JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellant, herein, has been convicted for the murder of his own wife. Hence, this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2010. By this impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter, in short 'IPC'), and he has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), with default stipulation of further RI for 3 (three) months under Section 302 IPC. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the convict has preferred this appeal from jail. Since the appeal was filed from jail Sri P.D. Nair, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel was found absent. Hence, we appointed Sri A.R .Talukdar, as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant. 2. We have heard Sri A.R. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri B.J. Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. We have also perused the impugned Judgment and the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the incident took place in the night of 19.10.2009, at about 10:00 pm. At that time, the deceased was with her husband and 2 (two) children. Suddenly, people from the neighbourhood heard the hue and cry and thy rushed to the house of the accused. However, the accused did not allow them to enter the house and instead chased them away by showing a dao. Hence, the Police was informed. Subsequently, the accused was overpowered and the dead body of his wife was found inside his dwelling house. The formal FIR was lodged by the VDP Secretary (PW-1) on the next morning. After registering the case under Section 302 IPC, the accused was arrested and after investigation chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter, the accused has been convicted for the said offence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Only 8 (eight) witnesses were examined to establish the aforesaid offence. PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 are the co-villagers; PW-3 is the uncle of the accused and the remaining witnesses are either Police Officers or Autopsy Doctor. 5. Thereafter, the accused has been convicted for the said offence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Only 8 (eight) witnesses were examined to establish the aforesaid offence. PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 are the co-villagers; PW-3 is the uncle of the accused and the remaining witnesses are either Police Officers or Autopsy Doctor. 5. All the non-official witnesses have deposed in tandem that hearing the outcry of the deceased they went to the house of the accused and found him carrying a dao. The accused was also found in an angry mood and he did not allow the witnesses to enter the house. Thereafter, the incident was reported to the Police by PW-1, being the VDP Secretary. On his information, the Police came and overpowered the accused and seized one dao from his possession. Thereafter, the witnesses entered the house and found the dead body of his wife. PWs-1 and 3 have further deposed that on being enquired the daughter of the accused had told them that her father, i.e., the accused killed her mother after a brief quarrel. 6. No suggestion was given to any witness that at the relevant time, the appellant was not at home or that the offence was committed by any other person. The defence plea was of total denial. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also the accused has not denied his presence in the house at the time of the murder. Be that as it may, PWs-1 and 3 have deposed that the complicity of the appellant was told to them by the daughter of the accused. Though the daughter of the accused/deceased was not examined by the prosecution but all the circumstances are sufficient to hold that the offence was committed by the appellant and none else. 7. PW-8 is the autopsy doctor. During post-mortem examination, he found as many as 6 (six) deep wounds on the vital organs, occipital region, parietal region, neck, vertex etc. In the opinion of the doctor, the victim died instantaneously and the injuries must have been inflicted with heavy sharp weapon. 8. In view of repeated dao blows on the vital organs, we find no difficulty to hold that the deceased was killed with definite intention. 9. Nothing is forthcoming from the evidence on record that the offence was committed under grave and certain provocation. 8. In view of repeated dao blows on the vital organs, we find no difficulty to hold that the deceased was killed with definite intention. 9. Nothing is forthcoming from the evidence on record that the offence was committed under grave and certain provocation. We further hold that even if a quarrel had preceded the assault the accused had exceeded the provocation. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently, the same stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court are hereby affirmed. 11. It is ordered that Sri A.R. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to one day's hearing fees. 12. Section 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, provides for granting compensation to the victim(s). Since the deceased is survived by 2 (two) children, we hereby direct the Government of Assam to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to the 2 (two) minor children as provided under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. The Government shall deposit the compensation amount in the Office of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the compensation, the learned Sessions Judge shall disburse the same to the children of the deceased after obtaining proper identification and receipt. The Registry is directed to return the LCRs. along with a copy of this judgment. At the same time, the Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, for necessary action. Appeal dismissed