JUDGMENT Agarwal, J. 1. The judgment dated 20.2.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 132(T) of 2005 is under challenge in this appeal. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default sentence of further RI for six months. We have heard Sri PN Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the prosecution witnesses proffered by the prosecution in the trial court as well as the statement of the accused, given under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that both the accused and the deceased were working as a garden labour at Kachujan Tea Estate in Tinsukia District. Their quarters though situated in the same line but it was divided by a sub-line. The incident had taken place almost in front of the sub-line, but it was slightly towards the quarter of the accused. The offence of alleged murder was committed on 14.4.2005 at about 7.30 PM. The FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased on the same night at about 10.00 PM, the name of the appellant was specifically mentioned as an assailant. The FIR was registered as Tinsukia PS Case No. 155 of 05 under Section 302 IPC and after the charge sheet trial was held and finally the accused has been convicted for the offence of murder. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that PW 1 was the prime witness of the prosecution but he has been declared hostile and the deposition of the rest of the witnesses are not corroborating each other and in view of the contradictions, the appellant deserves to be given benefit of doubt. In support of this submission, the learned Amicus Curiae relied upon a judgment of Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Sujit Bardhan -Vs- State of Tripura; reported in (2011) 2 GLR 263. In the said case the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was set aside in view of material contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. 4. In the said case the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was set aside in view of material contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. 4. As could be gathered from the record, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW 1 is the son of the deceased; PW 2 is the witness who claims to have witnessed the incident; PWs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are independent witnesses from the locality; PW 8 is the Investigating Officer and PW 9 is the Medical Officer, who conducted necropsy on the dead body. 5. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and answers of few questions are relevant to determine this appeal and the answers are reproduced below : Question: On 14.4.2005 at about 7 1/2 O' Clock you killed Chamara Mura by hacking with sharp weapon. What is your reply ? Answer: While I wanted to cut Ajoy, Chamara wanted to snatch away the Dao and due to pull and push of the Dao Chamara got injured and died. Question: PW-8 Joynul Haque Borbhuyan, the I/O has deposed that you were absconding. On 15.4.2005, when the VDP people of Kachujan Tea Estate informed about detaining you, he went to Kachujan Tea Estate, and, when Bipul Kumar Nag, Samil Nanda etc. handed you over along with the "Kalam Dao" that you used in the incident, he seized from you the Dao by Ext-4 Seizure List, and, sent you to the Court after arresting you. What is your reply ? Answer: When police came, I myself appeared before the police along with the Dao used in the incident and police seized the Dao. Question: PW-9 Dr. Pranab Kumar Dutta has deposed that on 15.4.2005, while he carried out inquest (post mortem examination) over the dead body of Chamara, he found total 4 numbers of incised wound over the chest and arms of Chamara's dead body and for those injuries Chamara died. Did you kill Chamara by hacking with sharp weapon? What is your reply ? Answer: I caused cut injury on the arm of Chamara by hacking. I did not cause the other injuries. Question: PW-10 Bipul Nag has deposed that you were absconding in Section-6 of Kachujan Tea Estate after killing Chamara Mura. Did you kill Chamara by hacking with sharp weapon? What is your reply ? Answer: I caused cut injury on the arm of Chamara by hacking. I did not cause the other injuries. Question: PW-10 Bipul Nag has deposed that you were absconding in Section-6 of Kachujan Tea Estate after killing Chamara Mura. Subsequently, (they) caught you along with a "Kalam Kotari" (cutting weapon) and handed you over to the police. What is your reply? Answer: Some people cordoned me while I was in my home. Meanwhile police came and took me away. 6. PW 1 was told about the incident by his brother, sister and mother that the accused Bhola Tanti had hacked his father with a dao. However, all these family members were not examined by the prosecution. In this way, the testimony of PW 1 is virtually a hearsay one. 7. PW 3 has not said anything about the involvement of the appellant in the incident. PW 4 was reported about the incident by PW 1, whose testimony has already been declared as a hearsay one. Similarly, PW 5 has also deposed that he heard that Bhola Tanti had killed Chamara. However, he has not disclosed the name of the person from whom he heard about the involvement of the appellant. 8. PWs 6 and 10 have deposed that the accused was apprehended in the early morning from the garden and a dao like weapon was also seized from his possession. The Investigating Officer has also corroborated the aforesaid witnesses that the accused was apprehended by the VDP personnel and he was handed over to him with a Dao. The weapon was seized vide Exbt.4. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer had deposed that he reached the garden at about 8.00 AM and took over the custody of the accused from the VDP members and at 8.25 AM he reached the site of the offence. However, according to the accused he was apprehended from his quarter and not from the tea garden. 9. PW 2 claims that he was present at the place of occurrence. However, according to the accused he was apprehended from his quarter and not from the tea garden. 9. PW 2 claims that he was present at the place of occurrence. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution since he had resiled from the earlier statement given before the I.O., wherein it was stated that on the relevant day at about 7.30 PM the accused had an altercation with him and when the deceased intervened he was assaulted with a dao by the accused and fled away. While giving the testimony in the court, PW 1 deposed that he came out of the house hearing hue and cry. The witness has further deposed that he saw Chamara lying with cut injuries over his chest and hand and he also met the family members of the deceased at the place of occurrence. According to PW 2 he was told by the people that Bhola Tanti had committed the offence. Thereafter, PW 2 took the injured to the garden hospital where he was declared dead. The witness was given a suggestion by the prosecution that he was deposing falsely by concealing the truth to save the accused from punishment. However, no concrete suggestion was given as to why the witness was interested to save the accused. Had it been so the accused would not have deposed in the chief examination that he heard that the offence was committed by the accused. 10. In view of the discussion of the oral evidence of the witnesses, it is the admitted position that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the self indictable statement given by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 11. Under Sub Section (4) to Section 313 Cr.P.C. the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration but such statements cannot take the place of legal evidence against the accused himself. 12. In the case of State of U.P. -vs Lakhmi; reported in (1998) 4 SCC 336 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the answers given by the accused should be given due weightage; though it does not mean that such answers could be made the sole basis of any finding. 12. In the case of State of U.P. -vs Lakhmi; reported in (1998) 4 SCC 336 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the answers given by the accused should be given due weightage; though it does not mean that such answers could be made the sole basis of any finding. Similarly, in the case of Basavaraj R. Patil -Vs- State of Karnataka; reported in (2000) 8 SCC 740 , the Apex Court has observed that the object of examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is explicit in the Section itself and the object is to enable the accused personally to explain the circumstances appearing against him. Their Lordships have further observed that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as a corollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion. At the same time, the Apex Court has further held that it should be born in mind that the provision is not intended to nail an accused to any position, but to comply with the salutary provision of natural justice. Yet again in the case of Sanatan Naskar -Vs- State of West Bengal; reported in (2010) 8 SCC 249 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the answers given under 313 Cr. P.C., are relevant for finding truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case but are not strictly evidence and such statements can be used within permissible limits envisaged by the law. 13. It is the settled position of law that in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The burden shifts upon the accused only when specific alibi is taken. In the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mahender Singh Dahiya; reported in (2011) 3 SCC 109 , the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that no matter how a diabolical is the crime, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Their Lordships have further recorded a note of caution not to become emotional and subjective when faced with crimes of depravity and the courts have to be extra cautious and not to be swayed by strong sentiments of repulsion and disgust. 14. In the case at hand, there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the offence was exclusively committed by the appellant. 14. In the case at hand, there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the offence was exclusively committed by the appellant. Even if it is presumed that the FIR was lodged promptly against the accused that itself cannot be a strong evidence to hold the appellant guilty. The weapon that was seized from the possession of the appellant was neither sent for serological test nor the weapon was placed before the autopsy doctor to obtain his opinion that the wounds inflicted upon the deceased could have been caused by the said weapon. At this stage it may be mentioned herein that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused is admitting only about inflicting injury on the arm and not on the chest, found during autopsy. Besides this, the indictable statement of the accused is also qualified inasmuch as the accused has stated that the deceased had sustained the injuries when he attempted to snatch the dao. Above all, the prosecution has also failed to prove any motive for committing the offence by the accused. In this way, the prosecution also failed to prove as to under what circumstances, if at all, the accused had committed the crime. 15. In view of the gross deficiencies it would not be safe to affirm the conviction of the appellant for a serious crime like murder, which invites minimum punishment of imprisonment for life. In other words, it is a fit case wherein the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. Since the appellant is in jail, the Registry shall issue the release order accordingly. 17. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to one day's hearing fee from the Legal Services Authority. In view of the provisions prescribed by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., the victim or his/her dependants are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. In the light of the directions, given in the case of Jalilur Rahman -vs- State of Assam, reported in 2012(1) GLT 238, with regard the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: (i) As an interim measure, an amount of Rs. In the light of the directions, given in the case of Jalilur Rahman -vs- State of Assam, reported in 2012(1) GLT 238, with regard the victim compensation, as provided by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., we make the following directions: (i) As an interim measure, 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. (ii) 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. 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 favour of the State Government. Appeal allowed.