JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Tinsukia. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant, under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6 (six) months. 2. We have heard Ms. N. Hawalia, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 30.10.2005, at Bisakupi Tea Estate, line No. 2, while Rajen Bag (hereinafter called the 'deceased') was erecting bamboo fence, along with Bhanu Tanti (PW-2), in his residence, at about 10 a.m., the appellant, who was the adjacent neighbour of the deceased, appeared with an iron shovel and assaulted the deceased, giving blows on his head. Due to the said assault, the deceased had fallen on the ground and died, instantly, at the spot. After committing the said crime, the appellant left the place. 4. Sri Amrit Bag, nephew of the deceased, saw the incident and he rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found the deceased lying dead. 5. Coming to know about the incident and hearing hue and cry, Sri Ratan Bag (PW-1), Sri Deb Tanti (PW-3), Sri Bangshi Tanti (PW-4), Sri Basudev Bhakta (PW-5), Sri Amar Gobardhan (PW-6), Sri Khim Bahadur Chetri (PW-9) visited the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. 6. Sri Rajen Bag (PW-1), elder brother of the deceased, as informant, lodged an FIR with the Police, on the same day and said FIR was registered as Doom Dooma P.S. Case No. 201/2005, under Section 302 IPC. 7. Upon receipt of the said FIR, Police launched investigation into the matter and visited the place of occurrence. During the investigation, the I/O (PW-11), along with the Circle Officer, visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest of the dead body, arrested the appellant, who surrendered with an iron shovel, seized the iron shovel from his possession, in presence of witnesses, vide exhibit No. 2, i.e. seizure list, forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the postmortem report. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet, under Section 302 I.P.C., against the appellant. 8. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC and the charge was explained and read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 11 (eleven) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW-7), who performed autopsy and the Investigating Officer (PW-11). 9. After examination, of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. He also denied the prosecution version that he had surrendered before the Police, along with an iron shovel and that the same was seized vide exhibit No. 2 from him. 10. Ms. N. Hawalia, learned Amicus Curiae, referring to the evidence, on record, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW-8, i.e. wife of the deceased, who claimed to be the eye witness, is self contradictory inasmuch as she, in her cross-examination, stated that as she was washing cloths in the backside of the house, she did not see the incident. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that, except the evidence of PW-2 and PW-10, there is no substantive evidence against the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae, referring to the evidence of PW-10 has submitted that the accused appeared to be an unsound mind and as such, he is entitled to the benefit under Section 84 Cr. P.C. 12. The Medical Officer, who performed autopsy, on 30.10.2005, i.e. on the date of occurrence, found the following injuries in respect of the dead body of the deceased- INJURIES: 1) one chop wound size 10 cm x 2 cm x brain depth present on the forehead at midline extended upto base of the nose. 2) one chop wound size 13 cm x 2 cm x brain depth present obliquely from right eye to left laterally to forehead. 3) one chop would size 14 cm x 2 cm x brain depth present obliquely on the face, extended from forehead to right laterally to mouth. CRANIUM & SPINAL CANAL: Scalp-lacerated. Skull-fracture present on frontal bone (depressed and communited fracture). Orbital bone fracture present. 3) one chop would size 14 cm x 2 cm x brain depth present obliquely on the face, extended from forehead to right laterally to mouth. CRANIUM & SPINAL CANAL: Scalp-lacerated. Skull-fracture present on frontal bone (depressed and communited fracture). Orbital bone fracture present. Nasal bone and upper jaw fracture present. Membrane-lacerated at frontal region. Subdural & sub-arachnoids hemorrhage present. Brain-lacerated at frontal lobe. Both lateral ventricles are filled with blood. Spinal cord-healthy. The Medical Officer opined that the death was an instantaneous one, due to the head injuries and that all the injuries were anti-mortem caused by sharp edged heavy object and homicidal in nature. 13. From the said evidence, it is found that the deceased sustained multiple injuries, caused by sharp edged heavy object. All of the non-official prosecution witnesses, who rushed to the place of occurrence, immediately after the incident, found the deceased in injured condition. Therefore, there is no dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found with multiple injuries. According to the Medical Officer, the injuries, more particularly, the head injury was the cause of death of the deceased. Now, the question is who gave the said fatal blows. 14. Sri Rajen Bag (informant, PW- 1), Sri Deb Tanti (PW- 3), Sri Bangshi Tanti (PW-4), Sri Basudev Tanti (PW-5), Sri Amar Gobardhan (PW-6), Smti Laxmi Tanti (PW-8) (wife of the deceased) and Sri Khir Bahadur Chetri (PW-9), arrived in the place of occurrence after the incident None of them, in fact, saw the occurrence themselves. 15. Sri Amrit Bag (PW-2) who is the nephew of the deceased and Sri Bhanu Tanti (PW-10), who was working with the deceased, claimed to be the eye witnesses. 16. PW-2, in his evidence, stated that, on the fateful day, at about 11 a.m., while he was proceeding towards his house, by the front of the deceased's house, he saw the deceased and Sri Bhanu Tanti (PW-10) erecting bamboo fencing. According to this witness, as soon as he reached the gate of his house, he heard a scream and looking back, i.e. towards the house of the deceased, he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased, on his head, with an iron rod. He further stated that noticing the said incident, he had informed his father and other people. According to this witness, as soon as he reached the gate of his house, he heard a scream and looking back, i.e. towards the house of the deceased, he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased, on his head, with an iron rod. He further stated that noticing the said incident, he had informed his father and other people. He further stated that he also visited the place of incident and saw the injuries on the head of the deceased. 17. Sri Rajen Bag (PW-1), who was the elder brother of the deceased, supporting the evidence of PW-2, stated that PW-2 had informed him that the deceased was killed by the informant. According to this witness, on being so informed, by PW-2, he rushed to the house of the deceased and found him lying injured. He exhibited the FIR, lodged by him, as exhibit No. 10. 18. In the FIR, i.e. exhibit No. 1, the informant clearly stated that the appellant had killed the deceased with an iron hammer. It is found that PW-1, i.e. the informant, has supported the contention, made in the FIR. 19. In view of the above, the evidence of PW-1 lends corroboration in favour of the evidence of PW-2 that he was informed by the PW-2 about the involvement of the appellant, immediately after the incident, Though the P.Ws.- 1 & 2 were cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction could be elicited to render their evidence disbelievable. 20. Extending support in favour of the evidence, given by PW-2, Sri Bhanu Tanti, deposing as PW-10, stated that when he wais erecting bamboo fencing with the deceased, in the latter's residence, at about 10 a.m., the appellant had given blow on the head of the deceased, with an iron shovel, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. He, further, stated that, on being chased by the appellant, out of fear, he fled the place and reported the matter to the neighbors of the locality. This witness was also examined, on behalf of the defence. His evidence that, the appellant had given blow with an iron shovel on the head of the deceased remained undemolish. There is nothing to show that Sri Bhanu Tanti (PW-10) had any previous grudge or adverse interest to falsely implicate the appellant. 21. This witness was also examined, on behalf of the defence. His evidence that, the appellant had given blow with an iron shovel on the head of the deceased remained undemolish. There is nothing to show that Sri Bhanu Tanti (PW-10) had any previous grudge or adverse interest to falsely implicate the appellant. 21. Smti Laxmi Tanti (PW-8), wife of the deceased, also stated that a boy, namely, Bhanu, was erecting fencing along with her deceased husband. Therefore, the prosecution story that PW-10 was working with the deceased, at the; relevant time has been established. And PW-10 has clearly stated that the appellant had caused death of the deceased, by inflicting blow on his head. 22. In view of the above, we find sufficient corroboration, in the evidence of P.Ws.-2, 8 and 10, to believe that the PW-10 was present at the time of the incident and he had seen the occurrence, i.e. the act of giving blow on the head of the deceased by the appellant. 23. The I/O seized the said piece of iron rod vide exhibit 2. The seizure of the iron rod, coupled with the evidence of PW s- 2 and 10 supports the prosecution version that the appellant had assaulted tine deceased with a sharp edged heavy object. The use of iron rod, as revealed by P.Ws.-2 and 10, has been supported by the medical evidence, given by PW-7. 24. In view of the above, carefully perusing the evidence of the said eye witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.-2 and 10, it is clearly found that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. The nature of injuries, the weapon used and the vital part of the body, i.e. scalp, on which injury was inflicted, indicate that the appellant had given the blows with intention to cause the death or with the knowledge that the injuries inflicted was likely to cause to death of a person. 25. Though PW-10, in his cross-examination, stated that the accused seemed to be of unsound mind, occasionally and that on the day of occurrence, he might have suffered from insanity, there is nothing, on record, to show that the appellant was mentally unsound and was not in a position to know as to what he was doing or the consequence of the act done by him. 26. Except PW-10, none of the witnesses stated about the mental condition of the appellant. 26. Except PW-10, none of the witnesses stated about the mental condition of the appellant. In all probability PW-10 noticing the conduct and behavior of the appellant, in attacking the deceased, and also keeping in mind that he (PW-10) too was chased by the appellant, opined that the accused seemed to be of unsound mind, occasionally. The record reveals that the appellant, who participated in the trial, could well understand, the questions put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and he gave appropriate answers, denying all the allegations, brought against him. He never took the plea of insanity or of any mental incapability. His conduct during the trial does not indicate of he had any mental disability. If he was suffering from insanity, other witnesses, who knew him well would have said so. 27. The plea of insanity is to be established by the accused and the person taking such plea is required to produce evidence as to his conduct at the time of occurrence or shortly prior to the occurrence show that he was suffering from legal insanity at the time of the occurrence. In the case at hand, no such plea has been proved. There is no evidence to show that the appellant was suffering from legal insanity since prior to the incident and also that he suffered from such disability at the time of occurrence. Therefore, we do not find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 84 Cr. P.C. 28. In view of the above, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the eye witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.-2 and 10, we find that the prosecution could establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that none other than the appellant had caused death of the deceased. 29. The act done by the appellant does not fall under any of the exceptions provided by Section 300 IPC. Therefore, we find no difficulty in concluding the appellant caused the death of the deceased, intentionally and thus, he committed murder of the deceased. 30. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are upheld and affirmed. 31. Therefore, we find no difficulty in concluding the appellant caused the death of the deceased, intentionally and thus, he committed murder of the deceased. 30. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are upheld and affirmed. 31. 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 file 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 Tinsukia 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 dependents) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation. (2) Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependents), 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 dependents) 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. 32. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Ms. N. Hawalia, learned Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to her as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. Return the LCR. Appeal dismissed