Anima Hazarika, J;— Heard Mr. DK Bagchi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. KA Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Sessions Case No.6/2009 whereby the accused appellants were convicted under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment („RI? for short) for one year more for the offence committed under Sections 302/34 IPC. Both the accused appellants were also sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, 6 (six) months RI for the offence committed under Sections 201/34 IPC, making it clear that the sentences would run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that at about 1 PM on 23.8.2008 (Saturday), the three brothers namely, Salkhu Hasda, Rosen Hasda (accused appellants herein) and Bejan Hasda (since deceased) went together to their paddy field wherein a quarrel ensued among themselves following which Salkhu Hasda and Rosen Hasda together killed Bejan Hasda and threw the dead body into the nearby water course (“Dang”). On the next day, i.e. on 24.8.2008, in the afternoon, the body of Bejan Hasda was found floating in the water. The villagers apprehended Rosen, however, Salkhu fled away. Accordingly, on 25.8.2008, Jogen Hembram, the Gaon Burah (Headman) of the village Jaleswari, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge („O/C? for short), Kachugaon Police Station, whereupon police registered Kachugaon PS case No.42/2008 under Sections 302/34 IPC and started investigation. The Investigating Officer („I.O.? for short), after completion of investigation, having found prima facie case against the accused appellants submitted charge sheet (Ext-4) under section 302/34 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar vide order dated 27.1.2009 committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar for trial. 4. On perusal of the records and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the accused appellants, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar framed charges under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The charges being read over and explained to the accused appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. 4. On perusal of the records and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the accused appellants, the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar framed charges under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The charges being read over and explained to the accused appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, including the medical officer and the I.O., while defence examined none and took the plea of total denial. At the close of the trial, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they have denied their involvement in the offence. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the learned trial Court found the accused appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 6. In the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the correctness of the view taken by the learned trial Judge in convicting the accused appellants Salkhu and Rosen on extra judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence. Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the evidence adduced at the trial and accordingly, we have gone through the entire evidence on record and heard the case at length. 7. The prosecution has examined Jogen Hembram as PW 1 who has lodged the FIR vide Ext-1 being headman of the village. PW 1 has deposed that on the day of occurrence, in the month of August 2008, the accused appellants along with their brother Bejan Hasda (since deceased) consumed liquor in the village and thereafter, all of them went to the field at 1 PM wherefrom the accused Salkhu and Rosen returned home but Bejan did not return and on enquiry by their mother Nunki Mardi, PW 2 about Bejan, they replied that Bejan was in the field. But Bejan did not return and on the following day one Nilima Tudu, PW 3 informed the village people that a dead body was floating in the water. Thereafter the body of Bejan was recovered from water and in the meantime, accused Salkhu fled away from the house whereas accused Rosen Hasda was apprehended by the village people. But Bejan did not return and on the following day one Nilima Tudu, PW 3 informed the village people that a dead body was floating in the water. Thereafter the body of Bejan was recovered from water and in the meantime, accused Salkhu fled away from the house whereas accused Rosen Hasda was apprehended by the village people. On enquiry Rosen Hasda confessed that he and accused Salkhu Hasda committed the murder of Bejan Hasda and after committing the murder, the body of the deceased Bejan Hasda was concealed in the river water. The village people, thereafter, apprehended accused Salkhu Hasda from Santhal Colony and on query accused Salkhu Hasda confessed that he had committed the murder of Bejan Hasda and concealed the dead body in the river water and subsequently thereto the accused persons were handed over to the police. Police made the inquest of the dead body. Ext-2 is the inquest repot and ext 2(1) is his signature. The defence has cross-examined PW 1 extensively wherein PW 1 stated that the mother of the accused (PW 2) told him that the accused appellants went to the field along with the deceased Bejan and on creating pressure to confess they confessed that Bejan was killed by them. 8. PW 2 Nunki Mardi is the mother of the accused appellants Salkhu and Rosen and the deceased Bejan Hasda. PW 2 has specifically stated that the accused Salkhu and Rosen called the deceased Bejan to the field on the date of occurrence at noon to repair the dang (water stream in the paddy field). On that day, Rosen returned home earlier from the field and subsequently Salkhu came but Bejan did not return and the dead body of Bejan was found in the river. After committing the crime Salkhu fled away from the house and villagers apprehended him wherein the accused confessed of committing crime. Salkhu stated that he tied the legs of the deceased Bejan with a bamboo stump by a gamocha and when the dead body of the deceased Bejan was brought to the house, the accused Rosen was in the house and the village people detained him and the accused Rosen told that he and Salkhu have committed the murder. PW 2 has further stated that they had land dispute from before and so her son Bejan Hasda was killed by her sons Salkhu and Rosen by conspiracy. PW 2 has further stated that they had land dispute from before and so her son Bejan Hasda was killed by her sons Salkhu and Rosen by conspiracy. In the cross examination, PW 2 has stated that on the day of occurrence her sons Salkhu, Rosen and Bejan went to the paddy filed together. After the dead body was brought to the house, both the accused Salkhu and Rosen confessed their guilt before police came to her house. Initially Rosen refused to confess his guilt but ultimately, he confessed his guilt in her presence and in presence of many people. PW 2 has further deposed that she or none other had beaten the accused Salkhu and Rosen and other suggestions put to her have been denied. 9. PW 3 Nilima Tudu, niece of the deceased as well as the accused has stated that she went to the river at about 9 AM wherein she saw a dead body floating in the river water and accordingly, she informed the village people and the dead body was recovered from the river water. It was the dead body of Bejan Hasda, who was her uncle. The accused appellants are also her uncle. The defence declined to cross-examine PW 3. 10. PW 4, Damu Tudu has stated that both the accused Salkhu and Rosen and Bejan went to the field. But Salkhu and Rosen returned from the field whereas Bejan did not. When enquiry was made about Bejan, the accused stated that he was in the field and on the following day, the dead body was found floating in the river water which was seen by PW 3. The accused Rosen was detained by village people and on enquiry the accused Rosen stated that on the previous day Salkhu had committed the murder of Bejan and on the following day he released the dead body in the river water. The accused Salkhu was caught from Srirampur. On enquiry he confessed his guilt. In cross-examination, PW 4 has admitted that he did not see the three brothers going to the field. He has further stated that when the people pressed them, they confessed their guilt. 11. The accused Salkhu was caught from Srirampur. On enquiry he confessed his guilt. In cross-examination, PW 4 has admitted that he did not see the three brothers going to the field. He has further stated that when the people pressed them, they confessed their guilt. 11. PW 5 Cheniram Murmu has stated that accused Salkhu and Rosen stated before him that Bejan was killed by Salkhu in the field on the previous day and on the following day Rosen unfastened the gamocha which was tied with the dead body and the accused Salkhu has stated that he had committed the murder of Bejan. In cross-examination he has stated that the witness PW 6 Koy Hasda questioned Rosen and initially he refused to confess but when the public pressed him hard, he made the confession. 12. The prosecution has examined Koy Hasda as PW 6 wherein he has stated that the accused Rosen stated before him that on the previous day the accused Salkhu had committed the murder of Bejan and Rosen released the dead body of Bejan in the water. The accused persons were, thereafter, handed over to the police. In cross examination, PW 6 has stated that when they approached accused Salkhu and produced him before the police, he had confessed his guilt before the village people and that they had questioned the accused very well. Other suggestions put to him have been denied. 13. PW 7 Pradhan Kisku has stated that he heard about the murder of Bejan Hasda. Nothing more has been spelt out from his evidence and the defence declined to cross-examine him. 14. PW 8 is Dr. Rabindra Ch. Debnath who had performed the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Bejan Hasda and found the following: - “Dead body of middle aged male of average height, built, wearing read „gamocha? and check shirt. Swollen Body. Eyes closed. There is a bruise on right temporal occipital region measuring about 3 cm X 5 cm in size. There is large blood clot in right temporal lobe of brain underlying brain parenchyma is lacerated.” In his opinion, the cause of death was due to head injury with underlying brain injury which resulted from blunt trauma. The injuries are ante mortem in nature. Ext 3 is the report of the post mortem examination. Ext 3(1) is his signature. There is large blood clot in right temporal lobe of brain underlying brain parenchyma is lacerated.” In his opinion, the cause of death was due to head injury with underlying brain injury which resulted from blunt trauma. The injuries are ante mortem in nature. Ext 3 is the report of the post mortem examination. Ext 3(1) is his signature. In cross-examination, PW 8 has stated that the body was not completely decomposed. There was swelling. The age of the injury is not mentioned. 15. The I.O. Narayan Bora was examined as PW 9, who has stated that at the relevant time he was the Officer-in-Charge at Kachugaon Police Station and on 25.08.2008, he received an FIR lodged by PW 1 Jogen Hembram and accordingly, registered a case being Kachugaon P.S. Case No. 42/2008 under Section 302/34 IPC. Thereafter he took up investigation, went to the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, drew up a sketch map and arrested the accused Salkhu and Rosen. Inquest was done by Shri S.K. Sarma, Executive Magistrate. Ext-2 is the Inquest Report. Ext 2(1) is the signature of S.K. Sarma. PW 9 had sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after collecting the report of post mortem examination, submitted the charge sheet under Section 302/34 IPC. 16. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also have gone through the materials available on record. In order to satisfy ourselves, we re-appreciate the evidence to find out whether there has been any illegality, material irregularity, miscarriage of justice and/or perversity in the findings, illegality or irregularity in the trial causing injustice or failure to take into consideration an important piece of evidence thereby requiring interference with the impugned judgment of conviction. 17. We may with that object in view, refer to the depositions of the witnesses examined at the trial. In his deposition, Jogen Hembram, PW 1 stated that the accused along with their brother Bejan (since deceased) took liquor during day time and having taken liquor, the three brothers returned to their house and after sometime they went out to see the crop in their cultivation land around 1 PM. Accused Rosen and Salkhu returned home from the paddy field. Bejan did not return home. Accused Rosen and Salkhu returned home from the paddy field. Bejan did not return home. When the mother of the accused asked about Bejan, the two accused appellants replied that he was at paddy field and on that day Bejan did not return home and on the following day, one girl Nilima Tudu saw a dead body floating in the river and on her alarm the villagers came and lifted the dead body. Villagers found that it was the body of Bejan. At that time Rosen was at home and accused Salkhu fled away. When Rosen was asked, he initially refused to confess and thereafter he confessed to the effect that the accused Salkhu had killed Bejan. After that the public searched for accused Salkhu Hasda and upon finding him from the Santhal colony the following day, when the public along with PW 1 asked Salkhu, he told that he had killed Bejan and the accused made the extra-judicial confession of guilt of committing murder of Bejan. PW 1, thereafter, lodged the ejahar. 18. Nunki Murda PW 2, who happens to be the mother of both the accused Salkhu and Rosen as well as Bejan (since deceased) has in her deposition stated that Salkhu and Rosen had called Bejan to paddy field for repairing the Dang (water stream in the paddy field) which had broken. Rosen, the accused, returned home from the paddy field in the evening. Salkhu came after a long time. Bejan did not return home. She has categorically stated that her son Salkhu killed Bejan. After Bejan had died, he kept the body tied to a bamboo stump with a gamocha in water. Thereafter, when Rosen went there and unfastened the gamocha, the body of Bejan floated away. When asked Salkhu, he confessed before PW 2 and the public that he had killed Bejan and kept the body in the water. She has further deposed that when public apprehended Rosen, he told that he and Salkhu had planned since before to kill Bejan. In cross-examination, PW 2 was unshaken and deposed that her son Salkhu had confessed his guilt before police came. Rosen also confessed his guilt at home immediately after the dead body had been brought to home and before the police arrived. 19. In cross-examination, PW 2 was unshaken and deposed that her son Salkhu had confessed his guilt before police came. Rosen also confessed his guilt at home immediately after the dead body had been brought to home and before the police arrived. 19. PW 4, Damu Tudu in his deposition has stated that around 12/1 o?clock on the day of occurrence, the two accused went out to their cultivation land along with their brother Bejan. Later Salkhu and Rosen returned home, but Bejan did not return. On meeting them when they were enquired about Bejan, they told that he was in the paddy filed. On the following day Rosen unfastened the dead body of Bejan in water and thereafter the dead body of Bejan was found floating in the water. A girl who saw the dead body called the public and they lifted the dead body from the water. The public seized Rosen at home and upon being asked he told that Salkhu had killed Bejan in the field on the previous day. Thereafter, the public proceeded to Srirampur and took Salkhu under seizure and on questioned, Salkhu confessed that he had killed Bejan the previous day in the paddy filed. The public asked Salkhu and Rosen in his presence and they confessed their guilt. In cross-examination, PW 4 has admitted that he had seen the three brothers going to the paddy field. But stated that at the time of questioning the two accused, some 8/10 persons were present and when they pressed them hard, they confessed their guilt. 20. PW 5 Cheniram Murmu has stated that when he along with other person asked Rosen at home, he told that Salkhu had killed Bejan. Upon seizure, when Salkhu was asked, he told that he had committed the murder of Bejan. In cross examination, PW 5 has stated that when PW 6 Koy Hasda questioned Rosen, at first, he refused to confess, when the public pressed him hard, he made the confession. 21. PW 6 Koy Hasda has stated that the three brothers went out to their paddy field. Salkhu and Rosen returned from there. Bejan did not return. On the following day, the dead body of Bejan was found in the river water. Public lifted the dead body of Bejan from water and apprehended Rosen. 21. PW 6 Koy Hasda has stated that the three brothers went out to their paddy field. Salkhu and Rosen returned from there. Bejan did not return. On the following day, the dead body of Bejan was found in the river water. Public lifted the dead body of Bejan from water and apprehended Rosen. He told that Salkhu had killed Bejan at the field the previous day and on the following day the body of Bejan was found floating in the river. After apprehending Salkhu, when they questioned him, he told that he had killed Bejan at the paddy field and that Rosen floated the dead body in the water. In cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that Salkhu had confessed his guilt before police arrived. 22. The accused appellants when examined under Section 313 CrPC and when the questions put to them that they along with other accused including the deceased went to field together at 1 PM, the answer was „yes?. The other questions put to them regarding return of the accused but not returning Bejan, the answer was „yes?. When mother Nanki asked Salkhu as to the whereabouts of Bejan, he replied that Bejan was at the paddy field. When the attention was drawn to the accused appellants that Bejan did not return home and on the following day Nilima Tudu saw a dead body in the river and then the body was lifted from water, it was found to be the body of Bejan the reply was „yes?. Therefore, it is upon the accused persons to explain in what circumstances Bejan had died though they along with Bejan left the field and the defence has failed to explain the circumstances leading to the murder of Bejan. 23. The instant case rests on the circumstantial evidence coupled with extra-judicial confession made by the accused appellants. Now the question of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made to PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and as to whether it would be safe to convict the accused appellants on the basis of extra judicial confession so made. Though it is a settled position of law that extra judicial confession is not substantive piece of evidence, however in appropriate cases the extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence but the court should insist on some material or circumstance to treat the same as a piece of substantive evidence. 24. Though it is a settled position of law that extra judicial confession is not substantive piece of evidence, however in appropriate cases the extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence but the court should insist on some material or circumstance to treat the same as a piece of substantive evidence. 24. In the case of Piara Singh and others –vs- State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 2274 , the Apex Court had considered the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the Sarpanch of the village. In the said case the learned Sessions Judge had held that extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and hence no reliance can be placed on it. The Apex court held that the Sessions Judge had committed a clear error of law because the law does not require that evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The Apex Court held that the extra-judicial confession was proved by independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the accused and, therefore, there was no justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of the Sarpanch. Though the Sarpanch was man in authority, the extra-judicial confession made to him was not discarded on the plea that it may not be voluntary because it was given to a person in authority and it was possible that some force may have been exerted on the accused. 25. The Apex Court had once again dealt with the extra judicial confession in the case of State of UP –vs- M.K. Anthony reported in AIR 1985 SC 48 and observed as follows: “There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession a weak piece of evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused ; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. In such a situation to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon.” Therefore, from the analogy as indicated above by the Apex Court that if a witness who is not biased and not inimical to the accused deposes about extra-judicial confession having been made to him, his evidence can be accepted and relied upon and conviction can be sustained on extra-judicial confession made by the accused. 26. In another case reported in AIR 1998 SC 1096 (Vinayak Shivajirao Pol v. State of Maharastra), the Supreme Court had dealt with extra-judicial confession wherein the accused, who was the Sepoy in Army, had approached some of the Superior Officers and confessed before them that he had killed his wife. The confession was given by him in writing. The writing was attested by four military officers. The Apex Court held that the confessional statement was voluntary, more so, senior officers were not found to be inimical to the accused. It would, therefore, depends on facts and circumstances of a case. If attendant circumstance inspires confidence, reliance can be placed on an extra-judicial confession even though it is made to a person unknown and/or to a stranger and/or a person in authority. 27. It would, therefore, depends on facts and circumstances of a case. If attendant circumstance inspires confidence, reliance can be placed on an extra-judicial confession even though it is made to a person unknown and/or to a stranger and/or a person in authority. 27. In the present case in hand, the defence has failed to bring anything either inimical and/or exerted nor could prove anything which reveals that PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 bore animus against the accused appellants. Therefore, in absence of any material on record to indicate that PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were bias against the accused and they were inimical towards the accused and/or they were set up by the police or any other person to act against the accused, the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution witnesses about committing murder of Bejan by the accused appellants and extra-judicial confession made to PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 appear to us to be voluntary and truthful. 28. In a case of circumstantial evidence the Hon?ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 29. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda –vs- State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. It is held at para 152 and 153 of Sharad Birdhichand (supra) as thus- “152 A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1)……… the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. …….the circumstances concerned „must or should? and not „may be? established………. …….the circumstances concerned „must or should? and not „may be? established………. (2) 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, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) 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. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 30. Now the question left for determination is as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence coupled with extra-judicial confession. We have gone through the evidence and found the following: - i. Two accused appellants along with Bejan, since deceased, went to the paddy field on 23.08.2008 at about 1 PM. ii. Accused Rosen came early to the house followed by the accused Salkhu but Bejan did not return. iii. When their mother asked the accused appellants whereabouts of Bejan, they replied that he was in the paddy field. iv. Next day the accused Rosen unfastened the „gamocha? by which deceased Bejan was tied with a bamboo stump. v. The dead body was found floating in the river and the public was informed. vi. The public came and lifted the dead body from the water and found to be dead body of Bejan and brought the dead body to their house. vii. The public apprehended the accused Rosen and on pressure he told that the accused Salkhu had killed Bejan and kept the body concealed in the water. viii. The accused Salkhu fled away from the house and he was apprehended at Santhal colony and when he was brought by the public, he admitted his guilt before the police came and the accused failed to explain under what circumstances the dead body was found. 31. viii. The accused Salkhu fled away from the house and he was apprehended at Santhal colony and when he was brought by the public, he admitted his guilt before the police came and the accused failed to explain under what circumstances the dead body was found. 31. The above circumstances are in our opinion not only established, but they form a complete chain that leaves no manner of doubt, that the crime with which the accused appellants stood charged was committed by the accused appellants and no one else. The depositions of PW 2, the mother of the accused appellants as well as deceased that three brothers went to field is admitted and both accused appellants returned home but the deceased Bejan did not return is also established. The next day the dead body was found floating in the river and the Doctor PW 8 has found a lacerated bruise on right temporal lobe of brain underlying brain parenchyma. Cause of death as per opinion of the doctor was due to head injury with underlying brain injury which resulted from blunt trauma. 32. From the facts taken in its entirety, the Court holds that the deceased Bejan having gone along with the accused appellants around the time he was killed is a circumstance which together with other circumstances proved in the case are explainable only on one hypothesis that the appellants Salkhu Hasda and Rosen Hasda were guilty of killing the deceased. 33. In the result, the appeal preferred by the two accused appellants Salkhu Hasda and Rosen Hasda is dismissed. We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2009 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. However, the sentences imposed by the learned trial Court were directed to run consecutively. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to modify the sentence directing the same to run concurrently instead of consecutively. Modified accordingly. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Kokrajhar. 34. Send down the lower court records. 35. Before parting with the judgment, we appreciate Mr. DK Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants for his endeavour to assist the Court and the arguments advanced in the case in support of acquittal of the accused Salkhu Hasda and Rosen Hasda. 34. Send down the lower court records. 35. Before parting with the judgment, we appreciate Mr. DK Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants for his endeavour to assist the Court and the arguments advanced in the case in support of acquittal of the accused Salkhu Hasda and Rosen Hasda. He is entitled to get his fees as Legal Aid Counsel and we fix the same at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to be paid by the Gauhati High Court Legal Aid Cell. _____________