C.R. Sarma, J.;- The judgment and order, dated 29.3.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 121/2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellants, namely, Mona Urang, Rabi Urang and Chabi Urang, have been convicted un­der Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short TPC'), and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year each, are in chal­lenge in this appeal filed, from the jail, by the convicted persons, as appellants. 2. We have heard Mr R. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants and Mr D.Das, learned Addl. Pub­lic Prosecutor, appearing for the State re­spondent. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants aforesaid, on 8.3.1998, at about 11 a.m., at Nunapani main Division under Ratanpur Tea Estate, under the jurisdiction of Silhcar police station, the appellant had killed Ali Mahammad Khan (as Sardar of the labourers) causing injuries on his persons. Im­mediately after receiving the information, re­garding the death of Ali Mahammad Khan, who was an employee of Ratanpur Tea es­tate, Mr GyanPrakash Singh, Senior Assist­ant Manager of the said tea estate rushed to the place of occurrence and found the blood stained dead body of the deceased. Thereaf­ter, the said Manager (P W1) lodged an FIR (Ext. 1) with the police. On receipt of the FIR aforesaid, police registered a case under Section 302IPC and launched investigation into the matter. After committing the said crime, appellant Sri Mona Urang, appeared in the police station with a dao in his hand and in presence of PW 1, admitted that he had killed the deceased with the said dao. Accordingly, police seized the dao vide sei­zure list (Ext. 2) in presence of the said in­formant. Police also arrested accused Sri Mono Urang. At the close of the investiga­tion, police submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 341/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short,' IPC ') and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 4. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Silchar framed charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and clamed to be tried. 5. 4. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Silchar framed charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and clamed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW 9), who performed the autopsy and the Investigating Police Officers (P Ws 12 and 13). 6. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, brought against them and ex­amined two defence witnesses as D W1 and DW 2. The plea of the appellants, before the trial Court, was that they were falsely impli­cated in this case. 7. Mr R. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants, assailing the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed error by convicting and sentencing the appellant, without sufficient evidence on record. It is sub­mitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt by pro­ducing the reliable and substantive evidence against the appellants. In view of the above, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted for want of sufficient evidence. 8. Supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, the learned Addl. Public Prosecu­tor, has submitted that, there are sufficient substantive evidence against the appellants and that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants caused the death of the deceased by assaulting him. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the learned Trial Judge correctly appreciated the evidence, on record, and as such, no inter­ference is called for in respect of the impugned judgment and order. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW 1, who was the Assistant Senior Manger of the tea garden, where the deceased worked as Sardar of the labour­ers, and the evidence of the Medical Officer (PW 6) who performed the autopsy of the dead body, we find that the deceased, who worked in the said tea garden was killed. 10. The Medical Officer (PW 6), in his evidence, stated that, upon postmortem ex­amination, he found the following injuries in respect of the dead body of the deceased: "1. 10. The Medical Officer (PW 6), in his evidence, stated that, upon postmortem ex­amination, he found the following injuries in respect of the dead body of the deceased: "1. Incised wound at lower middle part of back of neck with prevailing from above down wards, cutting all the structure up to anterior boarder of 5th survical vertebra and spinal cord. 2. Incised wound on right side (torn) of the mouth obliquely measuring 7x2x1.5 cm. 3. Incised wound front and right side of neck at the level of Cricod cartilace extending from its lacteal boarder measuring 7x1x2.5 cm expos­ing the larynx. 4.5.6 Incised wounds in the same plan 1 cm apart up to root of the neck measuring 6x1x2.5 cm each (amounting slice) of which injury no 3 has cut the 4th survital vertebra and these have cut the esophagus, trachea and blood vessels. 7. Incised wounds on lateral surface of left arm in upper part obliquely 8x3x4 cm. 8. Incised wound on the left arm on lateral surface at lower part 9x4x3 cm. 9. Incised wound ever back of the thoracic wall at scapular level on the left side 10x3x4 cm. 10. Incised wounds back of the left thigh in supper part obliquely 11 x 4x 2 cm. 11. Incised wound of the same thigh on the lower part measuring 11 x 2x 3 cm. 12. Three numbers of stab wounds elliptical in shape over front of the thoracic on the right side measuring 1.5 x 5x 1.5 cm. 13. Incised wound at the root of the panis completely separating it and was kept inside the mouth. 14. Incised wound of the left hand cutting the left ring finger at proximal inter phalengeal joint and separating it and over little finer skin deep only. 15. Incised wound of the left leg antero lat­eral surface 11 x 3x 5 cm cutting the fibula bone and half of the tebia with deformity at the side." In the opinion of the said Medical Officer, the cause of death was haemorrhge as a re­sult of incised wounds, which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He also opined that the death was caused 12-24 hours before the postmortem examination was done. The postmortem examination was done on 9.3.98. He also opined that the death was caused 12-24 hours before the postmortem examination was done. The postmortem examination was done on 9.3.98. The dead body of the deceased was found on 8.3.98 at about 11 a.m. Therefore, from the above, it is clearly found that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the incident, which took place at about 11 am on 8.3.98. The above discussed evi­dence makes no difficult, in understanding that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sus­tained by him. 11. Now, the question is as to who had caused the said fatal injuries. We are required to examine, from the evidence on record, as to whether the appellants caused the said in­juries. 12. PW 1, who lodged the FIR did not see the occurrence. He came to know from the neighbouring people that the appellants had killed the deceased. The said informant, who deposed as PW 1, clearly stated that, when he was present in the police station for the purpose of submitting the FIR (Ext. 1), the appellant Sri Muna Urang appeared in the police station with a dao and disclosed that he had killed the deceased with the dao. Ac­cording to this witness, police seized the said dao vide Ext.no.2. 13. The Investigating Officer, who de­posed as PW 13, supporting the evidence of PW 1 stated that, the appellant Sri Mona Urang appeared in the police station with a dao and that, he had seized the said dao vide Ext. no.2. PW 1 denied the suggestion that the dao, seized by the police, was produced by him. He also denied the suggestion, put to him on behalf of the defence, that the tea gar­den authority wanted to evict the appellants from the garden land and as such, they were falsely implicated in the case. All the said sug­gestions were categorically denied by PW 1, who was the senior Assistant Manager of the said tea garden. Except putting the said sug­gestions, which were categorically denied by PW1 i.e. Manager of the tea garden, no con­tradictory or discrepancy, in respect of the evidence given by P W 1, could be elicited. The evidence of PW 1 that the appellant Sri Mona Urang had confessed that he had killed Ali Mahammad with the said dao re­mained unchallenged. Of course, the said ex­tra judicial statement was made in the police station. The evidence of PW 1 that the appellant Sri Mona Urang had confessed that he had killed Ali Mahammad with the said dao re­mained unchallenged. Of course, the said ex­tra judicial statement was made in the police station. Even if we do not accept the said con­fession, being made in the police station, there are other direct evidence showing the involve­ment of Sri Mona Urang. 14. Sri Alim Uddin (P W 2), who was an employee of the said garden, stated that, on the date of the occurrence, at about 10-30 to 10-45 am, hearing the cry for help, he rushed towards the place of incident and saw appel­lant Sri Mona Urang assaulting the deceased with a dao. He also stated that, he had in­formed P W1, about the occurrence, who had rushed to the place of occurrence. Accord­ing to this witness, the deceased died on the spot and that he saw the dead body of the deceased. He was an witness to the inquest, conducted by the police. He exhibited his sig­nature as Ext. 3(2). He denied the sugges­tion, put to him, on behalf of the defence, that he did not see the occurrence and that he had given to be evidence. From the above, it is found that the evi­dence of PW 2 that he saw the appellant Sri Mona Urang causing assault to the deceased, remained uncontroverted. Therefore, his evi­dence that Sri Mona Urang had assaulted the deceased, is believable. The evidence of PW 2 lends support in favour of the evidence given by PW 1 to the effect that he was informed by P W 2 about the incident. 15. Sri Ali Husain Khan (PW 3), coming to know about the incident, rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. According to this witness, he heard that the appellants had killed the deceased by causing injuries. This witness did not see the occurrence himself. He also did not disclose the source from whom he came to know about the involvement of the appel­lants. Hence, his evidence does not substan­tiate the charge brought against the appellants. 16. Mr. Samsuddin Khan, son of the de­ceased deposed as PW 4. According to this witness, he was informed about the death of his father by one Kashim driver. He also did not disclose the source from whom he came to know about the involvement of the appel­lants. Hence, his evidence does not substan­tiate the charge brought against the appellants. 16. Mr. Samsuddin Khan, son of the de­ceased deposed as PW 4. According to this witness, he was informed about the death of his father by one Kashim driver. He also stated that he came to know from others that the appellants had killed his father. From the evi­dence of the said witness, it is found that he had no personal knowledge about the involve­ment of the appellants. 17. Sri Moni Bhumij, who deposed as PW 5 stated that on the date of the occurrence, at about 9 or 10 am, when he went to fetch wa­ter found the appellants, namely, Sri Mona Urang, and Sri Chabi Urang with the deceased. According to this witness, Sri Mona Urang was armed with a dao and out of fear, he had re­turned home without fetching water. He fur­ther stated that, he heard that Sri Mona Urang had cut the deceased and that the deceased expired. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence, but no contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence that, he had seen the appellants Sri Mona Urang and Sri Chabi Urang quarrelling with the deceased. This circumstance supports the prosecution version that the said appellants were involved with the killing of the deceased. The evidence of PW 5 that Mona Urang was armed with a dao supports the evidence of PW 1 that Mora Urang had appeared in the police station with a dao in his hand. 18. Smti. Adormoni Ghatowar, who de­posed as P W 6, stated that she saw the ap­pellant Sri Mona giving dao blows on the de­ceased. She also stated that, after assaulting the deceased, Sri Mora Urang had left to­wards Santila. Though, PW 6 was cross examined on behalf of the defence, her evidence that she saw the appellant Mona Urang giving dao blows, remained unchallenged and undemo-lished. Even, no suggestion was put to her denying her statement that she had seen the said appellant giving dao blows on the de­ceased. The said evidence of PW 6 supports the evidence of PW 2, who also stated that he saw Sri Mona Urang assaulting the de­ceased with a dao. Even, no suggestion was put to her denying her statement that she had seen the said appellant giving dao blows on the de­ceased. The said evidence of PW 6 supports the evidence of PW 2, who also stated that he saw Sri Mona Urang assaulting the de­ceased with a dao. Therefore, we find suffi­cient corroboration in the evidence of the said witness regarding assault, caused by Sri Mona Urang. The evidence of PW 5, who stated that Sri Mona Urang and Sri Chabi Urang had picked up a quarrel with the de­ceased and that Sri Moria Urang was armed with a dao, corroborate the evidence of PW 2 and P W 6 that Sri Mona Urang had given dao blows on the deceased. 19. Sri Meghu Ghatowar, who deposed as PW 7 did not see the occurrence. He got the information about the murder of the de­ceased from others. Therefore, his evidence does not help the prosecution version. Though, this witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, no incriminat­ing evidence could be elicited from him. 20. Sri Fhul Kumar Ghatowar, who de­posed as PW 8 stated that, when the deceased returned home, after allotting work to him and Mr Meghu, the appellants, Sri Mona Urang, sri Chabi Urang and one unknown person picked up altercation with the deceased and thereafter started push and pull. He also stated that appellant Sri Mona Urang, who was armed with a dao, gave blow on the neck of the deceased, as a result of which, the lat­ter had fallen down. He further stated that, Sri Mona Urang gave about 2-3 blows and noticing the said occurrence, he and Meghu ram away and alerted others creating hullah. Despite lengthy cross examination made on behalf of the defence, no contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence that he had seen Sri Mona Urang and Sri Chabi Urang quarreling with the deceased and Mona Urang gave several blows on the deceased. 21. Ranjit lal Rai, who took the initial in­vestigation, deposed as PW 10. He exhib­ited the inquest report as Ext. 3, the sketch map prepared by him as Ext. 6. He further stated that one accused had surrendered in the police station with a dao and that he was arrested and the dao was also seized. 21. Ranjit lal Rai, who took the initial in­vestigation, deposed as PW 10. He exhib­ited the inquest report as Ext. 3, the sketch map prepared by him as Ext. 6. He further stated that one accused had surrendered in the police station with a dao and that he was arrested and the dao was also seized. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer for­warded the witnesses to the Court for record­ing their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 22. PW 11 was the Bench Assistant of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 23. PW 12 and PW 13 are also the Po­lice Officers, who subsequently completed the remaining part of the investigation. 24. PW 13 stated that the appellant Sri Mona Urang appeared in the police station with a dao hi his hand and in presence of PW 1 stated that he had cut and killed the de­ceased. 25. Mr Bijoy Urang and Mr Sadhan Urang deposed as DW 1 and DW 2 respectively. The DW 1 stated that, on the date of occur­rence, appellant Chabi Urang was present in his house for seeing his ailing father. The inci­dent took place at about 10-11 am. This wit­ness did not disclose the time and the date when the said appellant had visited his house. There is noting to find that at the time of oc­currence, the said appellant was in the house of DW 1. Therefore, his evidence does not rule out the involvement of Sri Chabi Urang with the killing of the deceased. In his cross examination, he stated that, he did not know, if the appellants had any land dispute with the tea garden authority. 26. DW 2 stated that, on the date of oc­currence, appellant Sri Rabi Urang and he went in search of a missing cow, belonging to Sri Rabi Urang, at 6 am and came back at 8 pm with the cow. He also stated that he heard about the murder of the deceased on the next day. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. His evidence that he, along with Rabi Urang had left Bordukam garden at about 6 am and that they returned at about 8 pm. remained undiminished. He also stated that he heard about the murder of the deceased on the next day. This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. His evidence that he, along with Rabi Urang had left Bordukam garden at about 6 am and that they returned at about 8 pm. remained undiminished. The appellant Rabi Urang in his statement given under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied his involvement with the killing of the deceased and stated that he was not present in his house on the date of occurrence. 27. In view of the above, we find no rea­son to disbelieve the said evidence of DW 1. That apart, none of the prosecution witnesses have mentioned the name of Rabi Urang. Therefore, we find force in the evidence of D W 2 that Sri Rabi Urang was in his com­pany from 6 am to 8 pm and that they were away from the place of occurrence during the said period. 28. Carefully perusing the evidence on record as discussed above, we find that none of the witnesses, except PW 1, PW 2, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8, stated anything incriminating against the appellants. PW 2, who was an eye witness to the occurrence saw only Sri Mona Urang assaulting the deceased. He did not see other appellants in the place of occurrence. The evidence of PW 2 excludes the involvement of other appellants. PW 1 stated about the extra judicial con­fession made by Sri Mona Urang and his ap­pearance in the police station with a dao. Ac­cording to PW 5, Sri Mona Urang and Chabi Urang were found quarreling with the de­ceased and he heard that the deceased was killed by Sri Mona Urang. He also did not state anything except finding the said appel­lant quarrelling with the deceased. He did not say about Rabi Orang in the place of occur­rence. That apart, he did not say anything in­dicating that Mona Urang and Chabi Urang had assaulted the deceased. PW 6, supporting the evidence of PW 2 stated that he saw Sri Mona Urang giving dao blows on the deceased. This witness, who claimed to be one of the eye witnesses, did not whisper anything about the involvement of the other appellants. 29. PW 6, supporting the evidence of PW 2 stated that he saw Sri Mona Urang giving dao blows on the deceased. This witness, who claimed to be one of the eye witnesses, did not whisper anything about the involvement of the other appellants. 29. PW 8 stated that he saw Sri Chabi Urang and Sri Mona Urang and another per­son altercating with the deceased, followed by push and pulling and that he saw Sri Mona Urang giving dao blows on the neck of the deceased. This witness did not tell that Chabi Urang or the third person had assaulted the deceased. If Sri Chabi Urang had caused any injury on the deceased, the P W 8, being one of the eye witnesses, would have certainly implicated Sri Chabi Urang also. His silence in this regard indicates that Chabi Urang did not assault the deceased. He did not state anything regarding presence of Rabi Urang. 30. From the above discussed evidence, it is clearly found that accused Sri Mona Urang had assaulted the deceased by inflict­ing dao blows on his person. There is nothing on record to show that appellant Sri Chabi Urang, who was found quarreling with the deceased had any common intention or meet­ing of mind with Sri Mona Urang for causing the death of the deceased. 31. As discussed above, the evidence of PW 2, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8, clearly indi­cate that Sri Mona Urang had inflicted dao blows on the deceased and the deceased suc­cumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said occurrence. The evidence of P W 1 and PW 2 fortifies the evidence of PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8 that appellant Mona Urang was armed with a dao. 32. Appearance of Sri Mona Urang with a dao in the police station sufficiently corrobo­rates the evidence of PW 2, PW 5, PW 6 and P W 8, inspiring confidence to hold that the appellant Sri Mona Urang had caused the injuries as a result of which, the deceased died. 33. In view of above discussed evidence, it is found that the prosecution could success­fully prove that Sri Mora Urang had assaulted the deceased causing fatal injuries. 33. In view of above discussed evidence, it is found that the prosecution could success­fully prove that Sri Mora Urang had assaulted the deceased causing fatal injuries. The na­ture and the number of the injuries inflicted clearly indicates that the assailant had at­tacked the deceased with an intention to kill him or with the knowledge that the injuries inflicted would cause his death. In the light of the above, we have no difficulty in holding that the appellant Sri Mona Urang commit­ted the offence under section 302IPC. There­fore, in our considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed no error by convicting Sri Mona Urang under section 302 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence, re­corded against Sri Robi Urang and Sri Chabi Urang cannot be maintained for want of evi­dence. 34. From the evidence on record, it is found that deceased, at the relevant time was working as an employee of Ratanpur Tea Estate. 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 Cachar 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. (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. 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. 35. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, for doing the needful. 36. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence, awarded against appellant Sri Mona Urang are upheld. The conviction and sentence recorded against the other appellants gamely, Sri Chabi Urang and Rabi Urang are set aside. Consequently, Sri Chabi Urang and Sri Rabi Urang are acquit­ted and set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 37. With the above directions and modifi­cations, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Return the LCRs. 38. We record our appreciation for the services, rendered by Sri R. Goswami, as Amicus Curiae and direct that an amount of Rs. 3,500/- be paid to him by the State Legal Services Authority as his remuneration.