JUDGMENT M.R. Pathak, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellants, namely, Sri Hiren Das, Sri Kiran Das and Sri Jitu Das against the Judgment of conviction dated 20th May, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (First Track Court) No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 102(K) of 2008 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to a pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further term of simple imprisonment of 1 (one) year. On the basis of the G.D. Entry No. 723 dated 30th April, 2006 recorded at around 8:15 A.M. by the Officer-in-Charge of the Palashbari Police Station, based on the information furnished by Sri Mukut Das, stating that while his father Basanta Das and his uncle Bhabit Das were ploughing in their paddy field, elder brother of said Mukut Das namely, Jitu Das along with his brother Hiren Das and Kiron Das, badly assaulted his father Basanta Das (PW-4) and his uncle Bhabit Das, the investigating agency started the investigation, during which visited the place of occurrence and on finding Bhabit Das and Basanta Das with injuries, sent Bhabit Das to Gauhati Medical College Hospital and Basanta Das to nearby hospital for treatment. 2. Subsequently, a written First Information Report dated 30th April, 2005 was lodged by Smt. Putul Das, wife of Bhabit Das stating that on 30th April, 2005 at around 7:00 A.M., while her husband Bhabit Das and brother-in-law Basanta Das were ploughing at their paddy field, Sri Hiren Das, his wife Smt. Damayanti, his brothers, namely, Jitu and Kiran, who stay nearby, attacked them with dagger (dao) and stick (lathi), for which her husband suffered grave injuries on his head and leg, who is fighting with his life at the Gauhati Medical College Hospital, and brother-in-law on his hand. 3. Accordingly, Palashbari Police Station Case No. 80/2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2221/2006, was registered on 2nd May, 2006 under Sections 326/34 IPC against the FIR named accused persons. 3. Accordingly, Palashbari Police Station Case No. 80/2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2221/2006, was registered on 2nd May, 2006 under Sections 326/34 IPC against the FIR named accused persons. During investigation, the police visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As the injured victim Bhabit Das expired on 4th May, 2006 at GMC Hospital, during the investigation, police conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and sent the said dead body for post mortem examination. As the victim Bhabit Das died because of the aforesaid incident, as per order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati along with Sections 326/34 of the IPC, Section 302 IPC was added in said Palashbari P.S. Case No. 80/2006. 4. On completion of the investigation of the Palashbari P.S. Case No. 80/2006, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 49 dated 31st May, 2007 against the present accused appellants under Sections 326/302/34 IPC. As the offence under Section 302 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati by its order dated 4th April, 2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 2221/2006 committed the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Guwahati, for trial. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati on receipt of the aforesaid case record, registered the same as Sessions Case No. 102(K)/2008 and by its order dated 18th April, 2008 transferred the same to the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 4, Guwahati for disposal. 6. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 4, Guwahati on 23rd April, 2007 in the said Sessions Case No. 102(K)/2008 framed the charges against the accused appellants under Sections 302/326/34 IPC, which were read over and explained to them, against which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. As such the trial commenced. 7. During the pendency of the said proceeding, learned District & Sessions, Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati vide order dated 13th July, 2009 transferred the said case record to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, for trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, has examined 8 (eight) witnesses, namely, Dr. Tarun Kumar Das (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; Smti. 8. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, has examined 8 (eight) witnesses, namely, Dr. Tarun Kumar Das (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; Smti. Putul Das (PW-2), wife of the deceased, who lodged the First Information Report (FIR); Sri Bhabesh Das (PW-3); Shri Basanta Das (PW-4), brother of the deceased; Sri Mukut Das (PW-5), son of PW-4; Mustt. Anita Bibi (PW-6); Mustt. Rajina Bibi (PW-7) and Sri Kulendra Mandal (PW-8), S.I. of Police, who conducted the first part of the investigation. The defence side also examined 2 (two) witnesses, namely, Sri Pranab Das (DW-1) and Sri Suren Das (DW-2). 9. On completion of recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., of the three accused person were recorded. The learned Additional District and Session Judge, (FTC) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence, has recorded the Judgment of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence. 10. Dr. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, referring to the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, has submitted that the appellants have been convicted, based on the circumstantial evidence, which according to the trial Court, appear against the appellants, there being admittedly no eye witness to the occurrence. The learned counsel submits that though the prosecution case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution, however, could not prove any incriminating circumstances against any of the appellants and hence, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellants. Referring to the prosecution case of making a dying declaration by the deceased before the PW-2, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution could not prove the presence of the PW-2 in the place of occurrence. The learned counsel in that regard referring to the evidence of PW-3 has stated that though this witness has deposed that the deceased was found lying on the road in the paddy field with the head injuries, he, however, did not speak about the presence of either the accused persons or of PW-2 at the place of occurrence. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the PW-4 also did not say anything relating to the PW-2's presence in the place of occurrence. 11. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the PW-4 also did not say anything relating to the PW-2's presence in the place of occurrence. 11. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-3 as well as the PW-4, who reached the place of occurrence after it occurred, have deposed that the deceased, who suffered the head injuries, was unable to speak, though alive. It has also been submitted that PW-8, the Investigating Officer, in his deposition has also supported the PW-3 and PW-4 in that regard, by deposing that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found that the deceased was already brought to the main road and was unconscious. 12. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the version of PW-2 about her presence in the place of occurrence as well as making a statement by the deceased that the appellants have inflicted the injuries on his person, cannot be accepted. That apart, the learned counsel submits that the GD Entry based on which the investigation has been started has not been proved by the prosecution. The learned counsel also submits that the alleged weapon of assault, which the Investigating Officer has allegedly seized from the appellant No. 3, Jitu Das, has not been produced before the Court and there is also no evidence that the same has sent for the serological examination to ascertain as to whether it contains the human blood. 13. Dr. Lal referring to the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., more particularly, their statement against question No. 16, has submitted that it was in fact Mukut (PW-5) and Basanta (PW-4), who quarrelled with their father Bhabit Das, the deceased, over the land, who may have committed the crime and tried to put the blame on the appellants. Dr. Lal submits that since the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and there being no incriminating circumstantial evidence against the appellants, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants needs to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Dr. Lal submits that since the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and there being no incriminating circumstantial evidence against the appellants, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants needs to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting the Judgment of conviction has submitted that it is evident from the deposition of the PW-4, Basanta Das, before he was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution, that when he and his elder brother Bhabit Das, the deceased, were busy in cultivating in their paddy field, the appellants went there and started arguing with their father Bhabit Das, the deceased, and when PW-4 asked them not to argue, then accused Hiren chased him and hit him by stick for which he received cut injury in his hand and somehow he escaped from the clutches of the accused and ran away from said place. Moreover, while said PW-4 was running away, he met his son PW-5 Mukut Das on his way, who was coming to the paddy filed to give him tea and when said PW-4 told him about the said incident, Mukut Das, the PW-5, went to the Palashbari Police Station to report the matter and as such G.D. Entry No. 723 dated 30th April, 2006 was recorded in said Police Station, on the basis of which the PW-8, the I.O. along with other police personnel of Palashbari Police Station came to the place of occurrence. This fact has been corroborated by the PW-8, the first investigating officer of the case, stating that the PW-5, Mukut Das went to the police station, informed that while his father PW-4 and deceased were engaged in ploughing the field, his brother Hiren Das and Kiran have badly assaulted his father Basanta Das and Bhabit Das. Mr. Mazumdar pointed out that the accused appellants were very much present in the place of occurrence with the deceased and PW-4 saw them arguing with their father and that the deceased suffered as many as 8 (eight) cut injuries. Mr. Mazumdar also submits that the defence did not controvert this part of evidence of PW-4 made by him in chief prior to declaring him as hostile by prosecution. Mr. Mazumdar also submits that the defence did not controvert this part of evidence of PW-4 made by him in chief prior to declaring him as hostile by prosecution. Hence, according to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has rightly recorded the judgment of conviction. 15. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence on record adduced by both the parties, apart from the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 16. PW-1, Dr. Tarun Kumar Das, who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased on 5th April, 2006, found the following injuries: (i) Stitched wound of size 10 c.m. long, closed by 6 Nos. of stitches present over vault of skull on left frontal and left parietal region and on opening the wound, found underneath bone, mangins, brain having cut and brain exposed. (ii) Stitched wound of size 7 c.m. long, closed by 5 Nos. stitches present over left parietal region, placed obliquely 9 c.m. above the outer canthus of left eye, 7 c.m. left from midline and on opening the wound, found adherent blood clot present, underneath bone, mangins, brain having cut and brain exposed. (iii) Sharp cut injury of size 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. brain deep present over left parietal region, found adherent blood clot present. (iv) Sharp cut injury of size 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. deep present over outer of middle point of left arm and found adherent blood clot present. (v) Sharp cut injury of size 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep present over left scapula placed horizontally 8 c.m. left from midline, 5 c.m. below superior surface of scapula. (vi) Stitched wound of size 8 c.m. long, closed by 5 Nos. present stitches over back of upper part of left thigh. (vii) Stitched wound size of 8 c.m. long, closed by 4 Nos. of stitches present over back and lateral side of left ankle joint and on opening found adherent blood clot present. (viii) Stitched wound of size 6 c.m. long, closed by 3 Nos. stitches, present over medial aspect of lower part of right leg. The PW-1, on post mortem examination of the deceased also found (I) Membrane: meanings cut and lacerated; (II) Brain: cut and lacerated (III) Lungs: both congested and (IV) all other organs healthy. (viii) Stitched wound of size 6 c.m. long, closed by 3 Nos. stitches, present over medial aspect of lower part of right leg. The PW-1, on post mortem examination of the deceased also found (I) Membrane: meanings cut and lacerated; (II) Brain: cut and lacerated (III) Lungs: both congested and (IV) all other organs healthy. PW-1 opined that cause of the death of the deceased was due to coma resulting from head injury as aforesaid and all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The defence during cross-examination did not challenge the injuries found on the person of the deceased, its nature as well as the opinion of the doctor, noticed above. From the trend of the cross-examination, it appears that the defence case is that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by a pencil. 17. The prosecution, therefore, could prove that Bhabit Das died because of the injuries found on his body, which are antemortem, caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The question, which, therefore, requires consideration, is - whether the appellants are the authors of the crime? 18. The PW-2, Smti. Putul Das, the first informant and the second wife of the decease stated that the incident occurred at the field in the morning hours during the time of taking tea; she identified the accused persons and stated that they are the sons of first wife of her late husband. At the time of the incident her husband went for ploughing and Basanta (PW-4) and Mukut (PW-5) were near him. She was at her house, Mukut came running and told her that his uncle (PW-2's husband) has been cut/hacked by the accused persons. Immediately, she went to the place of occurrence and on reaching the place she found that the accused have already left the place by cutting her husband. As her husband was in a condition to speak, on being asked, he replied that the accused persons have cut him. She saw cut injuries in head, legs and hand of her husband. In the meanwhile police came to the place of occurrence and her husband was taken to the hospital. On 3rd night of the incident her husband died in the hospital. She saw cut injuries in head, legs and hand of her husband. In the meanwhile police came to the place of occurrence and her husband was taken to the hospital. On 3rd night of the incident her husband died in the hospital. She does not know why the accused persons cut her husband, since there was no animosity between them and the accused. In her cross, PW-2 stated that when the accused Hiren was about 12 (twelve) years old then onwards they used to live separately. The accused used to stay separately in the land of their father. Her husband told her that the land, wherein her husband was ploughing at the time of incident, belongs to him; but she does not know the land actually belongs to whom. She denied that said land is her husband's paternal property and that there was no partition of said land. She also stated that she is not aware that her mother-in-law donated said land to the accused as she was not informed about it. She denied that the accused were not cultivating over the said land since long, but stated that it is only Basanta Das (PW-4) who was cultivating over the same. 19. PW-3, Bhabesh Das, stated that knew the deceased Bhabit Das and PW-4 Basanta Das and that both the deceased and the PW-4 were brothers and that the incident occurred at around 9/9:30 A.M. and there is human habitation nearby the place of occurrence as it is the same paddy field wherein, the incident occurred. He also stated that while the incident occurred he was feeding his pigs in his farm and he resides about 2.5/3 K.ms. away from the place of occurrence. On hearing the scream of Basanta (PW-4) and Mukut (PW-5), he went to the place of occurrence and there he saw Bhabit Das (the deceased) lying on the path within the paddy field with head injury and when he wanted to bring the victim by lifting him, villagers gathered there stopped him and asked me to inform police. PW-3 stated that though at that point of time Bhabit Das (the deceased) was alive opening his eyes, but he was not in a condition to speak. He also stated that he, Basanta, Mukut and another took Bhabit to hospital, but he was not cured, died after two days. PW-3 stated that though at that point of time Bhabit Das (the deceased) was alive opening his eyes, but he was not in a condition to speak. He also stated that he, Basanta, Mukut and another took Bhabit to hospital, but he was not cured, died after two days. While on his way to inform police, he met them on the road, thereon police asked him about the incident and later on came to his residence to record his statement. At this stage prosecution declared him as hostile. 20. PW-4, Basanta Das, in his deposition stated that the deceased was his brother and the three accused are his nephew, sons of the deceased. He stated that incident occurred around 9/9:30 in the morning in the paddy field and near the place of occurrence he was making a barrier ('aali') in the paddy field by a hoe ('kodal') and his brother Bhabit (the deceased) was ploughing his land PW-4 further stated that his land and his brother's land are contiguous. PW-4 further stated that accused persons went to the place of occurrence and were arguing with Bhabit and when he asked them not to argue, accused Hiren chased him with stick to beat him and because of such argument, Bhabit stopped ploughing. PW-4 further stated that as accused Hiren chased him to hit him, he ran away to his home through the village. He also stated that while Mukut (PW-5) was about to reach the place of occurrence to serve him tea, he met him and as he saw him running, Mukut too ran away and after some time came to know that Bhabit was beaten up. When police came, he came to the place of occurrence with them and saw head injuries on Bhabit and was not in a condition to speak and police took Bhabit to hospital. PW-4 also stated that when accused Hiren hit him, he got injury on his point finger and took Kaviraji treatment and not medical treatment. Thereafter, PW-4 was declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. PW-5 Mukut Das deposed that deceased Bhabit Das was his paternal uncle/elder father (bordeuta) and injured Basanta Das is his father. PW-4 also stated that when accused Hiren hit him, he got injury on his point finger and took Kaviraji treatment and not medical treatment. Thereafter, PW-4 was declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. PW-5 Mukut Das deposed that deceased Bhabit Das was his paternal uncle/elder father (bordeuta) and injured Basanta Das is his father. He stated that on the day of the incident in the morning while he was bringing tea for his father to the paddy field wherein his father was putting up a barrier in the paddy field, he saw his uncle Bhabit Das lying on the ground but did not see the accused persons. He also stated that since he saw his uncle lying in the field, he went to his house and to the house of his uncle to inform them and later on he came to know that his uncle had some problem with his sons. He further stated that police brought his uncle to hospital in a vehicle and he, with his aunt and Bhabesh came in the police vehicle and father came later on and his uncle died while on treatment. Thereafter prosecution declared PW-5 as a hostile witness. 22. PW-6, Mustt. Anita Bibi, an independent witness stated that she does not know the deceased Bhabit Das and the injured victim Basanta Das. She has stated that the incident occurred in the paddy field which is at some distance from her house. She also stated that incident occurred in the morning hours. She saw neighbouring people running here & there and also saw that police had taken away the man with the cut injury in a vehicle through the road in front of her house, but she did not see any injury on said man. Thereafter, the said witness P.W. 6 was declared hostile by the prosecution. 23. Similarly, PW-7, Mustt. Rajina Bibi, another independent witness, stated she is not aware of the incident, does not know the accused person and when police came to the place of occurrence, she came out to her court yard, then see saw 4 police personnel and when police returned back, police asked her about the incident in her court yard only and at this point of time, prosecution declared her hostile. 24. 24. PW-8, the Investigating Officer of the case, who conducted the first part of the investigation before his transfer, in his evidence-in-chief stated that on the day of the incident, i.e. on 30th April, 2006 he was posted at Palashbari Police Station and in the morning hours PW-5 Mukut Das came to the police station, informed that his father PW-4 Basanta Das and uncle Bhabit Das (the deceased) while engaged in cultivating the land, elder brother of said Mukut Das, namely, Jitu Das along with his brother Hiren Das and Kiran Das, (all the accused appellants) badly assaulted his father PW-4 and his uncle (the deceased) and accordingly G.D. Entry No. 723 dated 30th April, 2006 was made. On instruction of the OC, he proceeded to the place of occurrence to enquire into the matter and on reaching the place, he saw that the victim had already been brought to the main road and found the victim unconscious and with minor injuries; as such he sent the victim to G.M.C.H. with Police escort. The I.O. also found P.W. 4 with injury on his hand and sent him to a hospital near Mirza. After filing of the FIR by the PW-2, the PW-8 went out in search of the accused person and in early hours of 2nd May, 2006 found accused Jitu Das on road and on suspicion searched his body, found one dao with him and on query he told PW-8 that he is the son of earlier wife of the deceased. Exhibit-8 is the seizure list of said dao. PW-8 has further stated that neither the said G.D. Entry No. 723 nor the seized dagger were produced in the Court nor the seized dagger was sent to the forensic laboratory for serological examination. PW-8 in his cross has stated that PW-5 Mukut Das did not tell him that he informed PW-2 about the incident. The PW-8 also stated that the PW-2 did not state before him that PW-5 told her that the accused persons assaulted her husband. PW-8 also stated that the PW-2 did not state before him that her husband told her that accused have assaulted him and that her husband stated her about the incident after receiving injury. 25. The PW-8 also stated that the PW-2 did not state before him that PW-5 told her that the accused persons assaulted her husband. PW-8 also stated that the PW-2 did not state before him that her husband told her that accused have assaulted him and that her husband stated her about the incident after receiving injury. 25. DW-1 deposed that he knew Hiren Das, whom they called Boga, who is known to him for last ten years and worked together as mason in the month of April, May, June and July, 2006. D.W. 1 stated that some times in the year of 2006 from one Tuesday accused Hiren was missing and after 3 (three) months he came to know that he was in jail in a criminal case. 26. DW-2 also stated that he knows all the three accused person, worked together as mason. In May, 2006 or in some moths all of them stayed together when they worked at Chandmari and one day when the accused Hiren came to work, on being asked he replied that his father died. 27. Prosecution case is that, on the day of occurrence accused appellants, jointly with common intention to cause death of Bhabit assaulted him and inflicted several injuries on his body, for which injuries the victim died. Moreover, the accused appellants also tried to inflict injury on PW-4 by sharp weapon and therefore, the accused appellants are liable to be convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC. 28. As noticed above, out of the 8 (eight) witnesses examined by prosecution in support of the charges levelled against the appellants, 5 (five) prosecution witnesses, namely; PWs-2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are declared as hostile, they having not supported the prosecution. 29. It is the settled position of law that because the witness is declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. Merely because the Court gave permission to the prosecution to cross-examine its own witnesses, it does not efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in trial and hence, there is no legal bar to base the conviction or acquittal upon the testimony of such witness. Merely on the ground that the witness has been declared as hostile, his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. The evidence remains admissible in trial and hence, there is no legal bar to base the conviction or acquittal upon the testimony of such witness. Merely on the ground that the witness has been declared as hostile, his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In appropriate cases, the Court can rely upon that part of the testimony of such witnesses, if that part of the deposition is found to be credit worthy [Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 205 ]. 30. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. An accused can be convicted based on the circumstantial evidence, provided there are incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and chain of circumstances is complete pointing to the guilt of the accused only and no one else. 31. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, there was a dying declaration made by decease, Bhabit, in presence of PW-2, Smti. Putul Das. PW-3 as well as PW-4 in their deposition, however, have stated that the deceased was not in a position to speak. None of the prosecution witnesses have also supported the claim of PW-2 about her coming to the place of occurrence on hearing the news. The prosecution story, therefore, of presence of PW-2 in the place of occurrence and making a dying declaration by the deceased in her presence is doubtful. PW-2 also in her evidence has also stated that there was no enmity between the appellants, who are the sons of deceased, Bhabit, through the first wife. No motive could be proved by the prosecution for committing the crime by the accused appellants. That apart, PW-2 in her evidence has not stated that she saw the accused appellants in the place of occurrence. PW-3 in his deposition has stated that the place of occurrence is 2½ KM to 3 KM away from the place where he was working. PW-4 in his deposition, except saying that appellant Hiren chased him intending to beat him by a lathi (bamtoo stick), after arguing with Bhabit (the deceased), he ran away from the place of occurrence and met Mukut on the way, did not say anything implicating any of the appellants with the commission of crime. PW-4 in his deposition, except saying that appellant Hiren chased him intending to beat him by a lathi (bamtoo stick), after arguing with Bhabit (the deceased), he ran away from the place of occurrence and met Mukut on the way, did not say anything implicating any of the appellants with the commission of crime. PW-5 also except stating that on reaching the paddy field he saw the deceased Bhabit Das lying in an injured condition, did not implicate the appellants with the commission of the crime. During cross-examination of the hostile witness by the prosecution, no incriminating evidence could be brought out against the appellants. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, in his deposition has admitted that PW-2 in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not mention either of making of any dying declaration by the deceased or about informing her by Mukut Das (PW-5) that the appellants have assaulted her husband, Bhabit, the deceased. 32. From the aforesaid discussion, it, therefore, appears that the prosecution could not bring home the charge against the appellants, beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court needs interference. 33. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, is, therefore, set aside. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 34. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand) is awarded under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. to the wife of the deceased Bhabit Das, namely, Smti. Putul Das, PW-2. The Government of Assam is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), Guwahati within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. On receipt of the said amount, the SLSA, Guwahati shall disburse the said amount to said Smti. Putul Das, PW-2, widow of deceased Bhabit Das on proper identification and obtaining appropriate receipt. 35. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith. Appeal allowed