Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 45 (GAU)

Torang Munda v. State of Assam

2012-01-11

A.C.UPADHYAY, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2012
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. In a silent hamlet surrounded by tea gardens, inhabited mostly by the tea garden workers, a bizarre spine chilling incidence of beheading 5 live human beings, in front of a huge gathering of villagers took place on 18.3.06 at Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate. The innocent victims fell pray of superstitious hitherto disremembered by the civilized world. Justification of beheading of fellow being was on the pretext of practicing witchcraft (black magic). On 18.3.06, at about 4:00 p.m., line chowkidar, Sidha Munda (CW 3) informed Sri Rabindra Singh, the Sr. Manager of Sakumatha Tea Estate that 5 members of the same family, namely, Amir Munda, Nawra Munda, Ladori Munda, Kakulu Munda and Phulmoni Munda, were brutally killed by co-workers of Sakumatha Tea Estate on the excuse of practicing witchcraft. The informant (PW 3) on getting the information from the line chowkidar (CW 3), filed an FIR before local police station. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered a case and started investigation. On completion of the investigation, the investigating police officer charge-sheeted the appellants alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 147/ 148/302/149, IPC. After filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, for trial. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, formally framed charges against the accused/ appellants, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147/148/ 302/149, IPC. On reading over and explaining the charges aforesaid, all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the investigating officer. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defence counsel. The trial Court also examined 3 witnesses as Court witnesses and they were duly cross examined by the defence counsel on behalf of the accused/ appellant. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution witnesses and Court witnesses, the statements of the accused persons were recorded as per provision of Section 313, Cr PC. The defence plea of the accused /appellants is of total denial. The accused/appellants also declined to adduce any evidence on defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 148/302, IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. The defence plea of the accused /appellants is of total denial. The accused/appellants also declined to adduce any evidence on defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 148/302, IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 60 days each for offence under Sections 302/249, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for another 1 year each for offence under Section 148, IPC. 4. The accused Tarun Munda preferred a separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 46/2010 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and rest of the accused/appellants preferred appeal from jail, which registered as Criminal Appeal No. 25 (j)/2010. 5. Both the appeals aforenoted arose out of the same judgment and order dated 27.1.10 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, FTC, at Biswanath Chariali, in Sessions Case No. 133/07, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 148/302/149, IPC and sentenced as aforenoted. 6. We have hard Mr. D. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel appearing for appellant Tarun Munda in Criminal Appeal N.J. 46/2010, as well as Mr. D. Senapati, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 25 (J)/2010 and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State. 7. Mr. D. Senapati, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 25 (J)/10, submitted that the accused/appellant simply accompanied the crowd to the police station together with the group of people, who had carried the severed heads of the deceased persons to the police station. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the unlawful assembly, which came to the police station was not the same unlawful assembly, which was instrumental in killing all the deceased by severing their heads. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that there is a gap of time in respect of the incident of beheading the deceased and the accused/appellants reaching :he police station with the severed heads. Further, according to the learned Amicus Curiae the location of occurrence being different, the members who were in the assembly of people in the police station, cannot be branded as unlawful assembly. 8. Mr. A. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Tarun Munda in Crl. Further, according to the learned Amicus Curiae the location of occurrence being different, the members who were in the assembly of people in the police station, cannot be branded as unlawful assembly. 8. Mr. A. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Tarun Munda in Crl. Appeal No. 46/10, vehemently submitted that the CW 1, Tersi Munda, who is the wife of the deceased, categorically stated in her deposition that she had taken shelter in the house of Tarun Munda on the night intervening the occurrence, therefore, the accused Tarun Munda cannot be said to have been involved in the incident. 9. In reply to the above submission, Mr. Z Kamar, learned PP submits that all the 5 accused person who came to the police station carried the severed head of the deceased straightway from the place of occurrence. Therefore, though the assembly may have traversed a distance from the place of occurrence to the police station but stance of the accused/appellant, did not vary or change the character of the assembly. By referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Kamar pointed out that the character of the unlawful assembly, which was formed with a common object of killing the deceased by beheading them for practicing witchcraft continued its march towards the police station with the severed heads of the deceased. The same unlawful assembly came to the police station leaving the torso of the dead bodies at the place of occurrence. Mr. Kamar in reply to the submission made by Mr. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel for the appellant, Tarun Munda, submitted that CW 1 did not see the occurrence. CW 1 may have taken shelter in the house of the one of the accused but that in itself cannot be a ground for exonerating the accused/appellant from the commission of offence alleged which has been established against him. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant, further, pointed out that the statement made by PW 3 cannot be considered to be an evidence of 'extra judicial confession', since the accused/appellants did not personally come and confessed before PW 3 regarding their individual involvement in the offence alleged. Learned Counsel further pointed out that such a statement was not made by PW 3 before the police at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 Cr PC. 11. Learned Counsel further pointed out that such a statement was not made by PW 3 before the police at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 Cr PC. 11. Admittedly, on 18.3.06 at about 4:30 a.m., accused appellants who are resident of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate, came to the Biswanath Chariali police station by holding the heads of the deceased, namely, Amir Munda, Nawra Munda, Ladori Munda, Kakulu Munda and Phulmoni Munda in their hands. It is not denied by the defence that all the deceased, who were resident of the tea garden were brutally beheaded on the ruse of practicing witchcraft (black magic). 12. This is an admitted position that on 18.3.06 at about 4:30 p.m. residents of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate, came marching towards Biswanath Chariali by taking severed heads, without torso of the beheaded persons, named above in their hands. The deceased were butchered brutally by beheading them for practicing witchcraft in the locality of the village. 13. PW 1, Arup Kurmi did not see the occurrence but heard the incident that 5 persons of the same family were beheaded by the residents of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate and took the heads without torso to the police station. PW1 accompanied the investigating police officer to the place of occurrence/ where some articles including the 'daos' were seized by the police vide Exht.1. 14. PW 2, Binay Nath Bawri also corroborated the statement made by the PW 1 and also proved the seizure of 'daos' from the place of occurrence by the police during investigation. 15. PW 3, Rabindra Singh, is the informant in the case. According to him on 18.3.06 at about 4:00 p.m. the line chowkidar of the garden informed him that 5 persons were beheaded by the workers of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate. PW 3 recorded the statement of the chowkidar and filed the FIR vide Exht.2. PW 3 also confirmed that culprits were surrendered before the police. 16. PW 4, Amarjyoti Barman, the Executive Magistrate of Biswanath Charialia deposed that on 18.3.06 he got the information that some people came to the police station with 5 severed human heads. PW 4 on reaching the police station found that a groups of 200/250 had gathered before the police station. PW 4 also saw 5 severed human heads, out of which 3 of them were of males and 2 of females. PW 4 on reaching the police station found that a groups of 200/250 had gathered before the police station. PW 4 also saw 5 severed human heads, out of which 3 of them were of males and 2 of females. Among the accused appellants, when PW 4 was present, accused Tarun Munda and Torang Munda, volunteered to confess before him that they cut the heads of the deceased persons. According to PW 4, police visited the place of occurrence and brought torso without heads to the police station. Inquest were held by the police in presence of PW 4, by joining the torso with the heads. 17. PW 5, Manik Gogoi, deposed that on the date of occurrence a group of 200 people came to the police station carrying 5 severed human heads by shouting slogans. He also put the signature in the seizure list. 18. PW 6, Dr. J.C. Bey, who carried out the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies of all the deceased namely, Amir Munda, Nawra Munda, Ladori Munda, Kakulu Munda and Phulmoni Munda, one after another and found decapitated heads separated completely from the body portion, by cutting at the lower part of the neck. PW 6 also found dried blood staining over the dead bodies. The Doctor stated that the cut injuries of neck separating heads portion of the body completely, were ante-mortem in nature. The margin of cut wounds were clear cut and regular and the injuries was caused by sharp cutting weapon. According to him, death of the deceased was due to shock and severe haemorrhage that resulted from decapitation of head. 19. PW 7, Pritipada Das, was the investigating officer of the case. In his deposition, PW 7 stated that on 18.3.06 at about 4:10 p.m. around 260 people came to the police station with human heads of 3 males and 2 females and he accordingly, made CD Entry and seized the 'daos' vide Mat. Exht. 1 to 5 from the possession of the accused persons. He also visited the place of occurrence, brought the torso to the police station and carried out the inquest of the dead bodies by joining the torso with the severed heads and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. 20. The Court Witness, CW 1, Smt. Tersi Munda is one of the family members of the deceased persons. He also visited the place of occurrence, brought the torso to the police station and carried out the inquest of the dead bodies by joining the torso with the severed heads and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. 20. The Court Witness, CW 1, Smt. Tersi Munda is one of the family members of the deceased persons. She deposed that from the morning of the day of occurrence, there was a preparation for committing the crime. Unfortunately 5 members of her family were beheaded by the accused persons. According to her, the accused, Tarun Munda and Torang Munda were not involved in the incident. She stated in her cross-examination that she fled away from her residence after the residents of her house were called out by the villagers. Out of fear, she hid herself in the house of Tarun Munda. However, she did not witness the occurrence herself. 21. CW 2, Tankeswar Gayan, was in duty in the Biswanath Chariali police station at the relevant time. According to him, on 18.3.06 about 300 people came to the police station with 5 severed human heads. CW 2 specifically indicated that the accused/appellants were carrying the human head in one hand together with the weapons of assault in other hand. CW 2 also stated that both severed human heads and 'daos', were seized by the police in his presence. 22. CW 3, Sidha Munda deposed that he heard from the people about the incident of cutting 5 human heads of the same family by the residents of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate. 23. On careful appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the accused/appellants came to the police station with severed human heads in their hands which has been confirmed by PW 4, PW 7 and CW 2. Though the aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, but nothing could be elicited by the defence counsel in their cross-examination. CW 2 categorically identified the accused/appellants who came to the police station with severed human heads of the deceased by holding the weapons of assault in their hands. 24. PW 4, who was present in the police station clarified in his evidence that some people including the accused Tarun Munda and Torang Munda confessed before him that they killed the deceased, persons. 24. PW 4, who was present in the police station clarified in his evidence that some people including the accused Tarun Munda and Torang Munda confessed before him that they killed the deceased, persons. From the evidence of CW 2, it becomes amply clear that all accused/ appellants, who were holding the severed heads of the deceased in their hands, entered in the police station from the western gate. Material Exht. 6 is a document which bears a proof that on 17.3.06 at about 12.00 noon, the villagers of Kachariline, Sakumatha Tea Estate obtained signatures of the deceased persons, suspecting them for practicing witchcraft, where a large number of villagers put their thumb impressions and signatures. The evidence of CW 1, Smt. Tersi Munda, whose entire family was beheaded clarified that on the morning of 17.3.06, preparation for committing the crime was in the offing and the said process was finally carried out at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening of 18.3.06, when 5 persons of the same family of CW 1 were beheaded. 25. According to CW 1, she rescued herself by taking shelter in the house of Tarun Munda and therefore she exonerated Tarun Munda from the commission of the offence alleged against him. Though the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Tarun Munda, vehemently urged before us that since one of the family members of the deceased has exonerated, Tarun Munda for the commission of offence alleged, therefore, appellant Tarun Munda ought not have been held guilty for the commission of offence alleged. According to the Learned Counsel, the appellant Tarun Munda was only a by-stander together with the other villagers. 26. However, on careful analysis of the evidence of CW 1, it appears to us that the stance taken by the witness is purely sympathetic in nature, as because, she did not have the occasion to witness the occurrence. Apparently, it is nothing more than conjecture or guesswork of CW 1 to presume that Tarun Munda, whose family members had given her shelter at their residence, could not be an offender eliminate her entire family. However, according to PW 4, accused Tarun Munda was holding the severed head of the deceased who made the confession boastfully before PW 4 by saying that he had killed the deceased. However, according to PW 4, accused Tarun Munda was holding the severed head of the deceased who made the confession boastfully before PW 4 by saying that he had killed the deceased. On top of it CW 2 saw accused Tarun Munda and other appellants had come to the police station with severed heads and the weapon of assault. 27. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that since PW 3 who heard the accused/appellants making extra judicial confession did not clarify, as to whether the accused had come before him voluntarily to make such extra judicial confessions. Further, such extra judicial confessional statement made by the accused was not recorded by the police during the investigation of the case. Mr. Kamar, learned PP specifically pointed out that the defence did even tried to prove such commission, if any, in the statement of PW 3, by the aforesaid contradiction, to the witness and the Investigating Officer. According to Mr. Kamar there is no proof that such statement was not made by PW 3, during his examination under Section 161 Cr PC. Mr. Kamar, learned PP further submitted that since the statement of witnesses recorded by the police during investigation can not be utilized by the Court to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses. 28. In the case in hand, the Executive Magistrate, PW 4, who had no enmity with the accused persons, categorically stated that Tarun Munda and Torang Munda confessed before him of having killed the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW 4, who is an responsible Government Officer. 29. Mr. D. Senapati, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the accused/appellants came the police station together with a large group of people, cannot be implicated under Section 149, IPC to convict them under Section 302, IPC. 30. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellants relying on a decision in K.M. Ravi v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 337 submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has discouraged the attempt to connect all the accused with the murder of the deceased invoking Section 149, IPC on the basis of a parrot-like repetition of an alleged offence and mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them guilty to the offence committed. The relevant portion is quoted below: The attempt to connect all the accused with the murder of the deceased invoking Section 149, IPC on the basis of a parrot-like repetition of an alleged exhortation to finish the deceased on his arrival at the place of worship seems to be far- fetched. Mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that one such also intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act. There seems to be no legally acceptable material to prove, in this case that all the accused acted as members of an unlawful assembly, and except that they were found to be closely related nothing concrete to join them to connect with the murder of the deceased has come on record to attract the application of Section 149, IPC. 31. In the instant case, it has been established that the accused/appellants by carrying severed heads of the deceased were leading the entire group from the front. They came to the police station with the severed heads to surrender to the law. Therefore, the presence of the accused cannot be said to be a sheer accident or unintentional. 32. Further referring to a decision in the case of Bikaw Pandey v. State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 616 , Learned Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court held that a mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 IPC. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused person cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149, IPC. 33. In the present case, it has been established beyond doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to do away with the deceased by servering their heads, for practicing witchcraft in the village. Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court will be of no help to the appellants in the instant case. 34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2002 Cri LJ 2541, Chandra Bihar Gautam v. State of Bihar, held that-- 8. Therefore, the above decision of the Supreme Court will be of no help to the appellants in the instant case. 34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2002 Cri LJ 2541, Chandra Bihar Gautam v. State of Bihar, held that-- 8. Section 149 has to parts. First part deals with the commission of an offence by a member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly and the second part deals with the liability of the members of the unlawful assembly who knew that an offence was likely to be committee in prosecution of the object for which they had assembled. Even if the common object of the unlawful assembly is stated to be apprehending Nawlesh Singh only, the fact that the accused persons had attacked the house of the complainant at the dead of the night and were armed with deadly weapons including the guns, and used petrol bombs proves beyond doubt that they knew that in prosecution of the alleged initial common object murders were likely to be committed. The knowledge of the consequential action in furtherance of the initial common object is sufficient to attract the applicability of the Section 149 for holding the members of the unlawful assembly guilty for the commission of the offence by any member of such assembly. In this case the appellants, along with others, have been proved to have formed unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder and arson and in prosecution of the said common object they raided the house of informant armed with guns and committee offence. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder of the informant and his family members and in prosecution of the said common object six persons were killed. The appellants were also proved to have hired the services of some extremists for the purposes of the eliminating the family of the complainant. 35. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 572 , Mizaji and another v. State of U.P., the Apex Court discussing on common object of the unlawful assembly held that-- 9. This section has been the subject matter of interpretation in the various High Court of India, but every case has to be decided on its own facts. This section has been the subject matter of interpretation in the various High Court of India, but every case has to be decided on its own facts. The first part of the section means that the offence committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. It is not necessary that there should be a preconcert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly as to the common object; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 149 if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that when in a village a body of heavily armed men set out to take a woman by force, someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149. Similarly, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be equally right to say that they have the knowledge that murder is likely to be committed if the circumstances as to the weapons carried and other conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly clearly point to such knowledge on the part of them all. There is a great deal to be said for the opinion of Couch, C.J., in Sabid Ali's case (1873) 20 W.R. 5, that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. There is a great deal to be said for the opinion of Couch, C.J., in Sabid Ali's case (1873) 20 W.R. 5, that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part, but not within the first. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149, Indian Penal Code cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part of Section 149 as explained above or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part. 36. Though this case does not rests only on circumstantial evidence but one thing is clear that the accused persons carried the heads of the deceased to the police station and the accused appellants, who carried the severed heads were identified clearly by PW 7 and CW 2. Two of them, namely, accused Tarun and Torang were also identified by PW 4. Therefore, their presence in the police station with severed heads of the deceased cannot be disbelieved. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused/appellants were members of an unlawful assembly, who designed to kill the deceased for practicing witchcraft. Being the members of the unlawful assembly whose object was to behead the innocent co-villagers, they are liable for the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC. 37. From the above discussions, it is amply clear that the prosecution side has been able to establish the charge against the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court warrants not interference. 38. Consequently, both the appeals aforenoted being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. 39. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to record our appreciation to Mr. D. Senapati, Learned Counsels for rendering his able assistance to the Court, as Amicus Curiae and accordingly, we direct the High Court Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to the Learned Counsel as professional fees. 40. 39. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to record our appreciation to Mr. D. Senapati, Learned Counsels for rendering his able assistance to the Court, as Amicus Curiae and accordingly, we direct the High Court Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to the Learned Counsel as professional fees. 40. Before parting with the record, we feel it appropriate to deal with the provisions of Section 357(A), IPC which prescribes a requirement of providing compensation to the victim and or his her dependants. 41. In Criminal Appeal No. 93 (J) of 2005, Md. Jalilur Rahman @ Sonti Ali v. The State of Assam a Division Bench of this Court wherein one of us was a Member (Hon'ble the Chief Justice) issued direction to the State Government to prepare a scheme relating to victim compensation in terms of Section 357(A), IPC, in the following terms: [51] Before we part with this record, we feel it appropriate to deal with the provision of Section 357A, Cr.P.C., which prescribes the requirement of providing compensation to the victim or his/her dependents, Section 357A, Cr.P.C., reads as follows: 357A. Victim Compensation Scheme.--(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. (2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shell decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1). (3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabihteted, it may make recommendation for compensation. (4) Where the offender is not traced or entitled, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his defendants may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. (4) Where the offender is not traced or entitled, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his defendants may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation. (5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months. (6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer-in-charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned; or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit. [52] There can be no dispute that law has to keep pace with the changing needs of the society, keeping in mind the devolvement in the national as well as international level. [53] Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life, includes protection of life and property of all members of the society. [54] The guarantees, as provided by the Constitution of India with regard to right to life and property cannot be taken away without due procedure established by law. The law is also well settled that the Court has to give benefit of the theory of beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby acquitting the accused person in appropriate cases, although there may be adverse reaction amongst the members of the society. The requirement of "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" is the fundamental and basic principle of criminal jurisprudence. In the case of Kali Ram v. State of H.P., AIR 1973 SC 2773 at paragraph 26, the Supreme Court observed, "however, the Courts cannot remain oblivious to the dangers of unmerited acquittals either, which may result in a breakdown of justice system and lead to cynical disregard of law. [55] The punishment awarded to the perpetrator of the crime cannot be sufficient to do justice to the victims or their dependents, who become helpless, requiring rehabilitation on account of the crime committed in respect of the victim. [55] The punishment awarded to the perpetrator of the crime cannot be sufficient to do justice to the victims or their dependents, who become helpless, requiring rehabilitation on account of the crime committed in respect of the victim. If sufficient financial assistance is not extended to such victim or his/her dependents, who need rehabilitation then such person would become destitute creating vagrancy. Therefore, there is need to provide rehabilitation as provided in the provision of Section 357A, Cr.P.C. [56] There may be cases, where accused person goes unpunished. In such a case also, the question of rendering justice to the victim of the crime comes. There may be various reasons or consequences for which a guilty may go unpunished. Admittedly, in the absence of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, the Court has no other option but to grant acquittal in favour of the accused person. The responsibility of procuring evidence to prove the guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt, is on the Investigating Agency, i.e. the prosecution. There may be sufficient lacunae/defects in the investigating process resulting acquittal of the accused. [57] The acquittal of the accused person is bound to create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the victims of the crime as well as their dependents or relatives. [58] As defined by Section 2 (wa) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "Victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. [59] In response to the suggestions or recommendations, made by various institutions, including the Malimath Committee and with a view to bring confidence in the minds or sufferers, the victims of crime and their guardians or legal airs or their dependents, as the case may be, who suffered loss and injury and who required rehabilitation the law makers have provided the provisions of Section 357-A, Cr.P.C. [60] The provision of Section 357A aforesaid has been inserted in the Code by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009) w.e.f. 31.12.2009. This provision requires the State Government, in co-ordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for the purpose of giving compensation to the victim of crime or his dependents. The purpose of the said scheme is to meet the need for rehabilitation of the victims and their dependents. This provision requires the State Government, in co-ordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for the purpose of giving compensation to the victim of crime or his dependents. The purpose of the said scheme is to meet the need for rehabilitation of the victims and their dependents. As provided by sub-section (2) of Section 357A, it is the duty of the Court to make recommendation for compensation and in the event of such recommendation the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority; as the case may be, is to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the Scheme referred to in subsection (1). [61] The learned Public Prosecutor, Assam has fair by submitted that no such scheme, as required by Section 357-A(1) of the Cr. PC. has been prepared by the State Government. In view of the above, in order to implement the beneficial provision, prescribed by the statute, we are of the considered opinion that there is urgent need for preparing a scheme for providing fund for the purpose of giving compensation to the victim or his/her dependents under Section 357A, Cr.P.C. It is needless to say that as no such scheme, as required by Section 357A, Cr PC, has been prepared, victims of crime, most of whom are from the marginalized section of the society, have been deprived of the financial benefits requiring for their rehabilitation. There can be no reason as to why a victim or his/her legal representatives, dependents should not get adequate compensation in the similar manner, as provided to the victims of vehicular accident, in terms of the minimum wages, as per schedule II of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. As can be seen from order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. 6319 of 2008 dated 13.01.2011, the Chandigarh Administration has proposed a scheme for paying compensation to the victims of crime, and the same is Quoted below: Sr. No. Particular of Loss or injury Minimum Limit of compensation Maximum Limit of compensation 1 Loss of life Rs. 3 lacs Rs. 5 lacs 2 Rape Rs. 2 lacs Rs. 3 lacs 3 Loss of any limb or part of body resulting in 80% permanent disability or above. Rs. 2 lacs Rs. No. Particular of Loss or injury Minimum Limit of compensation Maximum Limit of compensation 1 Loss of life Rs. 3 lacs Rs. 5 lacs 2 Rape Rs. 2 lacs Rs. 3 lacs 3 Loss of any limb or part of body resulting in 80% permanent disability or above. Rs. 2 lacs Rs. 3lacs 4 Loss of any limb or part of body resulting in permanent disability above 40% & below 80%. Rs. 1 lacs Rs. 1.5 lacs 5 Loss of any limb of part of body resulting in permanent disability above 20% & below 40%. Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 1 lacs 6 Loss of any limb or part of body resulting in permanent disability below 20%. Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 7 Mental agony trauma to women and child victims in cases were there is no physical loss or Injury (such as human trafficking) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- As per the said scheme, as proposed by the Chandigarh Administration, the minimum limit of compensation is Rs. 50,000/- [62] As per 7th schedule of the Constitution of India, police and public orders are State subjects and as such the State Governments are primarily responsible for prevention detection registration and investigation of crime as well as for prosecution of the accused, criminal. Therefore, it is also the responsibility of the State Government to protect the life and property of the citizen and to take appropriate measure for providing necessary funds for providing adequate compensation to the victims, their legal representatives or dependents, as the case may be. [63] Section 357A, Cr.P.C., itself provides that the State Government in coordination with the Central Government, has to prepare the said scheme for providing fund for the purpose of payment of compensation to the victims, their legal airs and dependents. This implies that the Central Govt. also has the responsibility all together for implementation of the provisions prescribed under Section 357A, Cr. PC. Thus, It is clear that the rehabilitation of the victim or their dependents and legal representatives, as the case may be, is also a part of criminal justice delivery system. This requirement is independent of punishment or acquittal awarded to the guilty person. Unless the victim or their defendants), in appropriate cases, are suitably compensated or rehabilitated, justice cannot be said to be done. This requirement is independent of punishment or acquittal awarded to the guilty person. Unless the victim or their defendants), in appropriate cases, are suitably compensated or rehabilitated, justice cannot be said to be done. Because the loss, injury and suffering caused to the victim or his/her dependents will continue, with the existence of a feeling of insecurity unless appropriate measure for rehabilitation is taken. [64] In view of the above, there is no difficulty in understanding that it is the mandatory requirement of the statutory provisions, as prescribed by Section 357A, Cr. PC to provide adequate compensation to the victim, his/her dependents or legal representatives, who require rehabilitation. [65] In the event of preparation of the scheme for the said purpose, the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority as the case may be, are required to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the victims under the scheme as per subsection (2) of the Section 357A, Cr. PC and on receipt of the recommendation or the application as prescribed under sub-section (4) of the said section the concerned Legal Services Authority is required to make an enquiry for awarding adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within a period of 2 (two) months. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Legal Services Authority to determine the dependency and the quantum of compensation for rehabilitation. [66] Though, the said scheme has not yet been prepared by the State Government, despite statutory requirement, the victims or their dependents, who are entitled to be rehabilitated under the statute, cannot be compelled to wait till such scheme is made end, thus, deprived from getting the benefit under the said statutory provision which has come into force with effect from 31.12.2009. Therefore, the State Government is expected to prepare the scheme, as required by Section 357Aof the Cr.P.C, without further delay. [67] In view of what has been discussed above, with a view to do justice to the victims or their dependents, under the provision of Section 357A, Cr. PC we make the following recommendations and directions: (i) As an interim measure, an amount of Rs. 50/000/-shall be deposited by the State Government with the concerned District Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from this date. PC we make the following recommendations and directions: (i) As an interim measure, an amount of Rs. 50/000/-shall be deposited by the State Government with the concerned District Legal Services Authority within a period of two months from this date. (ii) The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether there is any victim and in the absence or death of victim, whether he/she has any dependent(s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of the death of the deceased and also. If the victim, or, in the absence of the victim, the surviving dependent(s) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation. (iii) Upon such enquiry if it is found that the victim, or his 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. (iv) If the District Legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrives at the findings that there is no victim or dependent (s) or that the victim or the dependent (s) of the deceased, victim does not need any rehabilitation, then the concerned District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs. 50,000/without delay, in favour of the State Government. (v) The State Governments, within the jurisdiction of this Court shall take steps to prepare the scheme, as required by the statutory provision, prescribed by Section 357A, Cr.P.C., without further delay. (vi) For the purpose of providing financial assistance towards rehabilitation of the victim or his/her dependents, in appropriate case and for proper implementation of the scheme, provided by Section 357A, Cr.P.C., the Judicial Officers, working under the jurisdiction of this Court, during the course of trial; shall ascertain, (a) If there is any dependents of the victim (b) the financial status of the victim or his/her dependents), if any, (c) whether the victim or his/her dependents, as the case may be, needs any rehabilitation (d) the financial status of the accused person (s) and (e) such findings shall be reflected in the judgment. 42. Considering the observation made by this Court in Crl. 42. Considering the observation made by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 93 (J) of 2005, with a view to do justice to the victims of the present case or their dependants in terms of Section 357(A), IPC, as an interim measure, we direct the State Government to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/with the concerned District Legal Services Authority within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order and the District Legal Services Authority shall take up follow-up action in terms of the observation made in aforenoted Crl. Appeal No. 93(J)/2005 (supra). With the above observations and directions, both the appeals are disposed of. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, for doing the needful. Send back the LCRs.