C. R. Sarma, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 06.03.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Session Case No. 101 (T) of 2004 under Sec­tion 302 R/W Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 3 months. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the appellant has come up with this, appeal. 4. The prosecution case, as revealed dur­ing the trial, may, in brief, be stated as fol­lows:- (i) The accused appellant married the sister of Rabi Sambaria, hereinafter called the deceased. Both the appellant and the deceased used to live at Budlapeta Tea Estate, under Dumduma P.S. Co-accused Shyam Mura, though not related to either of the party, at the relevant time, was stay­ing with the appellant for taking quick-treatment for his ailment. (ii) Due to some strain in their relation­ship, Sumitra Manki, (PW-9) wife of the appellant, since about one week prior to the date of occurrence, was staying with her sister in-law Smti. Dhaneswari Gowala (PW-6). In the evening of the date of inci­dent, (i.e. 29.08.2002) the appellant's wife i.e. the sister of the deceasel called the deceased to their house and thereafter the deceased did not return home. The dead body of the deceased was found lying un­conscious, in injured condition, in the courtyard of the appellant. (iii) As her husband did not return home Smti. Shanti Sambaria (PW-7), wife of the deceased went to the house of the appel­lant and found her husband lying therein in unconscious state. Accordingly the PW-7 brought her husband to their house and thereafter took him to the hospital. Dr. Kamal Konwar, the medical officer of Budlapeta Tea Estate, on 30.8.2002, lodged an FIR with the Q.C. of Dumduma P.S. informing him that the deceased was brought to the hospital at 10-00 am. with his history of assault (Cut injury on the left side of the neck) and that the deceased died at 10-10 a.m. on the same day. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and Shyarn Mura and an­other person assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon causing multiple injuries on his person. with his history of assault (Cut injury on the left side of the neck) and that the deceased died at 10-10 a.m. on the same day. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and Shyarn Mura and an­other person assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon causing multiple injuries on his person. Qn the next morning the wife of the deceased went to the house of the appellant and found her husband in injured condition. (ii) On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Section 302IPC and launched investigation into the matter. 5. During the investigation, the investigat­ing officer visited the place of occcurrence, prepared inquest report (Ext. 1) in respect of the dead body, sent the dead body for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, recovered one dao from the house of the ap­pellant vide ext. No. 3 and arrested the ac­cused person. At the close of the investiga­tion, police, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and Sri Shyam Mura. 6. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned SDJM (S), Tinsukia, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused per­sons to which they pleaded not guilty. 7. In order to prove its case the prosecu­tion examined as many as 13 witnsses includ­ing the Investigating Officer (PW13). PW1 Bishnu Sambaria, P W-2 Ram Bihari Kachar, PW-3 Kangso Sabor, PW-7 Smti. Shanti Sambaria and PW-11 Kishan Robi are the brother, nephews, wife and son of the de­ceased respectively. P W-4 is the doctor, who performed the autopsy. PW 5 Sri Sanjib Das, PW 6 Smti. Dhaneswari Gowala, PW-8 Sri Suren Tati are the independent witnesses of the locality. PW-9 Smti. Sumitra Manki is the wife of the appellant and PW-10 Sri Subhash Nayak is the witness from the locality of the appel­lant. PW-12 is the Medical Officer, who had lodged the FIR. PW-13 is the Investigating Police Officer. 8. Dhaneswari Gowala, PW-8 Sri Suren Tati are the independent witnesses of the locality. PW-9 Smti. Sumitra Manki is the wife of the appellant and PW-10 Sri Subhash Nayak is the witness from the locality of the appel­lant. PW-12 is the Medical Officer, who had lodged the FIR. PW-13 is the Investigating Police Officer. 8. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were exam­ined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appel­lant denied the allegations, brought against him and took the plea that the garden authority was trying to get his homestead vacated and due to his refusal to vacate the land, the gar­den authority has falsely implicated him in this case. No defence evidence has been adduced in support of the defence version. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the last seen theory, the circumstantial evidence surfaced from the evidence and the dying declaration, alleged to be made by the de­ceased, held the appellant guilty under Sec­tion 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above and acquitted Mr. Shyam Mura. 10. Mr. I. Uddin, learned Amicus Curiae, referring to the evidence, on record, has submitted that there is no substantive evidence regarding his involvement and as such, the learned Sessions Judge committed error by recording the conviction and the sentence. It has also been submitted that the dying decla­ration, alleged to be made before PW-7, is not reliable and that the circumstantial evi­dence, as revealed from the evidence ren­dered by by the prosecution witnesses does not lead to the conclusion that the accused-appellant had caused the death of the de­ceased. In view of the above, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 11. Controverting the said argument, ad­vanced by the learned Arnicus Curiae, Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the circumstantial evidence, coupled with the medical evidence, as well as the evidence of the wife of the deceased, indicates that the appellant along the Co-accused had caused the injuries, which resulted the death of the deceased. It is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P., that the prosecution could establish, beyond, all reasonable doubt, that the appellant com­mitted the murder of the deceased by caus­ing injuries on his person and that the learned Sessions- Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and as such no interfer­ence is called for. 12. It is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P., that the prosecution could establish, beyond, all reasonable doubt, that the appellant com­mitted the murder of the deceased by caus­ing injuries on his person and that the learned Sessions- Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and as such no interfer­ence is called for. 12. In order to appreciate the counter ar­gument, advanced by the learned counsel and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it necessary to, briefly, scrutinize the evidence on record. 13. Dr. Karnal Konwar, (PW-12), who was the medical officer of the hospital of Budlabeta Tea Estate, moved the machinery of investigation, by lodging the FIR (Ext.4), thereby informing the police that the appel­lant was brought to the hospital, on 30.8.2002 at about 10-00 a.m., in injured condition i.e. with cut injury on the neck and that the said patient i.e the deceased died within five min­utes, on the same day. 14. Sri Bishnu Sambaria (PW-1) who was the brother in law of the deceased stated that he, coming to know about the death of the deceased, rushed to the latters house and found him lying on the ground. He stated that he found a cut injury on the neck of the de­ceased. According to this witness the de­ceased, though alive, was not in a position to speak and that he succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. He also stated that the wife of the deceased had told him that the deceased was called by the appellant's wife to their house, on the previous evening and that he did not return home. From his evi­dence, it appears that the deceased sustained cut injury on his neck and he succumbed to the injuries. 15. Dr. Rupak Kr. Gogoi, PW 4, who performed the autopsy deposed that he found the following injuries :- (i) One incised wound measuring 2x1 cm x muscle deep over left palm. (ii) One incised wound measuring 2 cm x1 cm muscle deep on middle phalayax of left ring and middle finger. (iii) One incised wound on palmer sur­face of the left thumb measuring 1.5cm x 1 cm. (iv) One incised wound measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left lateral side of the neck directed downward and back­ward. 16. (iii) One incised wound on palmer sur­face of the left thumb measuring 1.5cm x 1 cm. (iv) One incised wound measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left lateral side of the neck directed downward and back­ward. 16. Sri Ram Kumar Kachar, deposing as PW-2, stated that, in the early morning, at about 7-30 a.m., hearing hullah he went to the house of the deceased and found him in injured condition. According to this witness, on being enquired, the deceased had told him that he was assaulted by the appellant in lat­ter's house along with two others. He further stated that the deceased had told him that he was assaulted on the previous night. Accord­ing to this witness the. deceased died on his way to the hospital. In his cross-examination, made on behalf of the defence, this witness stated that, at the time of making the said dying declaration the Chowkidar of the Tea Garden, namely, Kangso Sabor, PW-3, wife of the deceased (PW-9), Kundan Kanda (not examined), John Maija (not examined) and some chil­dren were present. No suggestion was put to this witness denying his statement that the deceased had made dying declaration. Despite cross-examination, no contradic­tion or discrepancy could be brought out in respect of the said evidence given by this wit­ness. In view of the above, his evidence that the deceased made dying declaration, impli­cating the appellant, remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. There is nothing, on record, to show that this witness had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Therefore, his evidence regarding dying declaration is found to b believable. 17. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-13. No contradiction or discrepancy could be elicited, to render the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, dis-believable. 18. Sri Kangso Sabot, a Chowkidar of the garden, deposing as PW-3, stated that both the deceased and the appellant were his uncles. Supporting the evidence of PW-2, this witness clearly stated that the deceased, in his presence, had disclosed to his wife (i.e. PW-7) that he was assaulted by the appel­lant. In tune of the evidence of PW-l, this witness stated that the deceased died on his way to the hospital. In his cross examination this witness stated that, the deceased made the dying declaration in presence of few persons including Kundan, Krishna Kanda, Haru Tanti etc. 19. Smti. In tune of the evidence of PW-l, this witness stated that the deceased died on his way to the hospital. In his cross examination this witness stated that, the deceased made the dying declaration in presence of few persons including Kundan, Krishna Kanda, Haru Tanti etc. 19. Smti. Shanti Sambaria, wife of the deceased deposing as PW-7, stated that the married sister of the deceased, i.e. the wife of the appellant had called the deceased to her house and that the deceased did not re­turned home. She further stated that, on the next morning, when she visited the house of the appellant to enquire about her husband, she found her husband lying, in unconscious state with injuries on his body, in the court­yard of the appellant. She stated that, on being asked, her deceased husband told her that the appellant and one Shyam had assaulted him. In tune with the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3, this witness also stated that her hus­band died on way to the hospital. She further stated that, on the previous evening, a quar­rel had taken place between the appellant and his wife and that the deceased was called by the appellant's wife, who is the sister of the deceased to intervene. In her cross-exami­nation this witness further stated that, at the time when she met her husband, he was in un-conscious state. In her cross-examination, made by the defence, she stated that the de­ceased was in semiconscious state and in a position to speak in a low voice. She also stated that her said husband had told her that when the appellant has assaulted him one Shyam and another boy were with the appellant. Though this witness was duly cross-ex­amined, on behalf of the defence, not a single contradiction or discrepancy, could be estab­lished to demolish her said evidence. Even no suggestion was put to her denying her evi­dence regarding dying declaration. Therefore, her evidence regarding the dying declaration and calling of the deceased by the appellant's wife to their house, on the previous evening, remained un-demolished. 20. PW-8, Suren Tati, was a witness to the seizure of a dao, from the house of the appellant. Except the said seizure, this wit­ness did not speak anything against the appellant 21. Smti. Therefore, her evidence regarding the dying declaration and calling of the deceased by the appellant's wife to their house, on the previous evening, remained un-demolished. 20. PW-8, Suren Tati, was a witness to the seizure of a dao, from the house of the appellant. Except the said seizure, this wit­ness did not speak anything against the appellant 21. Smti. Sumitra Manki, wife of the ap­pellant, deposing as PW-9, stated that, due to strain relationship with her husband, she was staying in the house of PW-6 since one week prior to the occurrence. She also stated that, early in the morning, while going to attend her duty in the garden, she came to know that her brother i.e. the deceased was killed by someone. 22. Sri Subhash Nayak (PW-10), stated that the appellant was apprehended after about two weeks of the occurrence. 23. Sri Kishan Robi, (PW-11) son of the deceased, supporting the evidence given by his mother (i.e. PW-7) stated that his father was called by the wife of the appellant and that he did not return during the said night. This witness further stated that his father was found, in the injured condition, in the court­yard of the appellant and that, on being asked, the deceased had told him that he was merci­lessly assaulted by the appellant and two others. This witness denied the suggestion put to him that his father did not make any dying declaration. 24. From the above discussed evidence more particularly from the evidence of PW-9 i.e the wife of the appellant it has been estab­lished that there was some dispute between the appellant and his wife. The deceased was the brother of PW-9. 25. In view of the said family dispute, the evidence of PW-7 and PW-11 that the deceased was called to the house of the appel­lant is believable. Therefore, we find no diffi­culty in believing the evidence of PW-7 and P W-11 that the deceased visited the house of the appellant in the previous evening. From the unimpeachable evidence of PW-7 and PW-11 it has been found that the deceased was found, in injured condition, in the courtyard of the appellant on the next morn­ing i.e. the day on which he died. From the unimpeachable evidence of PW-7 and PW-11 it has been found that the deceased was found, in injured condition, in the courtyard of the appellant on the next morn­ing i.e. the day on which he died. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who do not appear to have any adverse interest against the appellant, it is found that the deceased had clearly disclosed that he was assaulted by the appellant and two others. As discussed above, the evidence regard­ing dying declaration aforesaid remained undemolished. Their evidence has also been supported by PW-7 and PW-11. Therefore, we find, sufficient corroboraton in the evi­dence of the said witnesses to believe that the deceased had implicated the appellant by making the said dying declaration. 26. Considering ithe entire evidence, on record, we find that, the fallowing circumstan­tial events have been established; (1) the wife of the appellant i.e. the sis­ter of the deceased had the strained rela-tipn with her husband i.e. the appellant, (2) the deceased was called by the wife of the appellant to their house for settling their dispute. (3) the deceased did not return home for the whole night, (4) the deceased was found lying, in injured condition, in the courtyard of the appellant, (5) the deceased made dying declara­tion involving the appellant, shortly before his death, (6) the appellant, after the occurrence, absconcled.for about one week, (7) the appellant stated that the de­ceased was found lying in injured condi­tion at a distance of 150 metres from his quarter and this admission, on the part of the appellant, indicates that the deceased was found in injured condition, near his house, (8) the plea of the appellant that he was falsely implicated by the garden authority, with a view to get his land vacated, and that, on the date of occurrence, he was at his Chaisa Balijan tea garden could not be established. 27. From the above discussed circumstantial evidence, it has been established that, on the previous night, the deceased was called to the house of the appellant, and the de­ceased was found lying in injured condition near the house of the appellant and he died due to the injuries sustained by him on the next morning itself. The fact that the appellant had absconded after the death of his brother in law goes against him. 28. In the case of Sarat Birdhi Chand Vs. The fact that the appellant had absconded after the death of his brother in law goes against him. 28. In the case of Sarat Birdhi Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1984 SC 1622 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ob­served that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused, based on circumstantial evidence, can be said to fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstance con­cerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) There should be excluded every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reason­able ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Case law discussed. 29. In the light of the above principle, re­garding circumstantial evidence, in the present case, it is found that the prosecution has been able to establish the incriminating circumstances pointing the guilt to the appellant. The appellant has failed to negate the said incrimi­nating circumstances and to explain regard­ing his absconding and recovery of the injured from his compound. Though all the vital prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11 are the close rela­tive of the appellant, there is nothing, on record, to show that the said relatives had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. It is not believable that the said witnesses would have falsely implicate the appellant al­lowing the real culprit to escace. 30. Considering the entire evidence and the circumstances, surfacing from the prosecution evidence, it is found that the above stated circumstantial events coupled with dy­ing declaration form a complete chain leading to the irresistible conclusion that none other than the appellant caused the death of the deceased. This hypothesis is not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 31. From the FIR (Ext. This hypothesis is not consistent with the innocence of the appellant. 31. From the FIR (Ext. 4) and the evi­dence of the informant i.e. P W-12, it is found that the deceased sustained cut injury on his neck and he was taken to the hospital at about 10 a.m. in unconscious state. It is also found that he died within 5 minutes after he was taken to the hospital. As revealed from the post mortem report and the evidence of the medical officer, PW-4, who performed the autopsy, it has been found that the deceased sustained cut injuries on his left side of the neck and he died due to the injury sustained on his neck. From the above discussed medical evidence, it has been clearly established, that the deceased died due to cut injuries, inflicted on various parts of his body, including the neck, which was a vital part. Therefore, the death of the deceased was an act of culpable homicide. 32. The nature of the injuries (4 cut inju­ries), one of which was inflicted on the vital part i.e. the neck, and the nature of the wea­pon (sharp cutting weapon) used, indicates that the assailant had intentionally inflicted the said injuries with the intention to cause death or with the intention that the injury, more par­ticularly, the injury caused on the neck, was likely to cause death. Considering the entire facts and circum­stances as revealed from the prosecution evi­dence it is found that the act done by the ap­pellant is covered by none of the five statu­tory exceptions, prescribed by Section 300 IPC. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was either provoked or he acted in exercise of right of private defence or in a heat of passion out of the sudden quarrel. Therefore, it has been clearly established, that the death of the victim, was the result of an intentional act i.e. to cause death and as such, the offence committed is found to be punishable under Section 302 IPC. 33. In view of what has been discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge committed no error by recording the impugned conviction and sentence against the appellant. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal requiring interference. Hence, the appeal fails. 34. 33. In view of what has been discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge committed no error by recording the impugned conviction and sentence against the appellant. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal requiring interference. Hence, the appeal fails. 34. In view of the provision prescribed by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. the victim or his/her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation inappropriate cases. There­fore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our discussions, made in Criminal Appeal No. 93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: (1) As an interim measure, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall 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 dependent (s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the de­ceased and 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. (3) 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 dependant (s) of the deceased/victim does not required 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. (4) For the purpose of providing finan­cial assistance towards rehabilitation of the victim of his/her dependant (s), in appro­priate case, and for proper implementa­tion of such scheme, as provided by Sec­tion 357 (A), Cr.P.C., it is necessary to ascertain the dependency factor and the financial status of such victim, his/her dependents, and of the accused persons (s), as the case may be. Therefore, we direct that the Judicial Officers, working under, jurisdiction of this Court, during the course of trial, shall ascertain (i) the finan­cial status of the victim or his/her depend­ent (s), if any, (ii) whether such persons need rehabilitation, as the case may be and also the financial status of the accused persons (s). The said findings of the en­quiry shall be reflected in the judgment. Registry shall furnish copy of this judgment to all the Judicial Officers under the jurisdic­tion of this Court. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, for doing the needful. 35. Before we part with this record, we acknowledge with appreciation, the assistance rendered by Mr. I. Uddin, as Amicus Curiae and direct that he be paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, as his remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. 36. Return the LCR.