C.R. Sarma, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order, dated, 21.4.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No.115(T) of 2008, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, namely, Sri Ganesh Karmakar in Ses­sions Case No. 115(T)/2008 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life im­prisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of three months. Aggrieved, by the said judgment and order of conviction and sen­tence, the convicted person aforesaid, as ap­pellant, has come up with this appeal, pre­ferred from the jail. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 2.11.2007, Sri Ramesh Nayak (hereinaf­ter called as 'deceased'), went to Tinsukia town along with the appellant, in search of work as a daily labourer and at about 3 p.m., the dead body of the deceased, bearing cut injuries, was found lying in the drain (nulla) near a culvert at Section 25, Itakhuli Tea Estate. After recovery of the dead body of the deceased, his brother-in-law i.e. (PW3) lodged an FIR( Ext.2), with the police. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case under Section 302 IPC and launched investi­gation in to the matter. During the investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report (Ext. no 2), forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and examined the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, the Investigating Police Officer (PW 9) sub­mitted the charge-sheet (Ext.5), under Sec­tion 302 IPC, against the appellant. 4. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, includ­ing the Medical Officer (PW 1), who per­formed the autopsy and the Investigating Po­lice Officer (PW 9). 6. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Judge examined the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and denied to adduce any defence evidence. 7. 6. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Judge examined the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and denied to adduce any defence evidence. 7. The appellant, in his statement, made under Section 313 Cr.P.C, admitted that he, along with the deceased, went in search of job and that, he did not know as to how the deceased met with the death. He also stated that there were about 5-6 persons with them at the time, when he along with the deceased went in search of work. However, the appel­lant failed to disclose the names of the said 5 or 6 persons. 8. Mr. Bibekananda Gogoi, learned amicus curiae, referring to the evidence on record, has submitted that, there is no an iota of evi­dence, not to speak of any direct evidence to show that the appellant had killed the de­ceased. The learned amicus curiae, has sub­mitted that, the conviction has been based only on suspicion and a such, the learned trial Judge committed error by recording the con­viction without any substantive evidence, regarding the guilt of the appellant. The learned amicus curiae, has also submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence, against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt, the laltter is entitled to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. 9. Supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has submitted that, though there is no direct evidence against the appel­lant, the circumstance that the deceased had gone along with the appellant in search of work and the consequential finding of the dead body of the deceased, amply proves that none other than the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. In view of the above, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence need no interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above submissions, made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, we are required to examine if the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting several injuries on his person. 11. The Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy of the deceased on the next day ie. On 3.11.2007, found the following injury: "1. 11. The Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy of the deceased on the next day ie. On 3.11.2007, found the following injury: "1. Incised injury of size 8 x 0.5 cm bone deep obliquely from the mid portion of fore­head towards to right maxilla medial to the right eye with fracture of the frontal and nosal bone. 2. 5 x 05 cm curved incised injury muscle deep over the chin of face. 3. 7 x 0.5 cm incised subcutaneous deep in­jury over the right side of the neck in mid por­tion transversely. 3 x 0.5 cm subcutaneous deep lacerated injury 2.5 cm upwards of the above injury. 4. 5 x 2 cm muscle deep lacerated injury on the tip of the right shoulder. 5.10 x 4 cm muscle deep lacerated injury with fracture of right clavicle in mid portion in the upper part of the chest in right side. 6. 10 x 2 cm muscle deep incised injury on the back of the neck in the upper part below the •• skull 4 cm below it. 6 x 05 cm skin deep incised injury horizontally. 7. 7 x 1 cm curved incised bone deep injury transversely over both parietal region of the scalp. 8 x 1 cm oblique incised bone deep inju over the right parietal towards the left occipiti region meeting the above injury. Communited fracture of both the parietal bones found. 8. 2 x 0.5 cm lacerated injury subcutaneous deep over the upper part of left hand, upper arm. Stomach contained partially digested food materials along with fluid which smell like alco- hol. Other organs were found normal and healthy." PW 1 aforesaid, opined that the death of the deceased was, due to shock and haemorrahage, as a result of injuries sustained, which were ante mortem in nature. Accord­ing to the Medical Officer, the death was' caused about 24-48 hours prior to the post­mortem examination. As revealed from the evidence of the said Medical Officer, the post­mortem examination was done at about 1-30 pm on 3.11.2007. 12. From the evidence of PW 3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, it is found that both the deceased and the appellant went together at about 7 am on 2.11.2007, in search of job and the dead body was found at about 1 to 2 P.M. (PW 2). 12. From the evidence of PW 3, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, it is found that both the deceased and the appellant went together at about 7 am on 2.11.2007, in search of job and the dead body was found at about 1 to 2 P.M. (PW 2). In view of the above evidence, the postmortem examination being done at about 1-30 p.m. on 3.11.2007, after 24-48 hours of the time of autopsy, it is quite reasonable to believe that the death of the deceased was caused after he had left with the appellant at 7 am. The appellant also in his statement, given under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted the prosecution version that the deceased left with him in search of job. Therefore, from the said evidence of PW 3, which remained undemolihsed, coupled with I the admission made by the appellant, in his statement made under section 313 Cr.P.C., we find sufficient material to believe that the deceased had gone with the appellant in search of work. Now the question is, as to who had killed the deceased ? 13. According to PW 2, who is the mother of the deceased, the dead body of the de­ceased was found lying in the drain of the garden. This witness stated that on being in­formed by some children at 1-2 pm, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the injured dead body of her son. She did not implicate anybody with the said crime. 14. Sri Sahadev Nayak is (PW 3), lodged the FIR, as informant. He rushed to the place of occurrence on the basis of an uproar re­garding the death of the deceased and found the dead body lying in a drain with cut inju­ries in the neck and back. He further stated that the appellant visited his house on the date of the occurrence and took a glass of water. He also stated that one of his brother-in-law i.e. Atul Munda (P W 6) offered him tabacoo and after having tabacoo, the appellant left the place. This witness suspected that the appellant had killed the deceased. 15. Sri Sunil Nayak is another brother-in-law of the deceased. He, deposing as PW 4, stated that he came to know that somebody had killed the deceased. This witness also did not state anything incriminating against the appellant. 16. This witness suspected that the appellant had killed the deceased. 15. Sri Sunil Nayak is another brother-in-law of the deceased. He, deposing as PW 4, stated that he came to know that somebody had killed the deceased. This witness also did not state anything incriminating against the appellant. 16. Sri Dhanraj Guwalla, deposing as PW 5, stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased. He did not know as to who had killed the deceased. He was an witness to the inquest report( Ext. No.2), prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has exhibited his signature as Ext.2(1). This witness also did not whisper anything against the appellant. 17. According to Sri Atul Munda (PW 6), who was also one of the brother-in-law of the deceased, went with the appellant in search of job. He further stated that at about 2-2-30 pm the appellant returned alone and took tabacoo from him. Considering the evidence of PW 3 and PW 6, we find sufficient corroboration in their evidence to believe that the deceased had gone in search of job and that at about 2-2-30 p.m,, the appellant had come back alone and took tobacoo from PW 6. Both the said witnesses were duly cross examined on behalf of the defence, but noth­ing could be elicited from their cross exami­nation. From the unrebuttable evidence of said two witnesses, it is found that both the appel­lant and the deceased went together, in the fateful morning, in search of job and the ap­pellant came back alone at 2-2-30 p.m. It is found that the dead body of the deceased was detected at about 1 to 2 p.m., in the drain of the garden. 18. PW 7 is the Assistant Manager of the garden. He was informed about the death of the deceased by his Chowkidar, Moniram and he informed the police telephonically. 19. Supporting the evidence of PW 7, Moniram Murah, who deposed as PW 8, stated that finding the dead body of the de­ceased inside a culvert of a ditch, he had in­formed the Manger of the garden(PW 7). 20. The Investigating Police Officer, who deposed as PW 9 was cross examined on behalf of the defence, but no material contra­diction could be elicited to demolish the evi­dence given by the prosecution witnesses. 21. 20. The Investigating Police Officer, who deposed as PW 9 was cross examined on behalf of the defence, but no material contra­diction could be elicited to demolish the evi­dence given by the prosecution witnesses. 21. From the above evidence on record, it is clearly found that both the deceased and the appellant, on the fateful morning, went together in search of job and the appellant had returned alone at about 2-2-30 pm. It has also been established that the dead body of the deceased was detected in a drain of the garden with multiple injuries on his per­sons. 22. The deceased was found dead after he had left for work.Though the FIR does not indicate that the deceased went with the appellant in search of job, PW 3, Mr Sahadev Nayak stated that both the appellant and the deceased went together in search of job. The appellant also in his statement, given under section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted that the deceased had gone with him in search of job. But he expressed his ignorance as to how the death was caused. This admission, on the part of the appellant supports the evidence of PW 3 that they were last seen together and that the deceased was in the company of the ap­pellant. 23. As the deceased was in the company of the appellant, in view of the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was his burden to advance reasonable ex­planation as to how the deceased sustained fatal injuries, which caused his death. He stated that, at about 2 pm, he had parted with the deceased at Shripuria and that both of them went in different directions. He also stated that he worked in the house of a per­son till 5 pm and thereafter when he had re­turned home, people had apprehended and handed over him to the police. He also stated that when he went with the deceased, there were 5-6 other persons with them. Though the appellant had taken the said pleas, he failed to substantiate the same, by examining such persons. He also stated that when he went with the deceased, there were 5-6 other persons with them. Though the appellant had taken the said pleas, he failed to substantiate the same, by examining such persons. That apart, as the appellant claimed that he had parted with the deceased at about 2 pm, and that he had worked in the house of a person till 5 pm, it was his duty to substantiate the said claim by examining the person in whose house he had worked till 5 pm, but he failed to do so. If he had actually worked till 5 p.m. in the house of a person, there has no difficulty to examine the said person and prove his plea. Failure to do so negates the said claim. Hence, it cannot be believed that he had separated from the de­ceased and that the deceased was not in his company till his death. 24. As discussed above, PW 6 clearly stated that at about 2 to 2-30 pm the appel­lant returned alone and took tabacoo from him. Supporting the evidence of PW 6, PW 3 also stated that, the appellant had visited his house at around 2-2-30 p.m. and left af­ter taking a glass of water from him. The said evidence of PW3 and PW 6 remained undemolished and uncontroverted. Even, no suggestion was put to the said two witnesses suggesting that the appellant did not visit their houses at 2-2-30 p.m. Therefore, the pros­ecution could establish that the appellant had visited the houses of PW 3 and P W 6 at about 2-230 p.m. and that the dead body of the deceased, who had gone with the appellant was detected in between 1 to 3 pm. The above conduct on the part of the appellant indicates that he deceased was in the company of the appellant and he had the knowledge as to under what circumstances the deceased died. In view of the above, we find no force in the contention of the appellant that he had parted with the deceased and that he was working in the house of another person till 5 pm on the fateful day. In view of the above, we find no force in the contention of the appellant that he had parted with the deceased and that he was working in the house of another person till 5 pm on the fateful day. Therefore, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as the appellant failed to explain the circumstances regarding the death of the deceased, it can be safely held that none other than, the appellant, who was in the com­pany of the deceased, caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant holding him guilty of the offence, under section 302 IPC. 25. As provided by provision of Section 357A Cr.P.C. the victim or his/her depend­ants are entitled to get compensation in ap­propriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our discussions made in Criminal Appeal No.93(J) 72005 (disposed of 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, that 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 dependant(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, arrive at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependent(s) of the deceased/victim does not require any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Serv­ices Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, without delay, in favaour of the State Government. (3) It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrive at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependent(s) of the deceased/victim does not require any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Serv­ices Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, without delay, in favaour of the State Government. For the purpose of providing financial assistance towards rehabilitation of the vic­tim of his/her dependents, 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 dependants, and of the accused person(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 dependents), if any, (ii) whether such persons need rehabilitation, as the case may be and also the financial status of the accused person(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. 26. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the learned Addl. Public Pros­ecutor, and the Chief Secretary to the Gov­ernment of Assam, for doing the needful. 27. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal requiring inter­ference with the impugned conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is dis­missed. Return the LCRs. 28. While appreciating the services ren­dered by the learned amicus curiae, we rec­ommend for payment of Rs.3500/- by the State Legal Services Authority, in favour of the learned amicus curiae as Shis remunera­tion.