C.R. Sarma, J.;— This appeal is directed against the judg ment and order, dated, 31.3.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, (FTC), Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No.49 (T) of 2008. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302IPC, and accordingly sentenced him to suffer im prisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, undergo simple imprisonment for another period of three months, for his con viction under Section 302. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr R.K. Adhikary, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, as re vealed at the trial, is that, on 12.1.2008 at about 2 p.m., the appellant, being armed with a dao, inflicted several blows on Honu Jalen (hereinafter called as 'the deceased’), as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. 5. The occurrence took place in presence of Sri Busur Chick (P W 2) and Shri Arun Gorik (PW 3). Sri Bindu Men (PW 5), the elder brother of the deceased lodged the FIR with the police, on the same day, which was registered as Doomdooma PS Case No. 16/ 2008 under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of the said FIR (Ext.4), police launched in vestigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person, re corded the statement of the witnesses, pre pared inquest report(Ext.2), forwarded the dead body for postmortem examination and recovered and seized & dao from the bed of the accused, on being shown by the latter. Police also prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. At the close of the in vestigation, police submitted the charge-sheet (Ext.6) against the accused appellant. 6. The offence being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia commit ted the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused to which, he pleaded 'not guilty'. 7.
6. The offence being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia commit ted the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused to which, he pleaded 'not guilty'. 7. In order to prove their case, prosecu tion examined as many as nine witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 1), who performed the postmortem examination, the Circle Officer (PW 8), who conducted the inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer (PW 9). At the close of the evidence for the pros ecution, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the al legations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the appellant com mitted the murder of the deceased and ac cordingly convicted and sentenced him as in dicated above. 8. Mr Adhikary, learned Legal Aid Coun sel, appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record, has submit ted that the prosecution failed to establish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, and as such, the conviction and the sentence ac corded against the appellant are liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel has also submitted that it has been revealed from the evidence of PW 5, that the appel lant was an insane person and as such, in view of Section 84 IPC, the conviction and sen tence is not maintainable. 9. Resisting the said argument, advanced by learned defence counsel, Mr K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient evidence more particularly, the evidence of eye wit nesses i.e. PWs 2 and 3 in support of the prosecution version and that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence, given by the said eye witnesses. It is submitted that consider ing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the evidence rendered by the eye witnesses aforesaid, it can be found that the prosecution has been able to estab lish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is submitted that consider ing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the evidence rendered by the eye witnesses aforesaid, it can be found that the prosecution has been able to estab lish the case, beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel has also submitted that the accused person, nowhere took the plea of insanity and that no evidence also has been adduced to show that by reason of unsoundness of mind, the appellant, at the relevant time, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act done or that the act he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Therefore, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submit ted that there is no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel, and as such, the appellant is not entitled to get any benefit un der section 84 of the IPC. In view of the above, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by convicting the appel lant and awarding sentence as indicated above. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and to examine the cor rectness of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, scan the evidence, on record, as be low. 11. The Medical Officer (PW 1), who performed the autopsy, on 13.1.2008 i.e. on the following day of the incident, found the following injuries in respect of the deceased: " External Appearance :- One male dead body or average built, dark brown in complex ion , 30 years of age, eyes open, mouth partially open, wearing a white full shirt, read highneck ganjee and brown colour full pant. Regormortis present all over the body. Injuries:- (1) One sharp cutting wound of size 15x 3 cm x bone deep present over the left sided of the neck resulting separation of all vital struc tures of the neck. (2) One sharp cutting would of size 12 x 3 cm x bone deep present over the left side of he neck, 1 cm below he injury No.21 extending from anterior midline of the neck to the vertebral col umn.
(2) One sharp cutting would of size 12 x 3 cm x bone deep present over the left side of he neck, 1 cm below he injury No.21 extending from anterior midline of the neck to the vertebral col umn. (3) One sharp cutting would of size 15x 4 cm x bone cut present over left side of the neck, 2 cm below the injury No.2 resulting in fracture dislocation of cervical 6 vertebrae. (4) One sharp cutting injury of size 1-0x2 cm x muscle cut extending from right alae of nose obliquely downward and laterally upto the right side of the neck. (5) One sharp cutting injury over the right frontal region of scalp extending towards left parietal region of size 12 x 2 cm x bone deep. (6) One sharp cutting would over the oc cipital region transversely placed of size 10x3 cm x bone dep. (7) One sharp cutting would over left side of anterior chest wall and left shoulder joint of size 6 x 3 cm x muscle cut. (8) One sharp cutting wound over right shoulder joint of size 4 x 2 cm x muscle cut." The Medical Officer opined that all the injuries were antemortem and caused by sharp cutting object and were homicidal in nature. According to the Medical Officer, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries aforesaid. He also opined that the approximate time of death was 18-24 hours. From the evidence of said Medical Officer, it is found that he conducted the post mortem examination on 13.1.2008 at 1 -25 p.m. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the incident took place at about 2 p.m. There fore, we find sufficient force in the opinion rendered by the Medical Officer to believe that the deceased died in between 18-24 hours due to the injuries, which the deceased sustained about 2 P.M. on the previous day of autopsy. 12. The Circle Officer (PW 8), who con ducted the inquest, stated that he found cut injuries on the neck, check, back side of the head and both arms of the deceased. He has exhibited the inquest report prepared by him, as Ext.2. 13. The Investigating Officer (PW 7) stated that he forwarded the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination after preparation of inquest report by PW 8.
He has exhibited the inquest report prepared by him, as Ext.2. 13. The Investigating Officer (PW 7) stated that he forwarded the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination after preparation of inquest report by PW 8. All of the non official prosecution witnesses also clearly stated that the deceased suc cumbed to the injuries sustained by him. In view of the above, there is no difficulty in hold ing that the deceased died due to the ante-mortem injuries inflicted on vital parts of his body, on 12.1.2008, at about 2 P.M. 14. PWs 2 and 3 who were the eye wit nesses to the occurrence clearly stated that dao blows were given to the deceased. The medical evidence rendered by P W1, regard ing the nature of the weapon used, corrobo rates the evidence given by PWs 2 and 3, with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased and the weapon used by the ap pellant. 15. Now, the question is who had caused the said homicidal injuries, which resulted in the death of the deceased. 16. In the FIR(Ext.4), lodged by Sri Bindu Men (PW 5), brother of the deceased, it has been stated that at the time of occurrence, he was in the village and on being informed by his son Sabir Sabachi, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased in injured condition. According to this witness, the accused person was apprehended and kept tied near the deceased. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he knew the accused since long and as he was like a insane person, often he used to visit doctor. This witness did not see the incident himself. 17. Though PW 5 stated that the accused was like a insane person, he did not state any thing indicating the nature of insanity and if at the time of incident, the appellant was suffer ing from any insanity or unsoundness of mind. The appellant at the time of giving answers to the questions, put to him, during his examina tion under section 313 Cr.P.C., did not take the plea of insanity. From the answers, given by the appellant, it appears that he could well understood the meaning and indication of all the questions, put to him. His answers, given in said examination, does not reveal that he was a man of unsound mind. 18.
From the answers, given by the appellant, it appears that he could well understood the meaning and indication of all the questions, put to him. His answers, given in said examination, does not reveal that he was a man of unsound mind. 18. PW 2 and PW 3 also stated that the accused appellant used to visit the doctor, they did not state anything indicating as to why he visited the doctor. In view of said evidence given by PWs 2, 3 and 5, it cannot be con clusively held that the appellant suffered from only insanity. 19. Section 84 IPC reads as follows :- "84. Act of a person of unsound mind.- Noth ing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of un soundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong of contrary to law." 20. In order to get the benefit of Section 84 IPC, it is required to be established that the accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind i.e. insanity, at the time of the incident and that due to such unsoundness of mind, he was unable to know the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of commission of the offence upto the beginning of the proceeding in the Sessions court is relevant for the pur pose of ascertaining as to whether the appel lant was genuinely suffering from unsoundness of mind. As provided by Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances, for brining the case within the purview of Section 84IPC, lies upon the accused person. Of course, such burden is not higher than the burden that rests upon a party in other proceedings. Except the said evidence, rendered by PWs 2,3 and 5, there is no substantive evidence, on record, to show that the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of incident, for which he did not know as to what he was doing or the consequence of the act done by him. 21.
Except the said evidence, rendered by PWs 2,3 and 5, there is no substantive evidence, on record, to show that the appellant was suffering from insanity at the time of incident, for which he did not know as to what he was doing or the consequence of the act done by him. 21. Therefore, in absence of any plea taken by the appellant before the learned trial court and also in view of non availability of any sub stantive evidence, we are not inclined to hold that the appellant was suffering from any in sanity at the time of incident. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel that the appellant is entitled to the benefit extended by Section 84 IPC. 22. PW 2, Sri Basu Chik, stated that at the time of incident, she was collecting fire wood on the road and that the deceased was at a distance of six feet from her. She clearly stated that the appellant, who was armed with a dao inflicted blows on the deceased and that out of fear, she had left the place and informed the garden manager. She also stated that the deceased died due to blows given by the appellant. She was an witness to the in quest report, ext. 2 and she exhibited her sig nature in the inquest report as Ext.2(1). This witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the defence and no contradiction could be elicited to render her evidence disbelievable. 23. Sri Arun Goraik, an eye witness to the incident deposed as PW 3. Supporting the evidence of PW 2, this witness also stated that he saw the appellant inflicting dao blows on the deceased and that upon hearing alarm, raised by the later, the people of the village assembled and apprehended the appellant. She also stated that police had recovered a dao (pruning knife) from the bed of the ap pellant vide seizure list Ext.3. She exhibited her signature thereon as Ext.3(1). In her cross-examination, this witness stated that she saw blood stain in the said seized dao. 24. Though this witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction could be elicited with regard to her evidence that she had seen the appellant in flicting dao blows on the deceased and that a pruning knife was recovered from the bed of the appellant. 25.
24. Though this witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction could be elicited with regard to her evidence that she had seen the appellant in flicting dao blows on the deceased and that a pruning knife was recovered from the bed of the appellant. 25. Sri Sunu Panika, deposing as PW 4 and supporting the evidence of P W 2 and P W 3 stated that, while he was returning from work, he saw PWs 2 and 3 running away from the place of occurrence and that he saw the appellant inflicting blows on the deceased. According to this witness, he also ran away from the place of incident and that people had, later on, apprehended the appellant. 26. Smti Sacharia Sawari, who deposed as PW 6, is the wife of the deceased. She stated that, on the day of the incident at about 3 p.m. her husband had gone out for shop ping with a bag and subsequently she came to know that he was killed by the appellant. According to this witness, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the appellant coming from the place of occurrence with two dao son his hand. From the cross examination of this wit ness, nothing could be elicited to render her evidence aforesaid, disbelievable. 27. Sri Jalen Sawachi (P W 7) stated that, on the date of occurrence, hearing hue and cry he went out from his house and found the deceased, lying on the road, in injured condi tion. He also stated that he came to know from others that the appellant had killed the deceased. So, it appears that this witness did not see the incident. 28. From the above discussed evidence on record, it is found that PWs 2,3 and 4 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they saw the appellant inflicting dao blows on the deceased. Their evidence regarding in volvement of the appellant remained undemolished. 29. In view of the above, we find suffi cient corroboration in the evidence of the said witnesses, inspiring confidence, to believe their version that the appellant had caused fatal blows. Therefore, it is found to be clearly es tablished, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant caused fatal injuries by inflicting dao blows on the deceased.
29. In view of the above, we find suffi cient corroboration in the evidence of the said witnesses, inspiring confidence, to believe their version that the appellant had caused fatal blows. Therefore, it is found to be clearly es tablished, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant caused fatal injuries by inflicting dao blows on the deceased. From the medi cal evidence aforesaid, it is found that as many as eight blows were inflicted affecting vital parts of the body of the deceased i.e. neck, vertebra etc. The injury No. 1 inflicted on the neck resulted separation of all vital structure of the neck. The multiple injuries, caused by the appellant, on the vital parts of the deceased that too with a sharp cutting weapon indicates that the appellant inflicted blows with an in tention to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, considering the number and na ture of injuries sustained we have no hesita tion in holding that the learned trial Judge committed no error, in arriving at the findings that the appellant committed the offence of mur der. So, the conviction and the entence re corded by the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 302IPC, suffer from no infirmity or illegally. 30. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal requir ing any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned conviction and sentence are upheld. Return the case records. 31. As provided by provision of Section 357ACr.P.C. the victim or his/her dependants are entitled to get compensation in appropri ate 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 Tlnsukia Dis trict within a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Au thority, 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.
The District Legal Services Au thority, 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 Au thority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be pre scribed 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 dependents) or that the dependent(s) of the deceased/victim does not require any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Ser vices Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, without delay, in favaour of the State Government. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the learned Addl. Public Pros ecutor, and the Chief Secretary to the Gov ernment of Assam, for doing the needful. _____________