Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1319 (GAU)

Jhakal Gorh v. State of Assam

2012-12-07

I.A.ANSARI, P.K.MUSAHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, 3(three) months R.I. vide judgment dated 7.7.2007 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2(FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 166(T)/2005. He is presently serving sentence and preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgment. Summary of the prosecution story is as under: A written FIR narrates the prosecution story thus. A couple, husband and wife, were sitting at home in the evening at about 6 PM of 25.8.2005, At that time two co-villagers came and called out the husband purportedly for a talk. As he went out, the said persons dealt blows and kicks nearby his house on the road side. The wife, hearing the hue and cry, came forward and saved the husband from further assault. She took the injured husband to her brother's house situated near the place of occurrence. Then she immediately arranged for a thela (hand pushcart) for shifting him to a local hospital. Unfortunately, the injured succumbed to his injuries on way to hospital. She proceeded to police station with the dead body and lodged the FIR. The police registered a case, being Makum PS Case No. 33/2005 under Section 304/34 IPC. In the FIR the informant named the killers of her husband as Sri Debaru Mura, son of Radheshyam Mura and Jhakal Gorh, son of Rati Gorh. Usual investigation commenced culminating into filing of charge-sheet against both above-named accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. The accused Debaru Mura absconded and the other accused (the present appellant), faced the trial. The learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellant and when the same was read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses including the M.O. and the I.O. to bring home the aforesaid charge. The accused appellant, taking the stand of complete denial declined to adduce any evidence. The learned trial court on conclusion of trial and upon consideration of the evidence and materials on record and also upon hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, as mentioned above. 2. We have heard Mr. The accused appellant, taking the stand of complete denial declined to adduce any evidence. The learned trial court on conclusion of trial and upon consideration of the evidence and materials on record and also upon hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, as mentioned above. 2. We have heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 3. In the charge-sheet, the prosecution cited eight persons as witnesses to prove the charge and all those persons have been examined as witnesses during trial. The star witness in this case is Smt. Majuli Gorh (PW 2). She is the wife of the deceased and the informant in this case. She stated in her evidence that she knows both the accused persons Jhakal and Debaru. The occurrence took place about at year ago at about 7 P.M. While she was preparing meal, accused Jhakal and Debaru assaulted her husband Beniram on the road side nearby their house with fist and blows. Hearing the hue and cry she came out of the house and saw the incident. When she tried to save her husband the accused Debaru pushed her back and as a result she fell down. The accused persons then ran away. She took her injured husband to a nearby house of her brother Gunaram, laid him on the verandah and called the inmates of the house. At that time Monika came out. The injured husband was not in a position to talk at that time. He died on way to Makum hospital. She took her husband's dead body straight to Makum police station and filed an Ejahar thereat. The inquest was held by police in presence of a Magistrate. Her statement was recorded by a Magistrate. In cross examination she stated that there was no electric light in their house. They used kerosene lamp and at the time of occurrence it was dark. The place of occurrence was at a distance of 150 ft. from her house. When she arrived at the place of occurrence the accused Debaru pushed her and when she fell down both the accused persons fled away. Her injured husband did not talk to anybody. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not assault and kill him. 4. from her house. When she arrived at the place of occurrence the accused Debaru pushed her and when she fell down both the accused persons fled away. Her injured husband did not talk to anybody. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not assault and kill him. 4. The aforesaid Smt. Monika Gorh was examined as PW 1. The deceased was her uncle (husband of her mother's sister). She was the person who came forward hearing the alarm of PW 2. She deposed that on 25.4.2005 at about 8 P.M. while, she was sleeping in her residence, her aunt Majuli cried for help saying that Jhakal and Debaru were assaulting her husband Beniram. On the date of occurrence at about 8 P.M. she was sleeping. Hearing the alarm of P W 2 that the accused Jhakal and Debaru had assaulted Beniram, she came out from her house and found Beniram on the verandah in an injured state. The injured Beniram told her that the accused Jhakal and Debaru assaulted him. The injured Beniram was taken for treatment to Sharma Nursing Home at Makum but he died on the way. She was told by P W-2 that the dead body was taken to Makum police station. She deposed that, as told by PW 2, she wrote an Ejahar and on the said Ejahar PW 2 put her thumb impression. She proved the said Ejahar which was marked as Ext. 1 and her signature as a scribe marked as Ext. 1(1). Inquest was held by a Magistrate and she put her signature on the inquest report as a witness. Her statement was recorded by a Magistrate which she proved as Ext. 3. She proved her signatures thereon which were marked as Ext. 3(1) and 3(2). The police also recorded her statement during investigation. In her cross examination she stated that she saw blood oozing out from the nose and mouth of the injured. He could talk in great difficulty and very slowly. She denied the suggestion that the injured Beniram Gorh was not in a position to talk when she found him lying on the verandah. She also denied the suggestion that her injured uncle did not tell her that the accused persons did not assault him. She also deposed that she read over the Ejahar to PW 2 and thereafter obtained her thumb impression. She also denied the suggestion that her injured uncle did not tell her that the accused persons did not assault him. She also deposed that she read over the Ejahar to PW 2 and thereafter obtained her thumb impression. She also denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely before the Court as tutored by P W 2 and police. 5. PW 3, Shri Jiban Mura deposed that he knows the accused persons and the deceased Beniram. In the evening of the date of occurrence at about 8 P.M., wife of the deceased brought a pushcart from his neighbour's house. He was told by Majuli (PW 2) that Debaru and Jhakal assaulted and caused injury to her husband and he has to take her injured husband to hospital. He took the injured Beniram to doctor but he expired on the way to hospital and then the dead body was taken to Makum police station. In cross examination he stated that he saw injury on the person of Beniram and he was not in a position to talk. 6. PW 4 is Parusuram Gorh. He is the son of Gunaram Gorh, husband of Majuli's mother. His evidence is similar to the evidence of PW 3. He arranged the pushcart for taking the injured to hospital. He signed the inquest report as a witness. In cross examination he stated that he found PW 2 lying on the veranda of their house. He denied the suggestion that PW 2 did not tell him that the accused persons did not assault Beniram causing injury to his person. PW 5, Durga Gorh deposed that he knows both the accused persons. The deceased was his brother-in-law. He was told by his sister Majuli (PW 2) that the accused persons assaulted and caused injury to Beniram. The injured was taken to Makum hospital in a pushcart. He also accompanied the injured to hospital but before reaching the hospital Beniram died. He saw injury on the head of Beniram. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Beniram. He proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Ext. 2(3). He deposed further that the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 7. One Md. Inam Ahmed was the I.O. of the case. He was examined as PW 6. His evidence is that he was the Officer-In-Charge of Makum Police Station on 25.4.2005. He proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Ext. 2(3). He deposed further that the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 7. One Md. Inam Ahmed was the I.O. of the case. He was examined as PW 6. His evidence is that he was the Officer-In-Charge of Makum Police Station on 25.4.2005. He testified that the informant came to the police station with the dead body of her husband carried in a pushcart. He received the Ejahar and recorded her statement at the police station. He also recorded the statement of Monika Gorh (PW 1), Jiban Mura (PW 3) and Parsuram Gorh (PW 4). He then visited the place of occurrence and sent requisition to Magistrate for conducting inquest. He brought both the accused persons to police station. In the next morning the inquest was held by a Magistrate. After interrogation he arrested the accused persons and sent the dead body to Tinsukia Civil Hospital for post mortem examination and forwarded the arrested accused persons to court. The witness Smt. Monika and Smt. Majuli were produced before the Magistrate for recording their statement under Section 164 Cr PC. After obtaining the post mortem report and on completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet along with a sketch map. In cross examination, he stated that during investigation, witness Majuli did not tell him that the accused Jhakal and Debaru assaulted Beniram causing injury to his person. He also stated that during; his visit to the place of occurrence he saw no sign of scuffle between the accused and the deceased and nothing was seized from the accused persons. He found no injury on the person of the accused persons. He did not record any statement of the neighbours. 8. PW 7, Sri H.R. Basumatary was the Addl. CJM of Tinsukia who conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He testified the fact of conducting the inquest by him and also proved the inquest report which was marked as Ext. 2 and his signatures thereon as Ext. 2(1). PW 8 is the Medical Officer, Dr. H. Buragohain who deposed that on 26.4.2005 he was working in the Tinsukia Civil Hospital and he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Beniram and prepared the post mortem report. He proved the post mortem report as Ext. 8 and his signature thereon as Ext. 2(1). PW 8 is the Medical Officer, Dr. H. Buragohain who deposed that on 26.4.2005 he was working in the Tinsukia Civil Hospital and he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Beniram and prepared the post mortem report. He proved the post mortem report as Ext. 8 and his signature thereon as Ext. 8(1). He testified that he found face of the deceased with puffy mark with petechiae, bloody foam escaped from mouth and nose. A bruise over left eye brow size 3 cm x 3 cm. On dissection of neck he found extra vasstein of blood into the sub-cutaneous tissues under the finger marks. Fracture of the cornua of the hyoid bone was present. In the PM report he also recorded the following:- Cranium and spinal cord – depressed fracture of the frontal bond is present. Brain and spinal cord congested, petechial, haemorrhage is found over brain. Thorax – Larynx and trachea congested and contained frothy mucus. Heart chambers are full of blood. All the organs are health. In my opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia following strangulation The M.O. in cross examination, clarified hat asphyxia form on different causes. Cardiac arrest, asthma may also cause Asphyxia. 9. The incriminating materials found against the appellant in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put while examining him under Section 313 Cr PC. The appellant denied all the evidence found against him. He even denied his presence at the place of occurrence and stated that he was at home at the time of alleged occurrence. However, he stated that when he and accused Debaru came to the house of Beniram to have country liquor, at that time there was a quarrel between Beniram and Debaru. He left them and went away. While he was leaving the place, Beniram's wife, accused him of assaulting her husband. On her accusation, the police came and picked up both Debaru and appellant. 10. From the above evidence the following indisputable facts have emerged:- (i) Beniram was assaulted causing injuries to his person on the date of occurrence. (ii) He died on the way while he was being taken to hospital. (iii) His dead body was taken to police station. (iv) The FIR scribed by PW 1 was lodged with the police station. (v) Inquest over the dead body of Beniram was held and a report was prepared. (ii) He died on the way while he was being taken to hospital. (iii) His dead body was taken to police station. (iv) The FIR scribed by PW 1 was lodged with the police station. (v) Inquest over the dead body of Beniram was held and a report was prepared. (vi) Post mortem examination was conducted in the Tinsukia Civil Hospital and a report was prepared and obtained. 11. The above proved facts call upon the Court to find out as to who is responsible for the death of Beniram. In other words, who assaulted Beniram, Is it the present convict appellant or the other accused Sri Debaru Mura who has been absconding without facing the trial or some body else? 12. PW 12, wife of the deceased, claims herself to be an eye witness to the incident. Before coming to evaluate her evidence first it is desirable to determine whether she is really an eye witness. In the Ejahar she stated that in the evening, at around 6 P.M. of the date of occurrence, she was sitting at home with her husband. In her evidence before the court, she deposed that in the evening at about 7 P.M. she was cooking at home. There is a minor discrepancy in her statement made in the FIR and the deposition. But this discrepancy can be ignored and it can be expected that she was present at home with her husband in the evening of that fateful day As per the FIR the accused persons came and called out the deceased and when he went out the accused persons dealt fist blows and kicks and on hearing the hue and cry she (PW 2) came out to save him. Her husband received grievous injury. She reiterated the same statement in her evidence before the learned trial Court. She was cross examined by the defence counsel and from the manner of cross examination it is evident that the presence of PW 2 at home is not disputed. The defence tried to make out a case that it was dark at the time when the alleged incident took place and PW 2, as there was no electric light in her house, the culprits could not be seen or identified. The defence tried to make out a case that it was dark at the time when the alleged incident took place and PW 2, as there was no electric light in her house, the culprits could not be seen or identified. But it is to be noted that as per the evidence on record, the distance between the place" of occurrence and the house of the deceased was only 150 ft and it was just in front of the house and by the side of the road. It must also be noted that both the accused persons are co-villagers and as such it was quite possible for the wife of the deceased to identify them from a little distance by face as well as by their voice. Since the accused persons first called the deceased asking him to come out for a talk, PW 2 could identity the accused co-villager by their voice and there was no difficulty on her part or for any co-villagers in recognising them in the evening time. It is probably for this reason that the defence did not put any suggestion that PW 2 could not recognise the accused persons due to darkness. So also no suggestion was put that she did not hear any hue and cry or cry for help compelling her to come out. PW 2 was, thus, very much sure about the visit, presence and action of the accused persons and that is why she has very clearly mentioned the names of the accused persons in the FIR and described how her husband was assaulted by them inflicting grievous injury. We have already mentioned about the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr PC wherein he stated that, he, along with the co-accused, visited the house of Beniram to consume country liquor and there ensued a quarrel out of fun and he left the place leaving Beniram and Debaru duo. If the evidence of PW 2 is read with the aforesaid statements of the appellant under Sections 313 Cr PC and the conduct of the co accused Debaru who has avoided facing the trial, there leaves no manner of doubt that the present appellant and the said absconding accused are involved in the crime. 13. If the evidence of PW 2 is read with the aforesaid statements of the appellant under Sections 313 Cr PC and the conduct of the co accused Debaru who has avoided facing the trial, there leaves no manner of doubt that the present appellant and the said absconding accused are involved in the crime. 13. A doubt may arise on the veracity of the evidence of PW 2 as, she, being the wife of the deceased, could easily be branded as interested witness. The defence has been trying to make out a case that PW 2 implicated the accused persons falsely but it has not been hinted or suggested that such false implication has been made out of some grudge or animosity over some matter. It was also not suggested by the defence that PW 2 made the false implication out of ill-motive or mis-advice from any corner. There can not be any earthly reason, in absence of any motive or grudge or animosity, to bring forth false allegations against anybody. The evidence of PW 2 is found to be consistent, cogent and reliable gaining confidence of the Court so much so the defence totally failed to demolish her evidence in cross examination. 14. Law is not averse to accepting evidence of a related witness and passing order of conviction based on it. The court has to satisfy as to whether the presence of related witness, at the place of occurrence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is natural or probable. If the court finds the presence of witness at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time is natural and probable, then his evidence cannot be discarded merely on ground of being relation of the deceased. For this we refer ourselves to State of A.P. vs. Rajappa reported in 2006 4 SCC 512 . 15. Everything was fresh in her mind when PW-2 lodged the FIR in the police station marching with the dead body of her husband to police station. Shocked and grief stricken as she was by the tragic incident, as the wife of the deceased, she would never falsely implicate anybody in the FIR. Had there been some time gap between the death of her husband and filing of the FIR, one might have a chance to call it doubtful or conspiratory. Shocked and grief stricken as she was by the tragic incident, as the wife of the deceased, she would never falsely implicate anybody in the FIR. Had there been some time gap between the death of her husband and filing of the FIR, one might have a chance to call it doubtful or conspiratory. Looking at the situation and circumstances under which the FIR was lodged, no such doubt or allegation of conspiracy or false implication could be entertained. The appellant initially took the stand of complete denial of his visit to the place of Beniram saying that he was at home on the date of occurrence, He denied to have visited the house of Beniram on the date of occurrence. But when the prosecution has adduced cogent evidence and when the said incriminating evidence was put to him, he had to admit in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC that he along with the co-accused visited the house of Beniram for consuming country liquor. As an explanation to incriminating evidence, the appellant even mentioned in the said statement that there was a quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Debaru out of some fun but he left them without involving himself in the said quarrel. The injured person Beniram is no more in this world and the absconding co-accused Debaru is not traceable/reachable. Both of them are not available to give explanation or statement. The explanation of appellant could have been accepted provided it was supported by the statement or explanation of the deceased and the co-accused Debaru. We are not prepared to accept the explanation of the appellant that the quarrel between the co-accused Debaru and the deceased was out of fun only and he was not involved in the said quarrel while all the three persons were consuming country liquor. The appellant has not explained why he, without trying to settle the quarrel between the co-accused and the deceased, left them. This conduct is not mitigating in any way and under such circumstances the appellant can not be held not guilty. 16. Adverting to the present case, as stated earlier, the facts and circumstances are that in the evening, two co-villagers came and called out the deceased from his house and assaulted him just nearby his house. This conduct is not mitigating in any way and under such circumstances the appellant can not be held not guilty. 16. Adverting to the present case, as stated earlier, the facts and circumstances are that in the evening, two co-villagers came and called out the deceased from his house and assaulted him just nearby his house. Presence of PW-2, being the wife of the deceased, in the evening hours at home is to be taken as natural and acceptable, unless it is proved otherwise, by the accused. Here she is very much a natural witness and no doubt could be cast on her presence and witnessing of the incident in her own eyes. Having seen her husband' being beaten up, it was but quite natural on her part to rush to the place of occurrence to save him and take the injured to the nearby house of her brother. Having faced with such a Sudden traumatic incident, she cried for help and her cry/alarm sharply attracted PW-1, 3, 4 and 5. There is nothing unnatural and wrong in her said conduct. 17. Arrival of PW 1, 3, 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence is also a natural event, they are no doubt related either to the deceased or his wife. They could, if they wished, have claimed themselves to be eye witnesses to the incident of assault but they have not done so. Here one can see their fairness in projecting themselves merely as reported witnesses and adducing evidence on what they had seen on arrival at the place of occurrence just after the incident of assault. The veracity of evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 would have been subjected to strict scrutiny of the court had they adduced evidence as eye witnesses. They are not chance witnesses either, inasmuch as they live in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence and they, after hearing the informant's cry for help, rushed to the place where Beniram was lying in the injured state. We find no reason for casting doubt on the veracity or truthfulness of their evidence merely because they are related to the deceased and his wife. We find no reason for casting doubt on the veracity or truthfulness of their evidence merely because they are related to the deceased and his wife. We are, thus, to accept them as reported but natural witnesses and take their evidence into consideration in aid of the evidence of eye witness (PW-2); of course, for limited purpose i.e., corroboration of material particulars in so far as it relates to facts from the state of recovering Beniram at the injured stage. 18. The evidence of PW 2 has been corroborated by PW 1, 3, 4 and 5 in so far as it relates to the fact of finding Beniram at the injured state lying on the verandah of the house of Gunaram, shifting the injured for treatment in a pushcart, death of the injured on way to hospital taking the dead body to police station and filing of FIR. They are not eye witnesses to the alleged incident but they are the persons who immediately arrived at the place where Beniram was lying in an injured state before his death. They were told by the injured Beniram and his wife PW-2 that the accused Debaru and Jhakal assaulted inflicting the injuries. 19. Now we would like to turn to the applicability of last seen together theory to this case. This theory has to be applied having regard to the evidence of PW-2, the sole eye witness. On due appreciation of her evidence, we have also arrived at the conclusion that (1) PW-1 as the wife was present at home with her deceased husband in the evening time on the date of occurrence. She was preparing meal in the kitchen and (2) she saw her husband talking to accused persons outside at a place just 150 feet away from her house. The defence put several suggestions to PW-2 but it put no suggestion to her that the accused persons did not meet Beniram near his house on the date of occurrence. From the trend of cross-examination it is discernible that the fact of meeting and talking to Beniram on the date of occurrence is an accepted position. If the said fact of meeting and talking are not denied, it must be accepted that deceased Beniram was last seen by PW-2 with the accused person. From the trend of cross-examination it is discernible that the fact of meeting and talking to Beniram on the date of occurrence is an accepted position. If the said fact of meeting and talking are not denied, it must be accepted that deceased Beniram was last seen by PW-2 with the accused person. The incident took place just after all the three persons were seen together near the house of deceased Beniram. The theory of last seen together has been imported by us to this case as the accused had denied their hands in Beniram's death and denied to accept PW-2 as an eye witness, far less her evidence. This stand of the defence in our view, is, as much inheritently fallacious as self incriminating so much so in one way the accused had not denied the fact of being seen last with the deceased just prior to the incident at the place of occurrence, on the other hand, while offering explanation on the incriminating evidence against him under Section 313 Cr. P.C., admitted the fact of visiting the deceased for taking country made liquor. On this backdrop of the case our initial inclination not to accept PW-2 as an eye witness to the incident and to dis-believe her evidence, falls back. What we are trying to say firmly is that even if PW-2 is not accepted as eye witness, by application of the last seen together theory and on the basis of evidence of record proving the fact of deceased being seen with the accused just prior to the incident, the accused could have been held guilty of committing murder of Beniram. There is no escape for the appellant from being held guilt. 20. Yet it is seen that the appellant is trying to escape himself through the pot-hole of medico-legal technicality by way of asking for an explanation as to why an injured person with fracture of cornua hyoid bone, did not die immediately and delayed till he was removed from the place of occurrence to a nearby house and being carried halfway to hospital, which took at least half an hour. On the face of the medical evidence that the death was caused to Beniram due to asphyxia following strangulation with strong impact of fracture of cornua hyoid bone, the injured was not supposed to survive long. On the face of the medical evidence that the death was caused to Beniram due to asphyxia following strangulation with strong impact of fracture of cornua hyoid bone, the injured was not supposed to survive long. Asphyxia, in medical term, means a state in which the body lacks oxygen because of some mechanical interference with the process of breathing. There is a controversy in medical science whether asphyxia is a cause of death or mode of dying. It is generally accepted that asphyxia is a term which indicates a mode of dying rather than a cause of death. We are not concerned with whether asphyxia is a mode of dying a cause of death. Present is a case of death by strangulation involving compression of neck, either by human hand, called manual strangulation or throttling and or a ligature, which is one of the conditions associated with mechanical asphyxia. The other associated conditions with which this case is not concerned are, suffocating, choking, draw-rung, hanging and traumatic asphyxia. In all these cases breathing is interfered with. In Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, edited by A. Keith Mant (13th Edition) it has been observed as follows: If breathing is interfered with for a sufficient period of time unconsciousness and death will supervene. Pathologists are frequently asked as to how long an interval of time may have elapsed between the significant part of an assault and the loss of consciousness, and also the interval between the onset of unconsciousness and the time of death. These questions are difficult to answer with any certainty for the time interval involved must vary with a number of variable factors. These must surely include:- 1. The age of the victim. 2. The presence of natural disease. 3. The action of drugs and/or alcohol. 4. The degree of respiratory obstruction. 5. The way in which the obstruction has been applied. Conclusions are sometimes based on experiments such as those described by Swarm & Brucer in which various animals were subjected to rapid anoxic death. These were conducted under laboratory conditions and how much of their findings can be translated to human affairs is arguable. 21. The question posed is more academic than legal. Conclusions are sometimes based on experiments such as those described by Swarm & Brucer in which various animals were subjected to rapid anoxic death. These were conducted under laboratory conditions and how much of their findings can be translated to human affairs is arguable. 21. The question posed is more academic than legal. What we have found so far in the medical and oral evidence is that Beniram was strangulated in a manual process by hand by some persons with sufficiently great force causing fracture of hyoid bone. The strangulation was done at the time when PW 2 was present nearby the place of occurrence who made hue and cry having seen the accused persons assaulting her husband who fled away immediately hurriedly releasing the injured Beniram from strangulation providing no chance of sufficient sustained suffocation to cause death. This may be the reason why although his hyoid bone was fractured, Beniram met with no instantaneous death but after some delay. Any way he died and he was not expected to survive for long. We are no authority or expert to answer this academic question correctly. Further discussion on this issue is felt neither advisable nor appropriate. Here, we end up the discussion. 22. Enough has been discussed on the evidence on record and the said discussion has landed us at the finding and conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We do hold so and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court which requires no interference. The conviction and sentence under challenge are hereby upheld. Appeal stands dismissed. Acknowledging the legal assistance rendered by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae for the appellant, we direct the State Legal Services Authority to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to him as legal fee. Send down the LCR forthwith. Appeal dismissed.