JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 06.06.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 77(NL)/2010 convicting the accused/appellant herein, namely, Sri Bull Dutta of offence U/s. 326/302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only, in default, to undergo imprisonment for further 2(two) months for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the accused/appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the accused person), preferred this jail appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on the intervening night between 24.03.2010 and 25.03.2010 at about 1:30 A.M., the accused person allegedly killed his wife, Binu Dutta (deceased) subjecting her to axe blows inflicting 1 serious injuries on her person. It has also been alleged that on the same night, the accused assaulted his mother Smti Sonpahi Dutta inflicting grievous injuries on her person as well. Killing his wife and injuring his mother on the night of 24.03.2010, the accused person fled the scene. 4. An FIR to that effect on being lodged by the informant, Sri Sri Dadul Bora (P.W. 2), with the Officer In-charge, Bangalmara Police Out Post on 25.03.2010, I/C Bangalmara Police Out Post made a GD entry thereon, vide GD entry No. 398 and forwarded the FIR to O/C, Bihpuria P.S. for registering a case and for doing the needful in accordance with law. On the receipt of such an FIR, O/C Bihpuria P.S. registered a case vide Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 102/2010 under Section 302/326 IPC and ordered one Shri Biswajyoti Sarma, SI of Police, to investigate the case. 5. On the receipt of such an FIR, O/C Bihpuria P.S. registered a case vide Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 102/2010 under Section 302/326 IPC and ordered one Shri Biswajyoti Sarma, SI of Police, to investigate the case. 5. Shri Sarma having been so entrusted with the investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body, sent the dead body to hospital for post-mortem examination, also took step for providing treatment to the mother of the accused person, arrested the accused person, collected the post-mortem report in due course, did other needful and on completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet under section 302/326 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to face trial for the offence aforementioned. 6. When the charge sheet was so laid before the concerned Magistrate, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions since offence under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur on receipt of the case on commitment and upon perusal of records as well as on hearing the parties, framed charge under section 302/326 IPC against the accused person. 7. The charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded guilty of the charges, so framed against him and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as nine (9) witnesses including the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Medical Officers (MOs), including the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body. Statement of the accused person was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 8. The accused while being examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted to have killed his wife (since dead) and also admitted to have assaulted his mother on the fateful night. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur convicted the accused of offence under section 306/302 IPC and sentenced him for punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this present appeal. 9. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused person submits that the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case on its own and cannot bank upon the infirmities or shortcomings of the defence case. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this present appeal. 9. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused person submits that the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case on its own and cannot bank upon the infirmities or shortcomings of the defence case. Though in the present case, the accused admitted the charges, levelled against him, yet, on such admission alone, a criminal court cannot convict the accused person of the offences, he was charged with. 10. According to learned Amicus Curiae, except the admission of accused person recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., there is absolutely nothing on record to show that accused had committed the crime under consideration on the night aforementioned. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the only eye witness who reportedly saw the incident in question is PW 1 Smti Pakhi Dutta, a girl of about 12 years. Her evidence cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. 11. Though in her evidence, she claims that on the night in question, she saw the accused, her father, killing his wife, yet, it is not clear how she could witness the incident aforementioned at dead of night, and that too, in total darkness. Such revelations only show that the evidence of PW 1 cannot be accepted without a large grain of salt, more so, when there is evidence on record to show that there was no arrangement of light in the room where the incident in question reportedly occurred. 12. Drawing our attention to the settled proposition of law that the evidence of child witness needs to be considered very carefully before acting on such evidence, it has been contended that the evidence rendered by such a child witness hardly draws any support from other witnesses, more particularly, PW 6 Smti Sonpahi Dutta who claimed to be one of the victims who suffered at the hand of accused on the night of 24.03.2010. 13. According to learned Amicus Curiae, other witnesses, particularly, PW 3, Sri Kanak Dutta and PW 5, Smti Dipali Dutta, husband and wife respectively could not throw any light on the incident in question although they claimed to have arrived at the place of occurrence soon after the incident hearing hue and cry there from. 13. According to learned Amicus Curiae, other witnesses, particularly, PW 3, Sri Kanak Dutta and PW 5, Smti Dipali Dutta, husband and wife respectively could not throw any light on the incident in question although they claimed to have arrived at the place of occurrence soon after the incident hearing hue and cry there from. Situation being such, the learned Amicus Curiae urges this Court to acquit the accused person on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 14. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam submits that PW 1 very categorically and very clearly states that she saw her father killing his own wife on the night in question and he so killed his wife inside his own house which terrified her so much so that when their neighbours (PW 3 and PW 5) came to the place of occurrence, they had to take her and her sister to their house to help them to get rid of trauma and shock they were undergoing then on seeing their mother being killed by their father quite brutally. 15. Learned Addl. P.P., Assam, again submits that the story told by P.W. 1 draws full support from the narration of incident, rendered by PW 6, the mother of the accused person who was in the ill fated house on the night eventful and who sustained severe wounds on her person being caused by her own son moments before his killing the victim, his wife. According to learned Addl. P.P. when one reads the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 together, it would appear clear that on the fateful night, accused killed his wife and also inflicted grievous injuries on the person of PW 6. 16. According to learned Addl. P.P., the prosecution case draws significant support from the testimonies rendered by P.W. 3 Sri Kanak Dutta and PW 5, Smti Dipali Dutta who came to the place of occurrence moments after the incident in question on hearing cries of children of the accused person and witnessed what was done by the accused person to his mother and his wife. Such evidence, rendered by PW 3 Sri Kanak Dutta and PW 5, Smti Dipali Dutta, provides more and more strength to the prosecution case under consideration. 17. Learned Addl. Such evidence, rendered by PW 3 Sri Kanak Dutta and PW 5, Smti Dipali Dutta, provides more and more strength to the prosecution case under consideration. 17. Learned Addl. P.P. further submits that while being examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted his guilt stating that he killed his wife and also assaulted his mother on the night aforesaid. Such admission, coupled with the evidence rendered by PWs, more particularly, P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 clearly demonstrate that author of the crimes in question was none other than the accused person. Therefore, she urges this Court to dismiss this appeal affirming the judgment under challenge. 18. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties having regard to the judgment under challenge as well as evidence on record. But before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body. He was Dr. MN Bordoloi and was examined as P.W. 4. For ready reference, the relevant part of his evidence is reproduced below: "The evidence of P.W. 4, Dr. M.N. Bordoloi, who conducted Post Mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased found two cut injuries, one at occipital area of the skull of the deceased measuring 3 x 2 x 1/2 inch, and one cut mark at the back in between scapular region measuring 2 x 1 x 1/2 inch and one cut mark at the back in between scapular region measuring 2 x 1 x 1/2 inch. He also opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained in her vital part like brain, and same are sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, what has been deposed by this witness found to have lent sufficient corroboration to the ocular version of P.W. 1 and other PWs about the cause of death of the deceased as a result of fatal axe blow on the deceased. The conjoint reading of the evidence of PW 7 and PW 8, who examined injured. Thus, what has been deposed by this witness found to have lent sufficient corroboration to the ocular version of P.W. 1 and other PWs about the cause of death of the deceased as a result of fatal axe blow on the deceased. The conjoint reading of the evidence of PW 7 and PW 8, who examined injured. Smti Sonpahi Dutta also makes it abundantly clear that Sonpahi Dutta (P.W. 6) sustained grievous injury leading to fracture of upper part of left arm and humerus measuring 10 x 5 x 5 c.m., and another fracture and cut injury of the size 5 x 5 x 5 c.m. over the left lower part of humerus. The medical evidence tendered by these two witnesses also found to have lent sufficient corroboration to the ocular version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 about the nature and seat of injuries on Smti Sonpahi Duttta (P.W. 6)." 19. In that connection, we also find it necessary to consider the evidence of the Medical Officer who examined PW 6 Smti Sonpahi Dutta at Civil Hospital, North Lakhimpur on 25.03.2010 on being referred to by Bogalmara CHC. He was Dr. Probin Mili and was examined as P.W. 7. Relevant part of his evidence is also reproduced below: "Fracture and cut injury over the left arm and humerus measuring about 10 x 5 x 5 c.m. over the upper part of the left arm and humerus. The nature of injury was grievous and weapon used was sharp object. The age of injury was fresh. Fracture and cut injury measuring 5 x 5 x 5 c.m. over the left lower part of humerus. Nature of injury was grievous and the weapon used was sharp object. Age of injury was fresh. Pain and swelling of the right forearm. According to him, the patient was advised for X Ray of left arm and right forearm, but the patient could not afford to do same. He proved Ext. 5 to be the injury report of Smti Sonpahi Dutta by identifying his signature, Ext. 5(1) thereon. He proved Ext. 5 to be the injury report of Smti Sonpahi Dutta by identifying his signature, Ext. 5(1) thereon. He proved Ext. 6 to be the certificate by which the injured was referred by Dr. Jagadish Goswami by identifying the latter's signature, Ext. 6(1) thereon. According to him, from Ext. 5(1) thereon. He proved Ext. 5 to be the injury report of Smti Sonpahi Dutta by identifying his signature, Ext. 5(1) thereon. He proved Ext. 6 to be the certificate by which the injured was referred by Dr. Jagadish Goswami by identifying the latter's signature, Ext. 6(1) thereon. According to him, from Ext. 6, it appears that on 25.03.2010 at about 9.15 am, Smti Sonpahi Dutta was examined by Dr. Jagadish Goswami vide OPD No. 10274 dated 25.03.2010 on being escorted and identified by Sri Khemraj Gautam. UBC No. 744. GD entry No. Nil and found the patient in preshocked condition. Pulse - feeble, BP 80/60. Chest was clear. Dr. J. Goswami also found the following injuries on the person of the injured. Injury No. 1: Deep cut injury on the left arm about 8 c.m. below the shoulder joint measuring 5 x 5 x 1 c.m. which was simple caused by sharp weapon, and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Injury No. 2: Deep cut injury of the left arm about 5 c.m. at the elbow joint obliquely in disposition measuring 5 x 1 x 2 c.m. simple in nature and caused by sharp object and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Injury No. 3: Abrasion longitudinal found over the left anterior chest over superior lateral about 5 c.m. lateral to the chest wall. The injury is 7 c.m. in length, simple in nature and caused by sharp pointed weapon and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Injury No. 4: Abrasion present on the middle of the dorsal aspect of right forehand, rectangular and 2 x 5 x 2 x 4 c.m. in measurement, simple in nature and caused by sharp object and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Injury No. 5: One small 1 c.m. diameter rounded abrasion, simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Injury No. 6: Another oval 1 x 1/2 c.m. abrasion found below the rectangular abrasion, simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Inference: The alleged assaulted injury of recent origin of grievous and simple nature." 20. Injury No. 6: Another oval 1 x 1/2 c.m. abrasion found below the rectangular abrasion, simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon and occurred in 6 to 12 hours back. Inference: The alleged assaulted injury of recent origin of grievous and simple nature." 20. It may be stated that P.W. 8 Dr Jagadish Goswami, also examined Smti Sonpahi Dutta at Bongalmara CHC on 25.03.2010 and found as many as 6 (six) injuries on her person of which injury No. 1 was grievous in nature while others are simple injuries. Being so, while the evidence of PW 4, Dr. M.N. Boroloi clearly establishes that the wife of the accused person died homicidal death on or about 24.03.2010 on sustaining injuries on her head, the evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Probin Mili and P.W. 8 Dr. Jagadish Goswami reveal that Smti Sonpahi Dutta sustained as many as six (6) injuries of which one injury is grievous in nature. 21. So situated, let us first consider the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. On the perusal of evidence of P.W. 1, we have found that on the night in question, her father came to the room where they were sleeping and demanded his mother to give him some lime. But his mother refused to comply with the demand of his son for which he assaulted his mother (P.W. 6) with an axe. Being so assaulted, P.W. 6 raised hue and cry which again brought the wife of accused to such place. 22. On seeing his wife at such place, the accused immediately planted an axe blow on the head and back of his wife for which she died instantaneously. On seeing such horrible incident, P.W. 1 started shouting in pain and agony which brought P W 3 and P.W. 5 to their house moments after the alleged incident. Seeing them trembling in fear and pain, those neighbours took the P.W. 1 and her sister to their house so as to prevent them from having more and more predicament of enormous proportion. 23. Such evidence of P.W. 1 finds full support from the testimony rendered by P.W. 6 since she is also found saying that on the fateful night while she was sleeping with her grand daughters in her house, the accused came to her room, awoke her up and demanded her to give him some lime. 23. Such evidence of P.W. 1 finds full support from the testimony rendered by P.W. 6 since she is also found saying that on the fateful night while she was sleeping with her grand daughters in her house, the accused came to her room, awoke her up and demanded her to give him some lime. Since she refused to carry out his demand, the accused planted an axe blow on her hand. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased came there. On seeing her, the accused also killed his wife. 24. On seeing her daughter in law dead sustaining grievous injury, she slept to swoon. Such evidence rendered by P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 draws support from testimonies of P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 who came to the place of occurrence moments after the alleged incident and found the wife of accused lying dead in her house on sustaining injuries on her person and also found P.W. 6 sustaining injuries some of which appeared to them to be quite grievous. 25. Though these witnesses were subjected to cross examination, nothing did emerged there from to show what they had stated before the court during trial cannot be accepted for any reason whatsoever. Evidence of those PWs coupled with statement (Ext. 1) which P.W. 1 rendered before the Magistrate during investigation unmistakably demonstrates that the accused, and none else, had killed his wife on the eventful night. Their evidence also show that on such a night, the mother of the accused sustained injuries, one of which is found to be grievous in nature. 26. We have found that the Doctors who examined P.W. 6 and the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased supported the testimonies rendered by PWs, more partially PW 1 and P.W. 6 in so far sites, sizes and nature of the injuries are concerned. Therefore, the evidence of Doctor together with evidence of I/O Sri Biswajyoti Sarma again provides one more farm footing to the prosecution case. 27. We have already found that while being examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted to have killed his wife. He also admitted to have assaulted his inflicting injuries on her person. Such admission, coupled with the fact and circumstances, which we have narrated herein before firmly establish that on the fateful night the accused killed his wife. 27. We have already found that while being examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted to have killed his wife. He also admitted to have assaulted his inflicting injuries on her person. Such admission, coupled with the fact and circumstances, which we have narrated herein before firmly establish that on the fateful night the accused killed his wife. Such evidence also establishes that he also assaulted his own mother with sharp weapon for which she sustained wounds both grievous and simple. 28. That being the position, in our opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges u/s. 302/326 IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. 29. Resultantly, we have found that the present appeal lacks merit and as such, same is liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 31. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae and therefore, it is ordered that the State Legal Service Authority shall pay her Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) as being his professional fees and same needs to be paid within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 32. On considering the materials on record, we are of the opinion that it is a case where legal representative(s) of the deceased are required to be compensated in terms of section 357(A) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is ordered that State shall pay Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand) only to the legal representative of the deceased as being compensation and such amount is to be deposited with the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Assam within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 33. On receipt of the said amount, the State Legal Services Authority shall deposit such amount to the DLSA, Lakhimpur and DLSA, Lakhimpur, thereafter, shall disburse such amount to the legal representatives of the deceased in equal amounts. 34. In the event, the legal representative(s) of the deceased is/are found to be minor(s), such amount shall be deposited in account(s) in the name of legal representative(s) in some nationalised bank and such amount shall remained deposited in such account(s) till the legal representatives of the deceased attain the age of majority. 35. 34. In the event, the legal representative(s) of the deceased is/are found to be minor(s), such amount shall be deposited in account(s) in the name of legal representative(s) in some nationalised bank and such amount shall remained deposited in such account(s) till the legal representatives of the deceased attain the age of majority. 35. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Assam, for doing needful as indicated above. Return the LCR forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.