Judgment : Girish Chandra Gupta, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed in Sessions Case No.13 of 2010 connected with Sessions Trial No.12 of 2011 (The State Vs. Shankar Narayan) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, convicting the sole accused of the offences punishable under sections 307/436/506- II/427/429/324 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 18.06.2012 the learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 324 I.P.C; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 363 I.P.C., in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under section 429 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 427 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under section 506 Part-II IPC and further directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.two lakhs to the defacto complainant and a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the injured Vishnu Das, in default liberty was given to them to put the order for payment of compensation into execution by taking steps as per procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:- The accused Shankar Narayan, a policeman, was married to Smti.Sivagami Laxmi (PW.8). The accused was in the habit of gambling. He was provided with a motorcycle for the discharge of his official duties. He mortgaged the motorcycle. Departmental proceedings in the circumstances were initiated against him but he was treated with leniency and was transferred to Restcamp at Mayabunder. The accused did not however change his ways. In the year 2002, he stole a rifle from the office and escaped to Chennai. He was brought back to Port Blair and proceeded against. He remained in jail for sometime. The accused did not however change his ways. In the year 2002, he stole a rifle from the office and escaped to Chennai. He was brought back to Port Blair and proceeded against. He remained in jail for sometime. Ever since his marriage or soon after he started assaulting his wife. As a result, she in the year 2008 came back to her paternal house with her minor child known as Ajith. Her father was not at home for some time due to his eye operation. The accused started insisting upon his wife to resume co-habitation, to which she was not agreeable. Enraged by her reluctance the accused assaulted her black and blue and also inflicted injuries with a dah (sharp weapon). She, it appears, was in the hospital for her treatment for quite a long time exceeding 20 days. She lodged a complaint with the police. While the case was under investigation under various stages, the accused started pressurizing her and her near relations for the withdrawal of the case, to which she was not agreeable. This enraged the accused further. In the midnight of 25th/26th December, 2009 the accused intruded into the paternal house of his wife. Vishnu Das (PW.25), a household servant of the defacto complainant was at that time in the Kela Bagicha (Banana Orchard) adjacent to the house of the defacto complainant. Alerted by the barking of dogs he switched on his torch and saw some one hiding. He demanded disclosure of identity. The accused then came forward and dealt severe blows by the dah in his hand. PW.25 naturally screamed for help. The defacto complainant (PW.1), the father-in-law of the accused from inside wanted to know as to what had happened. He opened the door. The accused, as soon as the door was opened, started dealing blows upon the defacto complainant. Rest of the members of the family woke up by the hue and cry but no one dared to catch hold of the accused. They rather tried to escape. Some of them escaped to the house of PW.5. The accused, it appears, had come prepared with petrol. He set the house of the defacto complainant on fire. The house was totally burnt down. Twelve pets inside the house were burnt to death. The accused did not stop there. They rather tried to escape. Some of them escaped to the house of PW.5. The accused, it appears, had come prepared with petrol. He set the house of the defacto complainant on fire. The house was totally burnt down. Twelve pets inside the house were burnt to death. The accused did not stop there. He took the minor grandson of the defacto complainant hostage and ran away from the place of occurrence. In the morning of 26.12.2009 he was seen with the minor near a bus stand. The police was already looking for the accused. They arrived at the place where the accused was holding the minor captive. They found the accused with the dah placed on the neck of the minor. He continued to threat the police that he shall kill the minor in case the police attempted to apprehend him or in case they even tried to come near him. The police however succeeded in tactically overpowering him. He was unarmed and the child was rescued. The accused was arrested. At the trial, the Prosecution examined 35 witnesses. We shall briefly notice the evidence adduced by these witnesses.PW.1 is the father-in-law of the accused. He is also a retired police constable. PW.1 has given vivid account of the incident. The episode of his grandson being taken hostage by the accused was not however witnessed by him. Therefore, he did not depose with regard thereto. The accused himself cross-examined him although a lawyer was provided by the State. The cross-examination of P.W1 conducted by the accused himself reads as follows:- “…….Earlier police arrested the accused and the accused has been in custody since then. Then says I cannot say if the accused has been in custody since 2002. I saw in the television that in Chennai case was started against the accused. I cannot say if the accused has been in custody from that time or not. I cannot say the where about of the accused after starting of this case, if he was in custody or not. I never went to help the accused to get bail. I also cannot say if any person from the house of accused went to the accused for his bail or not. The occurrence took place during night and before switching on the light during occurrence it was dark and during occurrence I recognized the accused. I never went to help the accused to get bail. I also cannot say if any person from the house of accused went to the accused for his bail or not. The occurrence took place during night and before switching on the light during occurrence it was dark and during occurrence I recognized the accused. (At this stage accused is asked to take help from his given lawyer but he refused). During the time of occurrence accused was wearing pant and kameej (shirt). Accused inflicted blows on me and also attacked on me due to enmity. I saw the accused burning my house.” PW.8 is the wife of the accused. She deposed inter alia as follows: “After that we came back to our house and on the next day i.e. 30.08.2008 he anyhow came to our house but I could not mark him and as soon as I came to verandah during evening at about 6.30 PM, he came from my behind and caught hold of my hairs and dragged me out of the house by my hairs and then I fell in a ditch and then accused cut my left hand and also my right hand with a dao. At this stage witness showed her both hands and old injury marks are found on her both hands. After that accused also cut my both legs with dao and there are marks of old cut injuries on both legs of witness, then I became unconscious. After that it started raining and being soaked in rain water I gain my sense and then my neighbours and my brothers took me to hospital and case was registered against the accused. All these cases are separate cases. Whenever I would come to court in connection with those cases accused used to threatened my by stating that in case I did not withdraw those cases, he would cut my brothers. We also filed complaint further against him at the concerned PS. I again went back to Bajota and started residing with my father. Whenever I would come to court in connection with those cases accused used to threatened my by stating that in case I did not withdraw those cases, he would cut my brothers. We also filed complaint further against him at the concerned PS. I again went back to Bajota and started residing with my father. On 25.12.2009 we had dinner at about 8.00 PM during night and also went to sleep and at about 12.30 AM during night I heard some screaming noise by stating that, I no longer exist, (HUM NAHI HAI, HUM NAHI HAI) repeatedly and then I father woke and opened the rear door of the house and my father saw that servant of our house in multiple injuries and perhaps our that servant raised that cries “HUM NAHI HAI, HUM NAHI HAI” and immediately after that accused attacked my father and started assaulting my father with a dao and at that time the light was opened i.e. switched on and immediately I switched off the light and fled away with my son and came in front of my house and at that time I smelled smell of petrol in and around from my house and then I came to the house of Manoj locating nearby my house but when I was just on the way to the house of Manoj accused caught fire to our house and as I reached to the house of Manoj I saw our house fully caught fire and it was burning. After that I called one Mr. Hashim of Panighat which is place in Mayabunder, he is a social worker and I narrated the entire occurrence to him. After that my brothers also started fleeing out from the house and by that time one child of my brother namely Jaiganesh was caught hold by the accused and by that time our all family members namely Bidhalaxmi, Krishna Swamy, Murgaraj, had reached to the house of Manoj. After that my brothers also started fleeing out from the house and by that time one child of my brother namely Jaiganesh was caught hold by the accused and by that time our all family members namely Bidhalaxmi, Krishna Swamy, Murgaraj, had reached to the house of Manoj. After that accused keeping Jaiganesh in his clutch with one hand and armed dao in his another hand came in front of the house of Manoj and started threatening us by stating that if we did not come out he would cut the child Jaiganesh and he also at the same time started cutting chatai that was used as the wall attached to house of Manoj and from inside we could see him and the burning flame of our house also lighted the front portion of the house of Manoj and in that light we could see him (accused) in that light.” From the cross-examination of PW.8 conducted by the accused himself it appears that he disputed that PW.8 was his married wife. Cross-examination of PW.8 conducted by the accused himself reads inter alia as follows:- “I also remembered that you (accused) were arrested at Chennai. I did not go to help you to get bail but I sent money for your (accused) bail and by family member also did not go to get bail of you. I cannot say if anyone from you (accused) house went for your bail. I cannot say how you (accused) came out from Jail. I cannot say if there was any release order or bail order in that case. I cannot say if you were shifted from Chennai jail to Port Blair jail on numerous occasion. Not a fact that you (accused) remained in jail in connection with that case in Chennai. Volunteers: you came out from jail before but I cannot say the date. You have another case in Aberdeen PS. The case that was started after you cut me has not come for trial as yet. The servant Bishnu Das resided in our house and my father only kept him. I did not see you, when you cut our servant Bishnu Das but I only heard cries. You have another case in Aberdeen PS. The case that was started after you cut me has not come for trial as yet. The servant Bishnu Das resided in our house and my father only kept him. I did not see you, when you cut our servant Bishnu Das but I only heard cries. When you cut my father I was just to some away from him but I could not save my father from your attack because of fear and also due to injuries on my father from you attack because of fear and also due to injuries on my hand due to cut by you earlier and at that time I properly recognized you. Now I cannot say the wearing apparels that you wear at that time but at that time it was not dark, but light was there and I could not understand the colour of your clothes at that time. I cannot say if you caught fire to our house. I reached in the house of Manoj between 01.00 AM to 01.30 AM. But you were not at that place before I reached in the house of Manoj. One of the son of my brother was inside. Manoj, Jaipal and others including me saw you coming in front of the house of Manoj. Not a fact that my brother did not like you and most often quarrel with you.” PW.25 is another injured victim namely Shri Vishnu Das. He deposed inter alia as follows: “I Know Srinivas Perumal of Bajota because I worked under him. Manoj, Jaipal and others including me saw you coming in front of the house of Manoj. Not a fact that my brother did not like you and most often quarrel with you.” PW.25 is another injured victim namely Shri Vishnu Das. He deposed inter alia as follows: “I Know Srinivas Perumal of Bajota because I worked under him. On 25.12.2009 I had been working under Srinivas Perumal, on that day during night I had taken my night food and I was just going to my bed and at about 12.30 AM during that night I heard the barking of dogs, at that time having heard the barking of dogs I took out my torch light and just came out of my house and after coming out of my house I focused light and in the light of torch I saw one man standing behind the pillar of the house of Srinivas Perumal, and then I wanted to know from that man as to who he was and immediately that man pushed me down on the ground and started cutting me with a dao in his hand, and I sustained multiple injury all over my body including face, legs, hands etc. and then to save my life I raised high cries uttering hum nahi hai, hum nahi hai. Having heard my cries my landlord Srinivas Perumal wanted to know from me as to what happened with me and he i.e. Srinivas Perumal enquired this from inside the room of his house. At this stage witness identified the accused by stating that this is that person who cut me at that time during that night and immediately after cutting me he also kicked opened the door of the house of Srinivas Perumal and entered inside the house and starting cutting Srinivas Perumal with the dao in his hand and at that time only Srinivas Perumal raised cries and immediately accused set fire to the house of Srinivas Perumal and the house of Srinivas Perumal started burning One Kela bagicha which is located in front of the house of Srinivas Perumal and I was lying there when police came after some time, police lifted me from that place and ambulance took me Tugapur medical and I got medical treatment at that place.” PW.18 is the wife of the defacto complainant. She deposed about the incident in which both the defacto complainant and PW.25 were injured; their house was set on fire which resulted in the death of the animals and loss of property. PW.5 is the neighbour of PW.1. The wife (P.W.8) of the accused and the other family members of her father (PW.1) took shelter in his house. PW.5 after giving them shelter inside his house closed the door. The accused came to his house and insisted upon sending out Krishnaswamy, son of PW.1. PW.5 deposed inter alia as follows:- “During that night at about 12.30 AM Smti Shivagami Laxmi, Krishanaswamy and with three children came to my house running and Smti Sundri alias Shivagami Laxmi stated to me that her husband Shankar Narayan had come to our house and cut her father and their servant Bishnu and her husband Shankar Narayan also burnt her house and being terrified she entered into my house and requested me to close the door as her husband Shankar Narayan had been chasing them from behind. I then closed the door of my house and a short time Shankar Narayan came to house holding dao in one of his hand and holding the child of Krishnaswamy by other hand, and the name of that child is Jaiganesh and standing just outside the door of my house Shankar Narayan threatened me by stating that I should immediately take out Krishanaswamy out of the house otherwise he would cut the child Jaiganesh, who was in his clutch at the time. The accused Shankar Narayan is present in court (identified) and he is the person who did all these during that time during night. After that accused Shankar Narayan also threatened that in case I did not take out Krishanaswamy from my house, then he would also burn my house and then after that he started cutting bamboo chatai that was affixed with wall of my house.” The accused himself cross-examined him. The cross-examination of PW.5 by the accused himself reads as follows:- “Not a fact that I am deposing falsely due to police. Volunteers: I have stated what I know. When you i.e. accused came in front of my house, there was light in front of my house. You (accused) came in front of my house during night and it was 12.30 AM during night. Volunteers: I have stated what I know. When you i.e. accused came in front of my house, there was light in front of my house. You (accused) came in front of my house during night and it was 12.30 AM during night. I know you (accused) from before as I saw you performing duty. I also heard about your (accused’s) earlier cases. Not a fact that on the day you (accused) did not come to my house due to remaining in jail in connection with other cases. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely. I have recognized you (accused). Now I cannot remember the clothes that you (accused) wore during that night when you (accused) came in front of my house. I did not see who burnt the house of Srinivasan but I was told by the family of srinivasan that you (accused) only burnt that house. I cannot say now, by which hand you (accused) caught hold of the child and by which hand you (accused) caught hold of the dao when you (accused) and came in front of my house during that night. Both Sundari alias Shivagami and Krishswamy are staying together in a house. I saw you (accused) earlier quarreling with your wife Shivagami alias Sundari. Distance between my house and house of Srinivasan in about 200/250 mtrs.” PW.13 is the wife of PW.5. PW.16 is the brother of PW.5. Both PW.13 and PW.16 corroborated the evidence of PW.5. PW.23 is the cousin of PW.16. He is a witness to the incident which took place in front of the house of PW.5 as also to the capturing of the accused. He is also a witness to the seizure of the offending weapon. PW.14 and 15 were both personnel of Fire Brigade. They participated in extinguishing the fire in the house of the defacto complainant (PW.1). PW.7 is the Sub Inspector of Fire Police. He deposed inter alia as follows:- “Going to the place of occurrence I found that house of Srinivasan Perumal was fully gutted and the fire from that house was spreading to nearby jhopri of one shri Telespho Kujur. I immediately poured water from fire tender on the jhopri to prevent fire at that place first and then I poured water to the house of Perumal to douse the fire. I immediately poured water from fire tender on the jhopri to prevent fire at that place first and then I poured water to the house of Perumal to douse the fire. I then made spot inspection and at that time from the wife of accused Shankar Narayan I came to know that accused Shankar Narayan had caught fire to the house of Srinivasan Perumal”. PW.6 is the Ward Attendant of Tugapur Public Health Centre. He deposed that first aid was provided by the doctor of PHC to PW.1, Perumal and Vishnu Das, PW.25. PW.19 is the Head Constable of Hanspuri out post under the Mayabunder Police Station. He got information as regards the incident at 1.10 AM on 26.12.2009 telephonically. He rushed to the place of occurrence with the team of police. The information was given to the PW.19 by a social worker who was informed about the incident by PW.8. The said social worker is PW.2. P.W.20, PW.27 and PW.34 are the official witnesses who participated in the capture of the accused. They also rescued the child Jai Ganesh. PW.20 deposed as regards the incident of capturing the accused as follows: ““…… immediately after receiving this information SHO accompanying me came to the Bajota Bus stand and as soon as SHO and myself came to bus stand we found that accused had kept that minor boy Jay Ganesh in his clutch placing a sharp cutting weapon in the neck of that minor boy and in that condition he was seated in the bus stand and then he was surrounded by we police and then SHO requested Shankar Narayan to leave the boy and to come to him to make talks but accused Shankar Narayan refused to do so and he further stated that SHO should not dare to go near to him and in case SHO proceeded to go to him accused Shankar would commit murder of that boy Jay Ganesh. After that SHO started talking to accused Shankar standing from a distant place and then Shankar stated that SHO must call brother’s wife of Shankar to that place and in that case Shankar would come to SHO but he would keep that boy in his captivity. After that SHO started talking to accused Shankar standing from a distant place and then Shankar stated that SHO must call brother’s wife of Shankar to that place and in that case Shankar would come to SHO but he would keep that boy in his captivity. After that accused Shankar started coming out from bus stand keeping that boy captive in his clutch and proceeded towards the vehicle in the way that he had kept that boy in his clutch by one hand and also place dao in his other hand and then as he proceeded in that condition, a few police persons coming from behind caught hold of his dao and also that boy Jay Ganesh and thus accused Shankar was captured by police and then he was taken to police station. Shankar Narayan is present in Court (identified). On the way to police station from that place that minor boy Jay Ganesh was medically examined at PHC Tugapur and after that that boy was also taken to PS and at that time SHO interrogated accused Shankar Narayan.” PW.27 deposed in that regard as follows: “…….on the way near the bus stand at 40 acre we saw Shankar Narayan who had caught hold of a child in his grip and then we asked Shankar Narayan to stop but Shankar Narayan stated in reply to ask that he would not stop and also stating that by threatening that in case we tried to go to Shankar Narayan then Shankar Narayan would commit murder of that child he had kept in his grip at that time, after that our HC Ilangovan sent information of this matter to other police persons and we then started making Shankar Narayan to understand to release the child whom he had kept in his grip, and at that time the dao that was in the hand of Shankar Narayan was taken away by our Head Constable Ilangovan and then Shankar Narayan caught hold of and taken to our police vehicle. And after that the child whom Shankar Narayan kept in his grip was taken to PHC, Tugapur for medical treatment and Shankar Narayan taken to PS Mayabunder and after that Shankar Narayan was taken to medical for medical checkup and he was brought back to PS from medical. And after that the child whom Shankar Narayan kept in his grip was taken to PHC, Tugapur for medical treatment and Shankar Narayan taken to PS Mayabunder and after that Shankar Narayan was taken to medical for medical checkup and he was brought back to PS from medical. Shankar Narayan is present in the court, (identified).” PW.34 who took the lead role in the entire episode of capturing the accused deposed as follows: “I tried to make understand the accused Shankar Narayan that he had already committed serious offences and requested him to surrender but accused Shankar Narayan threatened me by stating that he would never surrender and in case I did anything to compel him to surrender he would first commit murder of that boy that he had kept hostage with him at the point of dao and I started proceeding towards the accused in that way and slowly also started going towards him and came just near to him and I further made him understand and then he agreed to become ready to accompanying me and as soon as I brought him in that manner near our police vehicle, he was suddenly caught hold of and his dao was first taken away and then he was overpowered by our police persons and then he was apprehended and then and the boy Jai Ganesh whom he kept hostage at the point of dao was taken away and then I handed over that boy to another head constable 1913 R. Ilangovan and I also seized the dao by preparing seizure memo at that place i.e. 40 acre, this is that seizure list. PW.9, a teacher by occupation engaged in a local primary school witnessed the incident which took place on 26.12.2009 and his deposition in that regard inter alia is as follows: “On 26.12.2013 I was posted at GM School Pudu Madurai. PW.9, a teacher by occupation engaged in a local primary school witnessed the incident which took place on 26.12.2009 and his deposition in that regard inter alia is as follows: “On 26.12.2013 I was posted at GM School Pudu Madurai. On that day I was going to Tugapur from Chainpur and on the way at Chalis Acre bus stand there was a gathering of persons including police persons and at that time I saw one person had taken one child in his clutch placing a dao on the neck of that child and that person at that time stated that in case the police tried to apprehend him he would cut the child in his clutch and it appears to me that child was about 7/8 years of age. This is that man (accused) who on that day caught hold of that child and fixed the dao on his neck i.e. on the neck of the child and threatened to kill the child in case police tried to apprehend him (identified the accused). After that I saw that police in a cautious manner had snatched away the dao from the hand of this man i.e. accused and thus save the child from the clutch of the accused.” PW.9 was cross-examined by the learned advocate of the accused, but nothing significant could be extracted from the witness which might impair the evidence of the witness adduced in his examination-in-chief. PW.30 is a Radiographer attached to the G.B.Pant Hospital, Port Blair. She examined both the defacto complainant and PW.25 and x-rayed various parts of the bodies of the victims. PW.35 is the Medical Officer attached to Tugapur Public Health Centre. He examined all the three victims namely, the defacto complainant, Vishnu Das and the minor Jai Ganesh. The following injuries were found to have been suffered by the minor Jai Ganesh: 1. “2 and half inch lineer scratch mark over upper part of the throat transversely. 2. 2 inch lineer scratch mark transversely over suprasternal (lower part of the throat) anteriorly. 3. 2 inch lineer scratch mark one fourth inch below and parallel to injury no. 2 as stated above. 4. One inch curced lineer scratch mark just above right clavicle. “2 and half inch lineer scratch mark over upper part of the throat transversely. 2. 2 inch lineer scratch mark transversely over suprasternal (lower part of the throat) anteriorly. 3. 2 inch lineer scratch mark one fourth inch below and parallel to injury no. 2 as stated above. 4. One inch curced lineer scratch mark just above right clavicle. One and one fourth inch lineer scratch mark over scalp behind right ear transversely, and……” According to the witness “all the injuries are simple in nature likely to be produced by sharp weapon and were fresh”. The following injuries were found to have been suffered by the defacto complainant (P.W.1) the father-in-law of the accused:- 1. “3 ½ inch X ¼ inch X ¼ inch vertical sharp cut wound on let side of forehead. 2. 3” X ¼” X 1/4 “ sharp cur wound on outer side of right arm near deltoid region. 3. 4 ½” X 3 ½” X 3 ½” deep sharp cut wound on lateral side of right forearm below elbow involving all extensor muscles belly in one plane with fracture of radius and ulna bone. 4. 4” X 2 ½” X ½” slashing sharp cut would on right forearm medially and distally exposing tendons and bones. 5. 3 ¼” deep through and through cut wound with lacerated margin on medical side of left hand at M.P joint level involving all muscles, vessels, nerves and bones coming medial 3 fingers hanging. 6. 2 ½” X 1 ½” x 1” sharp cut wound transversely over middle of right leg anteriorly involving partial cut of Tibia Bone. 7. 2 ½” X 1” X 1” sharp cut would transversely on dormex of right ankle joint medially. 8. 2 ½” X 1” X 1” sharp cut wound on antero medial side of left leg in middle. 9. 3 ½” X 1 ½” X 1” sharp cut wound over antero medial side of left knee exposing the left knee joint. 10.4” X 2 ½” X 2 ½” sharp cut wound over outer4 side of left deltoid region. 8. 2 ½” X 1” X 1” sharp cut wound on antero medial side of left leg in middle. 9. 3 ½” X 1 ½” X 1” sharp cut wound over antero medial side of left knee exposing the left knee joint. 10.4” X 2 ½” X 2 ½” sharp cut wound over outer4 side of left deltoid region. 11.2” X ¼” X ½” sharp cut wound over left shoulder joint superiorly.” ; According to the witness “collectively all these injuries taken together are dangerous to life and could have caused death and all these injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon.” The following injuries were found to have been suffered by Vishnu Das (P.W.25), the household servant of the defacto complainant: 1. “2 ½” X 1” X 1” sharp cut wound transversely above right knee on front of thigh anteriorly. 2. 2 ½” X 1” X 1” sharp cut wound transversely above left knee on lower part of front of left thigh. 3. 3” X 1 ½” X 1 ½” slashing type sharp cut wound over left palm thenar eminence involving muscle and tenders. 4. 2” X ½” X ¾” sharp cut wound vertically over forehead. 5. 1” X ½” X ½” sharp cut wound or right middle finger. 6. 1” X 1/8” X 1/8” sharp cut wound on nose.” According to the witness “collectively all injuries together is dangerous to life and could have caused death and were produced by heavy sharp cutting weapon.” Cross-examination of P.W.35 was declined. The offending weapon was seized by the police as indicated earlier and was sent to CFSL. The weapon was found to contain blood but the group of blood could not be ascertained because the same had disintegrated. The wearing apparels of the victim were also sent to CFSL and they were also found to contain human blood. PW.32 is a Veterinary Officer. He visited the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies of the animals and prepared post mortem report which was marked Ext.13. The wearing apparels of the victim were also sent to CFSL and they were also found to contain human blood. PW.32 is a Veterinary Officer. He visited the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies of the animals and prepared post mortem report which was marked Ext.13. The evidence adduced by PW.32, inter alia, is as follows: “During that time I examined carcass of 6 adult goats, 3 male and 3 female, and their kids numbering 5, I also examined one male buffalo calf, there were extensive third degree burnt injuries on their bodies, the third degrees means the injuries must be up to the born and all these animals died and cause of death of all these animals is due to axphyxia that is difficult in breathing and extensive burnt bleeding to shock and ultimate death.” PW.33 is the Deputy Tehsildar. He estimated the loss in terms of money at a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- The report filed by him is Ext.14. Mr. N.N.Nag, learned advocate appointed by this Court to represent the appellant advanced the following submissions:- He contended in the first place that there should have been a T.I. Parade of the accused because PW.25 Vishnu Das does not appear to have any previous acquaintance with him. PW.25 is the household servant of the defacto complainant. Even assuming that PW.25 was not earlier acquainted with the accused, the T.I. parade, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would have been an idle formality according to us. Because the accused in this case was arrested on 26.12.2009 from a public place, which is a bus stand and the incident was witnessed by a large number of persons. In the facts of the case, we are inclined to think that the T.I. parade was not really required. The second submission advanced by Mr.Nag was that the prosecution has not been able to fix the place of occurrence. He submitted that the prosecution is undecided as to where did the incident take place, i.e. inside the house of the defacto complainant or outside the house of the defacto complainant. We are not impressed by this submission. From the sketch map it would appear that adjacent to the house of the defacto complainant there is a banana orchard. PW.25 was assaulted in the banana orchard. We are not impressed by this submission. From the sketch map it would appear that adjacent to the house of the defacto complainant there is a banana orchard. PW.25 was assaulted in the banana orchard. When he started crying for help, the defacto complainant from inside his residence wanted to know as to what had happened. He also opened the door. The accused, who already was at the door, started assaulting the defacto complainant as soon as the door was opened. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission that the prosecution could not fix the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence in this case is not one. Mr.Mandal rightly contended that in the chargesheet the expression residence of the defacto complainant has been used. He contended that residence would include both the actual place of residence and the orchard adjacent to the residence. Mr. Nag contended that from the evidence of PW.25 it appears that PW.25 was not a resident of the house of the defacto complainant. Possibly, he had a separate residence. Even assuming that he had a separate residence the same does not militate against the case of the prosecution because the assault upon the PW.25 took place in the orchard and the defacto complainant was assaulted as soon as he opened the door of his residential quarter. The third submission advanced by Mr.Nag was that the charge under section 363 IPC has not been proved. He submitted that there is no evidence as to from whose custody the child Jai Ganesh was allegedly kidnapped by the accused. There is evidence to show that the child Jai Ganesh is the grandson of the defacto complainant and was in the house of the defacto complainant. There is plethora of evidence to show that the accused took the child hostage and thereafter used the child as a lever for the purpose of obtaining release of Krishnaswamy from the house of PW.5 and thereafter he used the child as a lever for the purpose of keeping the police at bay and for the purpose of preventing the police from arresting him. All the while he kept the child under the Dah placed at his neck or throat so that any attempt either to disarm the accused or to apprehend him could be thwarted by killing the child. All the while he kept the child under the Dah placed at his neck or throat so that any attempt either to disarm the accused or to apprehend him could be thwarted by killing the child. The facts and circumstances in which the child was rescued from the clutches of the accused have been adequately proved by the police personnel which we have already discussed. In the circumstance the fact that he was kidnapped is self evident. We are under the circumstances unable to agree with the submission of Mr.Nag that the charge under section 363 has not been proved. Next, Mr.Nag contended that the child’s statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. but he was never tendered as a witness during the trial. He is quite right that the child was not produced as a witness. But the omission to do so did not impair the credibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The fifth submission advanced by Mr.Nag was that the police had already been informed telephonically about the incident. Therefore, the statement of the defacto complainant recorded by the police and subsequently treated as an FIR is of no significance because, the police already knew about the incident and had already reached the place of occurrence. After embarking upon the investigation there was no question of recording a statement under section 154 of Cr.P.C. We do not agree with Mr.Nag. The information received by the police telephonically was a cryptic information furnished for immediate intervention which cannot be treated as an FIR. Reference in this regard may be made to the views expressed in the judgment reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 (Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana Vs. State of West Bengal) and (2010) 6 SCC 1 { Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) }. In any event, the distinction between an FIR and a statement recorded by the police during investigation under section 161 Cr.P.C. is that the latter can be used only for the purpose of contradiction whereas the former can be used for corroboration of the earlier statement. In this case, the evidence with regard to case of the prosecution is so overwhelming that no occasion arose to make any special use of the FIR recorded by the police under section 154 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination of the defacto complainant no contradiction was pointed out either. In this case, the evidence with regard to case of the prosecution is so overwhelming that no occasion arose to make any special use of the FIR recorded by the police under section 154 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination of the defacto complainant no contradiction was pointed out either. Lastly, Mr.Nag contended that regard being had to the fact that there has been no loss of human life, the quantum of punishment should be reduced to ten years. Mr.Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for reduction of the sentence. He drew our attention to the submissions made by the accused himself when the learned Trial Court called upon him to put his version on the quantum of punishment. The appellant told the Trial Court as follows: “…Convict Shankar Narayan has stated that if he will be given any punishment then he will stop taking food and die without going for appeal and before dying in that way he will anyhow come out and shoot the defacto complainant, his daughter Shivagami and all others of them.” Mr.Mandal submitted that the threat given by the accused in the open Court to finish the entire family of the defacto complainant cannot be lightly taken. He submitted that the appellant is a furious type of person. He was a police constable. He lost his service due to his misconduct which included theft of government property including a rifle. He repeatedly assaulted his wife with deadly weapon for which the wife was in hospital for months. He contended that any leniency, if shown to the appellant, would not only endanger the life of the defacto complainant and his family members but also the entire society shall be at stake. Considering the greater interest of the society, the theory of prevention should be applied and the appellant should not be permitted to budge out from the jail during his life time. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the opinion that the submission of Mr.Mandal does have some substance. It would not be safe to show any leniency to the appellant. He was given appropriate punishment by the learned Trial Court. We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has accurately assessed the evidence. Both the conviction and punishment are well founded. No interference is called for. In the result, the appeal fails and is, dismissed. It would not be safe to show any leniency to the appellant. He was given appropriate punishment by the learned Trial Court. We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has accurately assessed the evidence. Both the conviction and punishment are well founded. No interference is called for. In the result, the appeal fails and is, dismissed. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the accused lodged in the Correctional Home, Prothrapur, Port Blair, forthwith. Let the lower court records be sent down immediately to the learned Trial Court. Dipankar Datta, J: I agree.