Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 959 (GAU)

Babu Urang v. State of Assam

2014-10-31

K.SREEDHAR RAO, M.R.PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT M.R. Pathak, J. 1. These two Criminal Appeals from jail have been filed by the accused/appellants against the common judgment and order dated 19.05.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 41 (S-C) of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the accused/appellants, namely, (i) Sri Babu Urang @ Ranjit and (ii), Sri Jan Gogoi @ Ananta, each of them have been convicted under Section 302/449/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- only, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- only, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Sections 449/34 of the IPC. As both the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of the same Judgment, quoted above, we, therefore, propose to dispose of, these appeals, by a common Judgment and Order. We have heard Ms. Anupama Devi, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused/ appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2010 and Mr. Samudragupta Dutta, learned amicus curiae for the accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2010. Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam represents the State in both the appeals. 2. In these cases the criminal process was set in motion by filing of an FIR, on 15.07.2006 at about 11:00 am. by one Smti. Parul Gogoi, (PW.3) before the Officer-in-Charge, Moranhat Police Station stating that on the previous night on 14.06.2006, in her absence, some unknown miscreants entered her house at Himpara Reserve Village by cutting through the comer of the wall in its south western part and killed her two sons, namely (1) Prabitra Gogoi, aged about 12/13 years and (2) Rubul Gogoi, aged about 7/8 years by inflicting stab injuries on their stomach, chest and waist by pointed weapon. 3. On the basis of said FIR, Moranhat P.S. Case No. 49/2006 under Sections 448/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 320/2006 was registered The case was investigated by PW.13, Sri Khagen Changmai, O.C. of the Police Station. 3. On the basis of said FIR, Moranhat P.S. Case No. 49/2006 under Sections 448/302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 320/2006 was registered The case was investigated by PW.13, Sri Khagen Changmai, O.C. of the Police Station. In the course of the investigation inquest was held on the dead bodies, which were sent for post mortem examination, statement of person acquainted with the crime alleged was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and at the conclusion of the investigation Charge-Sheet was submitted on 31.12.2006 vide Charge Sheet No. 85/2006 against the accused appellants under Sections 448/302/34 IPC. The offence under Section 302 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charaideu, Sonari vide order dated 22.05.2007 committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Sivasagar. 4. Accordingly, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, the said case was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 41 (S-C) of 2007 and learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar by his order dated 27.06.2007 framed charges under Sections 449/302/34 of the IPC against the accused/appellants, which were read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded guilty and accordingly learned trial Court on 27.06.2007 itself recorded their statements under Section 229 of the Cr. P.C. separately. However, learned Sessions Judge, considering the gravity of the offence and punishment provided for the crime decided to proceed with the trial. 5. In the trial, prosecution examined 13 (thirteen) witnesses on its behalf and on the other hand, the defence did not lead any evidence. However, the statements of the accused/ appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, above named accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, giving rise to these appeals. 6. To look into the facts of the prosecution case and to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, let us briefly notice the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses in the case. 7. P.W.1, Dr. Nirmal Chutia, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on 16.07.2006 on the dead body of Pabitra Gogoi, aged about 12 years old, found the following on his body - "Wounds: (i) One stabbed wound on the left lever abdomen. Loops of small intestine are prolapsed out-side. (ii) One stabbed wound at the right lower part of the chest - deep to the lever. Loops of small intestine are prolapsed out-side. (ii) One stabbed wound at the right lower part of the chest - deep to the lever. (iii) Third stabbed wound at the right upper part of the chest - puncturing the right lung. The wounds were stained with blood and blood-clots. Cranium & Spinal Canal: Healthy Thorax: Right lung is lacerated with prolapsed of right lung and intra-thorasic hemorrhage. Abdomen: Loops of intestine are prolapsed outside, as already described. All other organs are healthy. All the wounds are ante-mortem in nature. Opinion: The cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem stabbed injuries. All the injuries might have been cause by sharp pointed weapon. All the injuries can cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature and the injuries were homicidal in nature. On the same day, the said autopsy doctor P.W.1 also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Rubul Gogoi, aged about 8 years and found the following Wounds: (i) A stabbed wound of size of 2" at the left lower abdomen - below umbilicus. Loops of small intestine were prolapsed outside. (ii) One stabbed wound at the right upper part of the chest, right lung collapsed with haemo-thorax. (iii) Another stabbed wound at upper abdomen of the size of 1½" injuring the lever inside. Blood stains and blood clots are present around the wound. Cranium & Spinal Canal: Healthy Thorax: Right lung is penetrating with collapsed of right lung and haemo-thorax. Abdomen: As described already, loops of small intestine are collapsed outside, as already described. All other organs are healthy. All the wounds are ante-mortem in nature. Opinion: The cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem wounds. All the wounds found, might have been cause by sharp pointed weapon. All the injuries were homicidal in nature." In cross examination, the Doctor P.W.1 stated that he found three injuries on the dead body of Pabitra Gogoi and all the injuries individually and collectively were fatal in nature and the injuries effected the vital organs of the deceased, such as lever, intestine, lungs etc. All the injuries were homicidal in nature." In cross examination, the Doctor P.W.1 stated that he found three injuries on the dead body of Pabitra Gogoi and all the injuries individually and collectively were fatal in nature and the injuries effected the vital organs of the deceased, such as lever, intestine, lungs etc. and the weapon used in causing those injuries was definitely pointed and sharp and he ascertained that the occurrence took place on the previous night of his performing the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. The Doctor also stated that he found three fatal injuries on the dead body of the deceased Rubul Gogoi caused by sharp pointed weapon and further stated that abdominal intestine were found out of the dead bodies. 8. P.W.2, Sri Kamal Gogoi is the maternal grandfather of both the deceased and in his evidence he stated that on the date of the incident, both Pabitra & Rubul were alone in the house and his daughter Parul, i.e., mother of both the deceased stayed in his house with her other two children, as she had to attend her shop Sonari. On the next day, when he came to Parul's house with her other two children, found the door locked from inside and finding no answer on call, looked around and noticed a corner of the house was ripped open. He went inside the house through the same and saw both the grandsons lying dead under the bed with injury smeared with blood and thereafter he informed Parul at Sonari and thereafter lodged a written FIR, signed by Parul. Police from Moranhat Police Station came to the place of occurrence, broke open the lock, went inside the house, found the dead bodies, done inquest in his presence and took his signature and stated that at that time, Bhola Gogoi, elder paternal uncle of both the deceased Pabitra & Rubul came to the place of occurrence and thereafter police took away the dead bodies. PW.2 in his evidence also stated that he does not know who committed the murder. In cross evidence PW.2 stated that his house is about one furlong away from the place of occurrence and also stated that he is not aware as to who committed the crime. 9. PW.2 in his evidence also stated that he does not know who committed the murder. In cross evidence PW.2 stated that his house is about one furlong away from the place of occurrence and also stated that he is not aware as to who committed the crime. 9. PW.3, Parul Gogoi, informant of the case and mother of both the deceased in her evidence deposed that on the date of the occurrence she was at her father's house and the deceased Pabitra & Rubul were alone in their house and that they were used to live alone. Her father informed her about the incident, she went to police station lodged the FIR, that was drafted by her father, came to the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies of her two sons. In her evidence PW.3 also stated that while her husband was in jail, Mani Garh, sister-in-law of the accused 'Babu' hit her in head, as such she lodged a case against her and she heard that for the said reasons the accused persons came to her house to kill her and as they did not find her, they killed her two sons. She also stated that 'Bhola Gogoi' is her elder brother-in-law and father of the accused 'Jan' and police told her that said 'Bhola Gogoi' is aware of the incident, as he told police that accused Jan Gogoi with the other accused Babu Urang killed Pabitra & Rahul. In cross evidence she stated that her husband was in jail for about five months, she has a pan shop at Sonari near Court and that the case against Mani Garh is still pending. 10. PW.4, Bhola Gogoi is the father of the accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta. In his evidence he stated that deceased Pabitra & Rubul were his nephews and his house is near to them. He further stated that on the night of the incident, while he was at home, his son Jan Gogoi @ Ananta and Babu Orang @ Ranjit came and told him that they killed Purl's son Pabitra & Rubul and hearing, it he said that they had done a grave deed and asked them to appear before police and men both of them went out. He also stated that on the next day he went to the place of occurrence, saw the dead bodies, police conducted the inquest on the dead bodies in his presence to which he is a witness and gave his signature in the inquest report and that police produced him before Magistrate, duly recorded his statement and Exhibit 6(1) is his signature in the same. He further deposed that he stated before police that both the accused told him that they had killed both the sons of Parul. In cross evidence he denied the suggestion that he gave his statement before Magistrate as police tortured him and stated that police did not torture him in the police station. 11. PW.5, Jibanjit Gogoi, a police constable in his evidence stated that in the morning on 17.07.2006 while he was in the sentry duty at the Moranhat Police Station, he saw one man brought accused Jan Gogoi carrying him in a cycle and the man accompanying the accused told him that Jan Gogoi had killed both the boys and he had brought him to produce him before police. Said PW.5 stated that he saw a 'Khukuri' (a long both edged pointed sharp knife) about 14 inches long in the hand of accused Jan Gogoi and on enquiring, the accused Jan Gogoi told him that by the said Khukuri he had killed both the boys. PW.5 further stated that thereafter, the accused Jan Gogoi was brought inside the police station, the Investigation Officer seized the said Khukuri in his presence and the accused was interrogated by the I.O. PW.5 also stated that it is the accused Jan Gogoi who brought the said Khukuri to the police station and it was seized by police and prior to that the police station already received the information about the murder of both the boys. Defence declined to cross examine him. 12. PW.6, Jagat Ch. Chutia, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in his evidence stated that on 17.07.2006 he was in Maranhat Police Station along with a constable Jibonjit Milli and around 10.00 a.m. accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta came to the police station with a Khukuri in his hand and stated that he had killed Pabitra and Rubul of Himpara Village. 12. PW.6, Jagat Ch. Chutia, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in his evidence stated that on 17.07.2006 he was in Maranhat Police Station along with a constable Jibonjit Milli and around 10.00 a.m. accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta came to the police station with a Khukuri in his hand and stated that he had killed Pabitra and Rubul of Himpara Village. On being asked, constable took the Khukuri from the accused Jan Gogoi and it was accordingly seized to which he was a witness and thereafter the I.O. interrogated the said accused. The PW.6 identified the said seized Khukuri in the Court that was placed as Material Exhibit-1. In cross evidence, PW.6 stated that he did not notice whether there was blood stain in the Khukuri when it was brought to police station by the accused Jan Gogoi. 13. PW.7, Sri Budhu Urang is the uncle of accused Babu Urang @ Ranjit. In his evidence he deposed that he came to know that both the accused persons surrendered before police. In his cross evidence, he stated that he came to know about the incident in the police station only and did not hear about the incident at his house from any one. 14. PW.8, Jyoti Prasad Gorh, a cultivator and seizure witness, in his evidence stated that the O.C. of Maranhat Police Station came to the house of the accused Babu @ Ranjit and seized a Khukuri from inside his house by a side of its wall in his presence and it was seized as the accused Babu @ Ranjit killed Parul's two sons by the said Khukuri and he identified the same in the Court that was placed as Material Exhibit-2. In cross examination, PW.8 stated that except the seizure of the Khukuri, he does not know anything about the incident. 15. P.W.9, Badan Phukon, neighbour of the accused Babu Urang @ Ranjit in his evidence stated that his house is near to the house the accused Babu and that the O.C. of Maranhat Police Station called him from his house. He also stated that Police seized a Khukuri from the side of a wall inside the house of accused Babu and he is a signatory to the said seizure. He also told that he hard that both the accused surrendered in the police station one after another. He also stated that Police seized a Khukuri from the side of a wall inside the house of accused Babu and he is a signatory to the said seizure. He also told that he hard that both the accused surrendered in the police station one after another. In cross evidence, P.W.9 stated that police called him to be a seizure witness and at that time accused persons were not present, did not see about the surrendering of the accused persons in the police station, not aware about the incident when the Khukuri was seized and that he had a good relation with the accused Babu @ Ranjit. 16. PW.10, one Sri Sonju Goswami, a businessman and a seizure witness, in his evidence stated that he had a pan shop near Maranhat Police Station and the O.C. called him to the Police station and seized a Khukuri from the accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta in his presence and he is a signatory to the seizure list of the same. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that Material Exhibit-1 was not seized from accused Jan Gogoi and stated that at the time of said seizure accused Jan Gogoi was present in the police station. 17. P.W.11 Nagen Gogoi, uncle of accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta and deceased Pabitra and Rubul in his evidence stated that in the Police Station he saw the dead bodies of Pabitra & Rubul and found his brothers Bola Gogoi, father of accused Jan Gogoi. He stated that when he asked Bhola Gogoi about the incident, he told him that the accused Jan Gogoi and Babu Urang killed both the minor boys by Khukuri. He also deposed that when he accompanied accused Jan Gogoi to the Police Station for his surrender, he asked him about the incident and then said accused told him that due to family grudge he and Babu Urang murdered both the boys by Khukuri and the said Khukuri by which accused Jan Gogoi committed the crime brought along with him and surrendered before the Maranhat Police Station. In cross examination P.W.11 stated that on one Monday morning around 8:00 am. he brought accused Jan Gogoi with the Khukuri and handed him to the Police Station. He denied the suggestion that accused Jan Gogoi did not tell him that he & Babu Urang committed murder of both the minors. 18. PW. In cross examination P.W.11 stated that on one Monday morning around 8:00 am. he brought accused Jan Gogoi with the Khukuri and handed him to the Police Station. He denied the suggestion that accused Jan Gogoi did not tell him that he & Babu Urang committed murder of both the minors. 18. PW. 12 Satyajit Khound, who was the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo at Sonari on 24.07.2006 in his evidence stated that on the said date in G.R. Case No. 320/2006 accused Babu Urang was produced before him for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., then he remanded the accused to judicial custody for reflection time and was produced before his Court on the next date again on 25.07.2014 for recording his confessional statement and this time the accused Babu was cautioned once again about the consequence of making the statement and thereafter he was given reflection time again. PW. 12 also deposed that in the afternoon the accused Babu was cautioned again about the consequence of confessional statement, but he expressed his willingness and accordingly, being satisfied at about 02.30 p.m. he recorded the statement of the accused Babu in the prescribed format under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which is on records as Exhibit-9 wherein Exhibit 9(6) is his signature. In cross evidence PW.12 stated that on 24.07.2006 the accused Babu Urang was remanded to the judicial custody but not to the police custody, he denied the suggestion that accused was kept in the Court's lock up and also denied that accused's statement was not voluntary and that police personnel were present with the accused. 19. PW. 13 Khagan Sangmai, the Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence stated that on receipt of the FIR (Exhibit-3) around 11:00 am. from the PW.3 Smti. 19. PW. 13 Khagan Sangmai, the Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence stated that on receipt of the FIR (Exhibit-3) around 11:00 am. from the PW.3 Smti. Prual Gogoi, he took the charge of investigation of the case, recorded statements of PW.2 & PW.3, visited the place of occurrence with a magistrate, inspected the area, found two dead bodies, drawn the sketch map (Exhibit-11), done inquest on both the dead bodies, on the dead body of Pabitra Gogoi he found stabbed injuries on the left side of waist, right sides of stomach & chest by sharp weapon and internal organs were out of his stomach by slitting the same by sharp weapon; also found stabbed injuries on the left side of waist, left & right sides of stomach and chest from the dead body of Rubul Gogoi his stomach out the intestine, prepared the inquest reports (Exhibits-4 & 5). He also stated that on suspicion during re-interrogation PW.4 admitted that his son accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta and neighbour Babu Urang @ Ranjit committed the murder of both the boys, his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. to that was accordingly recorded by the Magistrate. He further deposed that accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta was produced before the Police Station with the Khukuri used in the alleged crime which was recorded as GD Entry No. 469 dated 17.07.2006 (Exhibit-14) and Exhibit-7 is the Seizure list of the said Khukuri, which is Material Exhibit-1. He further stated that in the afternoon on 21.07.2006 accused Babu Urang surrendered in the Police Station and told that he could show the Khukuri used while murdering Parul's son, which was recovered and seized from his hose on the next day vide Exhibit-8, which is Material Exhibit-2. P.W.13 Also stated that accused Babu Urang confessed his guilt before Court and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against both the accused under Sections 302/448/34 of the IPC. In cross examination P.W.13 stated that accused Jan Gogoi surrendered with witness Nagen Gogoi and that seized articles were not sent for FSL as in the meanwhile accused persons admitted their guilt. 20. The accused/appellant Babu Urang @ Ranjit in his statement under Section 313 Cr. In cross examination P.W.13 stated that accused Jan Gogoi surrendered with witness Nagen Gogoi and that seized articles were not sent for FSL as in the meanwhile accused persons admitted their guilt. 20. The accused/appellant Babu Urang @ Ranjit in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. recorded on 28.04.2010 stated that he is innocent, did not kill Pabitra& Rubul and it is accused Jan Gogoi who after committing the crime came to his house armed with blood stained Khukuri and told him about the incident, thereafter he went to accused Jan's house with him and reported his father Bhola Gogoi, (PW.4) about the incident. But said accused Babu Urang refused to adduce any evidence to that regard in his defence. 21. On the other hand accused Jan Gogoi @ Ananta in his Section 313 Cr. P.C. statement stated that he with his neighbour accused/appellant Babu Urang on the day of the incident in the afternoon made a plan to kill Parul and another and with said intention, entered her house at night with Babu Urang, but mistakenly they killed Pabitra & Rubul believing to be Parul & the another man. He admitted that on the advice of his father he voluntarily surrendered before the Police Station with the Khukuri that he used in committing the crime. He also stated that Babu Urang, the other accused surrendered a day after him without the Khukuri that he used in the crime and police recovered it from Babu Urang' house. Accused/Appellant Jan Gogoi did not want to adduce any evidence on defence. 22. We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence on record, apart from the Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. 23. There is no eye witness to the incident. It is only on basis of circumstantial evidence, like extra judicial confession made by accused persons before the prosecution witnesses; voluntary surrendering of one accused person with the weapon of assault before Police Station; voluntary surrendering of the other accused before Police Station and discovery of weapon of assault from his house on the basis of his confession before police and on the basis of his judicial confession under Section 164 Cr. P.C. recorded before a Magistrate after his surrender learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellants. P.C. recorded before a Magistrate after his surrender learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellants. Now, the question is whether on the basis of aforesaid circumstantial evidence, guilt of the accused persons can be proved. 24. From the evidence of PW.2 & 3 it is seen stated that both the deceased suffered stabbed injuries in their bodies at chest, stomach and waist by pointed sharp weapon. The same is corroborated by the PW. 1, the autopsy doctor, in his evidence; wherein he stated that both the boys had three stabbed injuries each in various parts of the bodies at chest and upper part and lower part of the abdomen and their death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem stabbed injuries. The doctor clearly stated that all the injuries individually and collectively were fatal in nature and the injuries affected the vital organs of the deceased, such as lever, intestine, lungs etc. and that the weapon used in causing those injuries was definitely pointed and sharp. The doctor specified that all the injuries can cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature, injuries were homicidal in nature and in the case of younger boy by those injuries his abdominal intestine were found out of his dead body. 25. From the evidence of PW.4, Bhola Gogoi, father of the accused Jan Gogoi, it is seen that the accused persons made extra judicial confession before him after the incident at night about their murdering of both the boys and the said witness voluntarily confessed before Magistrate about the same, which was placed during the trial as Exhibit-6, which was proved by him. Similarly, PW. 9 Nagen Gogoi also stated that when he brought accused Jan Gogoi to the Police Station for his surrender, on the way he asked him about the incident and the said accused Jan Gogoi told him that he and the other accused Babu Urang killed both the boys by stabbing them by Khukuri. The PW. 13, Investigation Officer of the case corroborated the statement of the PW.9 to the extent that accused Jan Gogoi came with PW.9, Nagen Gogoi to surrender in the Police Station. 26. From the evidence of PW. 11, Satyajit Khound, the Magistrate, who recorded judicial confession of the accused Babu Urang under Section 164 of the Cr. The PW. 13, Investigation Officer of the case corroborated the statement of the PW.9 to the extent that accused Jan Gogoi came with PW.9, Nagen Gogoi to surrender in the Police Station. 26. From the evidence of PW. 11, Satyajit Khound, the Magistrate, who recorded judicial confession of the accused Babu Urang under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., which has been placed as Exhibit-9 in the trail, has been proved by said P.W.11 and it is seen that sufficient reflection time was given to the accused Babu Urang for his such voluntary confession and after all explanations made by the Magistrate, the said accused voluntarily confessed his guilt before the PW.11, the Magistrate concerned. 27. With regard to the seizure of Khukries, the weapons used in the crime, it is seen that accused Jan Gogoi came to the Police Station to surrender on 17.07.2006 with a Khukri, and he stated that he used the same in the crime and immediately police made an entry its Register about the same being GD Entry No. 469 dated 17.07.2006 at Moranhat Police Station and an extract of said GD Entry was placed in the trial as Exhibit-14. Again the seizure witnesses, P.W.5, Jibanjit Mili, PW.6 Jagat Chandra Chetia and PW.10 Sanju Goswami in their evidence proved the seizure of the said Khukri in the Police Station vide Seizure List, Exhibit-7 and during the trial, they also proved the Khukri, placed as Material Evidence-1. 28. Similarly with regard to the seizure of the Khukri from the house of the accused Babu Urang, it is seen from the evidence of seizure witnesses PW.8 Jyoti Prasad Gorh and PW.9 Badan Phukan that they proved the said Seizure List, Exhibit-8 and during the trial and they also proved the said Khukri, placed as Material Evidence-2. 29. From the above, the Court is of the considered view that, all the facts form a complete chain of events which point to only one direction, i.e. that it is both the accused/ appellants only who have committed the crime involved in the case. 30. 29. From the above, the Court is of the considered view that, all the facts form a complete chain of events which point to only one direction, i.e. that it is both the accused/ appellants only who have committed the crime involved in the case. 30. For all the aforesaid reasons, no infirmity is found in the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2010 and accordingly the appeals, being Criminal Appeals No. 65 and 66 of 2010 preferred by the accused appellants are dismissed having no merit and affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 41 (S-C) of 2007. 31. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by both the amicus curiae, Ms. Anupama Devi appearing for the accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2010 and Mr. Samudragupta Dutta, appearing for the accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2010 and direct the State of Assam to pay them their hearing fee of Rs. 7,500/- each. Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the concerned trial court along with the LCR for information. Appeal Dismissed.