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the case, against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be maintained Accordingly, we find sufficient merit in this appeal. The appeal is allowed. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish the case, against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be maintained Accordingly, we find sufficient merit in this appeal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are acquitted and they be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Before we part with this judgment, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. A. Phukan, learned Amicus Curiae. We order that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. 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 357 A.I. 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 Karimganj 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, arrive 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. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, for doing the needful. Return the LCR.