JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred for killing of the minor victim child who was 2 1/2 years old at the relevant time. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 21.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, in the Sessions Case No. 32 of 2009. After convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3, 000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for another three months. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. We have heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the prosecution evidence of the trial court. The defence case is that at the relevant time there was a quarrel in between the parents of the child. Suddenly, the father attempted to assault his wife with a knife which accidently fell on the deceased child. However, no defence evidence was adduced in this regard. In our opinion, the defence story is totally unreliable inasmuch as two sharp cut injuries were found inflicted on the person of the minor child. As per the doctor (P.W. 3) two sharp cut injuries were found on the occipital area. In our considered opinion, 2 (two) fatal injuries could not have fallen on the deceased child accidentally. 3. Out of 6 witnesses, P.W. 5 is the mother of the child. The incident took place before her eyes. This witness has deposed that while she was preparing some food in the kitchen, the deceased child was also in the kitchen, holding her sari. Suddenly, the accused came and assaulted her daughter and as a result of the assault the victim fell on the ground. Soon thereafter, P.W. 5 shouted for help and thereafter, the appellant attempted to run away but he was caught by the people. She has also deposed that there was no quarrel between her and her husband. 4. In the cross-examination, the story of quarrel between the husband and wife was raised, which has already been rejected in the previous paragraph. 5. P.W. 4 is the immediate neighbour of the victim family. She has also deposed that there was no quarrel between her and her husband. 4. In the cross-examination, the story of quarrel between the husband and wife was raised, which has already been rejected in the previous paragraph. 5. P.W. 4 is the immediate neighbour of the victim family. She has deposed that hearing the outcry of the victim's mother, she went to her house and found the accused assaulting the child on her neck. P.W. 4 has further deposed that when she raised hue and cry, the accused also chased her. At that time the father of the child was not at home. 6. P.W. 2 is the father of the deceased child and he was not at home at the relevant time. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 1 Gaonburha is that when he went to the place of occurrence, the accused was kept under hold. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecution has proved the case on the basis of ocular testimony of P.Ws-4 & 5. The defence story is totally unbelievable. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this case. The appeal stands dismissed. 9. It is ordered that the State of Assam shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the family of the deceased as compensation under Section 357(A) of the Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be deposited in the office of the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur, within a period of 2 (two) months from today. On receipt of the money the same shall be paid to the family of the Deceased Child. 10. The learned amicus curiae, Mr. K. Baruah shall be entitled to one day's hearing fee. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam. In favour of Department