JUDGMENT : P. K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Sessions Case No. 19(S-S)/2007 convicting the appellant, namely, Sri Indreswar Kalita @ Sushil of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing to him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d., R.I. for another 6 months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant Sri Indreswar Kalita @ Sushil (herein after referred to as the accused person) has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. K. A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that on 15.07.2006 at about 1:30 pm, while Ayub Khan (herein after referred to as the victim) was coming to his house, the accused person restrained the victim in front of his house and planted several dao blows on his person inflicting injuries on his person. An FIR to that effect was lodged with O/C, Sivasagar police station same day by one Md. Abul Hussain. On receipt of the FIR, O/C, Sivasagar police station registered a case vide Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 255/2006 u/s 341/326/307 IPC and ordered one Sri Prodip Kr. Choudhury to investigate the case. 5. It may be stated here that soon after the incident the victim was sent to hospital, however, while undergoing treatment, he died some time thereafter for which section 302 IPC was also added to the aforesaid case. During the course of investigation, Sri Choudhury, IO of the case, visited the PO, conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused person and did other needful and on conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand his trial. 6. The Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 6. The Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On commitment of the case and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to frame charge u/s 302 IPC and the charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During trial prosecution has examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses including the informant, the MO and the IO of the case. The statement of accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. Accused plea was that he was no way involved with the crime in question. He, however, on being required declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 8. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court was pleased to convict the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal. 9. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the prosecution founded its claim on the evidence of eye witness, the evidence of witnesses who reportedly heard the deceased making a statement in the nature of dying declaration and some other circumstantial evidence, yet, such evidence riddled with infirmity of extremely serious in nature and as such, no implicit reliance could have been placed by the trial court on those evidence in convicting the accused of the offence he was charged with. He, therefore, urges this court to quash and set aside the judgment on acquitting the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC. 10. This contention was however, opposed to by Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. PP, contending that there is enough evidence in the form of testimony of PW 8 (eye witness) and PW 5 who heard the deceased making a statement in the nature of dying declaration to show that the accused was the person responsible for inflicting wounds on the victim in the afternoon in question. 11. Equally importantly, according to learned Addl. PP, there is evidence on record to show that a blood stained dao was recovered from the house of accused person on the strength of seizure list, Exbt. 1. 11. Equally importantly, according to learned Addl. PP, there is evidence on record to show that a blood stained dao was recovered from the house of accused person on the strength of seizure list, Exbt. 1. Such disclosure has huge bearing on the outcome of the case in question since there is irrefutable evidence to show that the victim died of injuries which were inflicted by sharp object. He, therefore, urges this court to dismiss this appeal on affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. 12. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the judgment under challenge. Before proceeding further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. He is Dr. Hemanta Kr. Mahanta (PW 10). According to him, on 06.08.2006, he was posted at A.M.C.H., Dibrugarh as Professor and on that day he conducted autopsy on the body of one Ayub Khan and found the following:- “External Appearance A male dead body, average built, naked Surgical bandages present over front of the neck, right arm, forearm, left arm and forearm, middle of the right leg and left leg and both ankles. Rigor mortis present in all the limbs. Injuries:- i. One incised wound- 13 cms x 2 mcs x 4 cms. On the outer part of the left forearm and upper part of both forearm bones were found cut and fractured ii. One incised wound- 24 cms x 14 cms x bone deep on the inner side of the right forearm. A flap of skin and muscle were found missing and bones exposed. iii. One incised wound- 9 cms x 2 cms bone cut, placed transversely on the front of the left led, upper part just below the knee. iv. Incised wound – 7 cms x 1 cm. bore cut on the outer part of the left led and ankles. v. One incised wound – 2.5. cms. X 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms on the front of right leg, 12 cms below the right knee, bone was cut horizontally. vi. One incised wound – 10 cms x 1.5 cms x 2.5 cms. Bone was cut one the outer part of the right foot (dorsum and sole). vii. All the above wounds, i.e., injury No. (i) to (vi) were gaping and partially healed., covered by granulation tissues and pus. vi. One incised wound – 10 cms x 1.5 cms x 2.5 cms. Bone was cut one the outer part of the right foot (dorsum and sole). vii. All the above wounds, i.e., injury No. (i) to (vi) were gaping and partially healed., covered by granulation tissues and pus. No stitches were found but stitch marks were present at the margin. viii. One healed stitch wound, 2 cms long on the front of the left leg- 6 cms above the ankle ix. One partially wound – 2 cms. X 0.5 cm, on the right side of the chest over the 6th inter-costal space, 15 cms from midline. Chest cavity- deep. x. One partially healed stitch wound – 10 cms. Long placed vertically and slightly to the left on the right forehead and frontal area. Lowee and 4 cms. Above the right eye brow and 1 cm from the midline. Cranium and Spinal Canal:- Skull—incised on the right side of the frontal bone – 5 cms x 0.1 cms. Underneath the injury No. (x) with extended fissured fracture – 1.5 cms. On the back part and 5 cms. On the front part in the same plan. Vertebrae—healthy but congested. Membrane—Congested. Minimal old sub-dural and sub archniod hemorrhage on the right side of the frontal area and found. Brain—congested and oedamatous. Spinal Cord—not examined. Thorax: Thorax cavity contained straw—coloured fluid in the right side. Larynx and Trachea—tracheostromy wound present. Lungs—both the lungs congested. Pneumonic consolidation on the posterior aspect of both the lungs were present. Abdomen: Walls, peritoneum, mouth, pharynz & oesophagus—all are healthy. Stomach – healthy and empty. Liver, spleen & kidneys – all are congested and oedematous On cut focal put found present in the organs. Bladder—healthy and empty. Organs of generation—external an internal—healthy. Muscles, Bones and Joints : As described above. Opinion In the opinion of the doctor, death of the deceased was due to septicaemia, resulting from the injuries sustained by the deceased. He further opinion that all the injuries were ante mortem, cuased by heavy sharp weapon and were homicidal in nature. The approximate time of death was 15 to 25 hours. Ext. 4 is the post mortem report and Ext. 4(1) is the signature of the doctor on it. All the injuries, collectively, sustained by the deceased, was sufficient to cause death of a person, in the ordinary course of nature. The approximate time of death was 15 to 25 hours. Ext. 4 is the post mortem report and Ext. 4(1) is the signature of the doctor on it. All the injuries, collectively, sustained by the deceased, was sufficient to cause death of a person, in the ordinary course of nature. A sharp cutting weapon like M. Ext. 1, a Dao may cause the injuries, sustained by the deceased.” 13. So situated, let us have a look at the evidence of Sri Indrajit Pegu (PW 8) (eye witness). In his evidence, he deposes that on the fateful day in the evening while he came to the PO, he saw the accused planting a dao blow on the victim when he tried to intervene, the accused charged at him for which he fled the scene. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not make such statement to the IO during investigation. 14. However, in the course of his evidence, the IO confirm that PW 8 did not make any statement that he saw the accused planting dao blows on the victim as well as statement that when he tried to save the victim, the accused charged at him. Being so, in our opinion, the evidence of PW 8 suffers from vice which is called contradiction and which makes his evidence unsafe for reliance. 15. We have also found that PW 5, Md. Mahammad Ali, states that he met the victim just after the incident and on being asked, the victim told him in a very feeble voice that the accused had injured him planting dao blows. Once again, the IO states that PW 5 did not make such statement to him during the course of investigation which also makes the evidence of PW 5 that the victim had told him that the accused had assaulted him on the evening in question very unreliable. 16. We have found that PW 1, Md. Habibul Ali, PW 3, Md. Abdul Hussain, PW 9, Md.Rafel Ali and PW 12, Sri Prodip Kumar Choudhury depose that when they met the victim soon after the incident, he was not in a position to make any statement. Such evidence firmly shows that the claim of PW 5 that the victim made a statement in the nature of dying declaration before his death cannot be accepted as truthful one. 17. Such evidence firmly shows that the claim of PW 5 that the victim made a statement in the nature of dying declaration before his death cannot be accepted as truthful one. 17. We have found that prosecution has claimed that IO had seized the dao stained with blood from the house of accused person. But when one reads the evidence of witnesses, who are said to be seizure witnesses, namely, PW 2, Md. Imdadul Islam and PW 4, Mafizur Rahman, he would find that the claim of prosecution that the dao was seized from the premises of accused person is also found equally doubtful. 18. In view of our foregoing discussions, we have found that prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the learned trial court was not right in convicting the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC and in sentencing him to punishment as aforesaid. Rather the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC on benefit of doubt. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment under challenge stands quashed and set aside accordingly. 20. The accused person is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. 21. Return the LCR forthwith. 22. We have found that it is a case where the State should be asked to pay victim(s) of the crime some compensation in the terms of Section 357A. Accordingly, we direct the State of Assam to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim(s) of crime as compensation. 23. The State of Assam is directed to pay such amount to the State Legal Services Authority (in short, the SLSA) within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On the receipt of such amount, the SLSA shall place such amount at the disposal of the District Legal Services Authority, Sivasagar. 24. On the receipt of amount by DLSA, Sivasagar, same would be disbursed to the victim(s) of crime on proper identification. 25. A copy of this order be sent to learned Addl. PP, for doing further needful as indicated above.