Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 756 (GAU)

Riazul Ahmed v. State of Assam

2015-06-16

P.K.SAIKIA, RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
ORDER : P.K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2011 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Session Case No. 5/2007 convicting one Riazul Ahmed of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, SI for another 6 (six) months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment aforesaid, the appellant, Mr. Riazul Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused person’) preferred this appeal from jail citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 4. The case, projected by prosecution in the FIR and in subsequent trial, in short, is that the appellant herein married one Jubeda Katoon Barbhuiya (since deceased) on 15.08.2006. After the marriage, the couple started to live as husband and wife at the parental house of the accused situated at Bishnunagar in the district of Hailakandi. On the night between 18th and 20th November, 2011 at about 3 am, the accused inflicted several blows with an axe on his wife, who was sleeping in a room in the house of PW 2, Abdul Rajak Borbhuiya, which occasioned her instantaneous death. Having killed her, he fled from the scene. 5. However, the accused was caught subsequently and was handed over to police. In that connection, an FIR being lodged on 20.11.2006 with O/C, Hailakandi P.S. by Abdul Rahim Borbhuiya (PW 1), who happens to be father of the deceased. On the basis of said FIR police registered a case vide Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 382/2006 u/s 302 IPC and ordered one Amalendu Das (PW 7), S.I. of Police to investigate the case. 6. Being so ordered, Sri Das visited the place of occurrence, conducted an inquest on the dead body, sent the same to hospital for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case, seized a blood stained trouser on the strength of seizure list (Ext. 7) from the accused person, did the other things 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 face trial. 7. 7) from the accused person, did the other things 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 face trial. 7. The Magistrate before whom the 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 receipt of the case on commitment and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, framed charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and the charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses including informant, Medical Officer (in short, ‘MO’), who conducted autopsy and the Investigating Officer (in short, ‘I/O’) of the case. One J. Koch was examined as Court Witness. The statement of accused person was recorded u/s 313 CrPC. The plea of the accused was of total denial. He, however, on being required, declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 9. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court below 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. 10. Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment in question cannot sustain since the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused person. In that connection, it has been stated that the only witness, who claimed to have seen a part of the incident under consideration was PW 3, Smt. Chinu Begum, but she gave different versions at different stages of the case under consideration which shows that she made serious improvement to the story during trial which makes her evidence unreliable. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae also contends that the prosecution placed huge reliance on the testimony of PW 2, Abdul Rajak Borbhuiya. He, however, is found rendering version which firmly demonstrates that he too tried to improve the story which he rendered before the court during the different stages of the case under consideration, which in turn, makes his evidence unreliable. 12. He, however, is found rendering version which firmly demonstrates that he too tried to improve the story which he rendered before the court during the different stages of the case under consideration, which in turn, makes his evidence unreliable. 12. The learned Amicus Curiae further contends that the evidence rendered by other non-official witnesses are also not reliable and as such, the evidence rendered by those non-official witnesses does not throw much light on the matter under consideration, Therefore, once the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 are taken out of consideration, there remains nothing to support the allegation made against the accused person. 13. The learned Amicus Curiae again contends that the persons on whom the prosecution has placed heavy reliance are all partisan witnesses. Therefore, their evidence should not be relied on in ascertaining the allegation levelled against the accused person. 14. It is also the case of the learned Amicus Curiae that the motive of the accused person in committing the crime in question was not ascertained. Failure to ascertain the motive of the accused person in committing the alleged crime, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. 15. Referring to the evidence of some of the PWs, it has been argued that according to those witnesses, the accused was apprehended by the local people and was handed over to police. But the IO (PW 7) refused to support such contention since according to IO, he found the accused not in the police station, but in hospital in an injured condition. Such inconsistent claim makes such testimonies of all the witnesses more and more unreliable. 16. According to learned amicus curiae, there is indisputable evidence on record to show that the accused sustained serious injuries on his person but no explanation was forwarded as to how he sustained such injuries. Non-explanation of injuries inflicted on the person of the accused person, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, raises more and more doubt on the prosecution case. In view of above, the learned amicus curiae urges this Court to acquit the accused person on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 17. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan painstakingly submits that testimonies of PW 2 and PW 3 provide the very fulcrum of the prosecution case. In view of above, the learned amicus curiae urges this Court to acquit the accused person on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 17. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan painstakingly submits that testimonies of PW 2 and PW 3 provide the very fulcrum of the prosecution case. According to her, though there are some infirmities here and there in the testimonies of those two witnesses, on the main their testimonies remain unshaken despite being subjected to threadbare cross-examination which clearly shows that on the night in question, the accused person had brutally assaulted his wife causing her instantaneous death. 18. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 together makes out the charge against the accused person. Besides this, there is evidence on record to show that the accused fled the scene after the alleged incident but he was apprehended later and was handed over to police. His, however, fleeing the scene in the wee hours only to be apprehended sometime later while he was trying to abscond is a huge circumstance which shows that the accused, and none else, was the person who killed the deceased at the place of occurrence on the night in question. 19. According to learned Addl. P.P there is evidence on record to show that on the night in question, the deceased and accused resided in one of the rooms of the house of PW 2. There is also evidence on record to show that the deceased died a violent death while staying in the house of PW 2 along with her husband. Such evidence coupled with the fact that the accused fled the scene soon after the alleged incident only to be caught sometime later while trying to abscond is a very strong circumstance which firmly demonstrates that the accused was the person who killed his wife on the night aforementioned. 20. According to learned Addl. P.P. there is evidence on record to show that when the accused was apprehended sometime after the incident, his clothes were found stained with blood. His being found wearing blood stained clothes speak in volume about the involvement of the accused in the crime in question. 21. 20. According to learned Addl. P.P. there is evidence on record to show that when the accused was apprehended sometime after the incident, his clothes were found stained with blood. His being found wearing blood stained clothes speak in volume about the involvement of the accused in the crime in question. 21. In view of above, the infirmities pointed out by learned amicus curiae, according to learned P.P., are of no consequences and therefore, such contentions advanced from the side of accused person needs to be rejected. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss this appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 22. We have considered the rival submissions, having regard to the judgment under challenge and the evidence on record. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at Hailakandi Civil Hospital, Hailakandi on 28.11.2006. He was Dr. K.Z. Choudhury and was examined as PW 6. His evidence is reproduced below:- “1) One incised wound of size 4.2 cm x 2.1 cm x 3.3 cm is seen above the right eyebrow. 2) One depression of size 5.2 cm x 4.1 cm x 3.3 cm running horizontally is seen on the right side of the forehead. 3) One depression of size 6.5 cm x 2.3 cm x 3.3 cm is seen running obliquely upward to the left and middle of the forehead. 4) One incised wound of size 6.8 cm x 3.2 cm x 3.3 is seen running antero-posteriority 2 cm to the right of the midline of the skull. 5. one incised wound of the size 10.2. x 5.3 cm x 6.3 cm is seen running horizontally starting 6.2 cm behind the right ear and passing over the right parital region. 6. One incised wound of size 5.2 cm x 3.1. cm x 3.2 cm is seen on the right side of the neck 3.2 cm below the right ear running horizontally. 7. One incised wound of size 5.1 cm x 2.8 cm x 3.4 cm is seen running horizontally. 2.4 cm below the right ear and just below the angle of the right mandille. 8. cm x 3.2 cm is seen on the right side of the neck 3.2 cm below the right ear running horizontally. 7. One incised wound of size 5.1 cm x 2.8 cm x 3.4 cm is seen running horizontally. 2.4 cm below the right ear and just below the angle of the right mandille. 8. One incised wound of size 5.2 cm x 3.1 cm x 3.5 cm is seen running horizontally on the right side of the neck 4.2 cm below the right ear and 2.1 cm below the wound No. 6. 9. one incised wound of size 5.2 cm x 2.2 cm x 2.9 cm is seen running horizontally cutting the pinna and trague of the right ear in its middle and reaching the zygametic region of the face. Injury no. 2 was caused by blunt object struck with great force resulting in depression of the frontal sphendial region and causing multiple fractures and depressing and damaging the right cerebral hemisphere beneath. All the other wounds were caused by a sharp edged heavy object striking the head and neck with great force resulting in multiple grievous wounds and massive haemorrhage and cerebral injuries. Death must have been instantaneous.” 23. The Doctor opined that the deceased died due to massive haemorrhage and cerebral injuries following grievous wounds caused by a sharp-edged heavy object. According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses, more particularly, PW 2 and PW 3 on whom prosecution placed enormous reliance. We have found that the learned trial court too has reproduced the evidence of those two witnesses. Since such evidence seems to have been reproduced properly, we also find it necessary to re-reproduce the evidence of PW 3 from the judgment under challenge in the following manner -- PW 3, Chinu Begum who happens to be wife of PW 2 states that during trial that the deceased was her niece and the daughter of the eldest brother of her husband. On the date of incident and at the relevant point of time, accused and the deceased were sleeping in the western room of their house and she along with her husband was sleeping in the eastern room. On the date of incident and at the relevant point of time, accused and the deceased were sleeping in the western room of their house and she along with her husband was sleeping in the eastern room. At about 3.30 am, on the said night she heard cries while she entered into the room, where Jubeda was sleeping with her husband, she saw accused at the dock taking an axe in his hand inside the room and she saw Jubeda was lying on her bed with cut injuries on her body. Seeing the occurrence, she raised alarm and hearing her cries while the accused was trying to flee away throwing the axe on the door step of the room, her husband (PW 2) caught hold of the accused outside the room but the accused fled away from the clutches of her husband. The brother-in-laws of the victim who were sleeping in the same homestead hearing the hue and cry came out of the rooms and went out of the room to search the accused but they failed to trace him out. Thereafter, her husband (PW 2) went to Hailakandi Town to report the matter to the father of the deceased, later on, she heard that her brother-in-laws Abdul Matin and Hasin caught hold of the accused while the accused was sleeping inside a parking truck at Boalipur market and while Abdul Matin and Hasin were taking the accused towards Hailakandi Town, at the house she disclosed the incident to them. After the incident, police and one Magistrate arrived at the scene and recorded his statement, police seized one axe left by the accused. Ext. 2 is the seizure list and Ext. 2(2) is her signature. Material Ext. 1 is the seized axe which she had recognized. PW 3 further deposed that the accused and the deceased were staying in their guest room i.e. western room of the house once a week before the occurrence. They had electric light in their residence and at the time of occurrence, the electric light was in the room where the occurrence took place was on. She was also cross-examined thoroughly. PW 3 further deposed that the accused and the deceased were staying in their guest room i.e. western room of the house once a week before the occurrence. They had electric light in their residence and at the time of occurrence, the electric light was in the room where the occurrence took place was on. She was also cross-examined thoroughly. A numbers of suggestions were given to her in respect of her previous statement made before the IO, and the Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164, CrPC, on a minute perusal of the deposition of her cross-examination in the light of the deposition of IO (PW 7) and the Magistrate (CW 1). It appears that the witness Chinu Begum did not state before the IO, that all her in-laws came out of their house and on search they failed to trace out the accused nor PW 3 did stated before the IO that PW 2 came to Hailankandi to report about the death of the deceased to her father. Also she did not state before the IO that the deceased along with the accused were staying in the western portion of their house since a week before the date of occurrence. This apart, the aforesaid witness i.e. PW 3 did not state before CW 1 that while her husband tried to catch hold of the accused ; they the accused fled away from his clutches by force and the aforesaid witness did not state before the CW 1 that PW 2 came to Hailakandi Town to report about the occurrence to the father of the deceased. PW 3 did not state before the CW 1 that while her brother-in-law took the accused towards Hailakandi Town from Boalipar, at Lakhirbond. PW 2 and his elder brother saw the accused and the aforesaid witness did not state before the CW 1 that accused and the deceased were staying in the western room of their house since a week before the occurrence. PW 2 and his elder brother saw the accused and the aforesaid witness did not state before the CW 1 that accused and the deceased were staying in the western room of their house since a week before the occurrence. But on a minute scanning of her testimonies, it appears that some solid place of evidence have been surfaced during trial and which incriminates the accused and the same are summed in the following way – (i) That PW 3 is most material witness about the incident and on the date of incident and at the relevant night the accused slept with the deceased in the western room of her house and in the eastern room she was sleeping with her husband, (ii) that at the relevant point time, she heard cries of the deceased and hearing her cries, she came out of her room and entered into the room in question and found the accused carrying an axe in his hand, whereas the deceased was found with cut injuries on her person. The aforesaid piece of evidence could not be demolished by the defence side during her cross-examination. Motin and others came out of their rooms and after search, they failed to trace out the accused. 24. We have found that PW 2 is another important witness on whom prosecution places heavy reliance. On the perusal of the evidence of PW 2, it is found that on the night in question, he was sleeping in his room along with his wife. On that night, on hearing hue and cry raised by his wife he got up from bed. Thereafter, he came out of his room and saw the accused coming from the room where he was sleeping on that night. On seeing the accused he tried to apprehend him but he could not do so. 25. According to him, when fleeing from his house, the accused threw an axe on the door step. He also saw the wife of the accused lying dead in the room which the accused and his wife occupied on that eventful night. Subsequently, the accused was apprehended and was handed over to police. According to this witness, police seized the axe during the course of investigation on the strength of Seizure List (Ext. 2). 26. He also saw the wife of the accused lying dead in the room which the accused and his wife occupied on that eventful night. Subsequently, the accused was apprehended and was handed over to police. According to this witness, police seized the axe during the course of investigation on the strength of Seizure List (Ext. 2). 26. The other witnesses on whom prosecution placed reliance are PW 4, Abdul Matin, PW 5, Abdul Hasim and PW 1, Abdul Rahim Barbhuiya. Their evidence are also re-reproduced below from the judgment under challenge -- PW 4 Abdul Matin states during trial that on the date of incident and at the relevant point of time, the deceased was sleeping in one of the rooms of the house of PW 2 and at that time he was also sleeping in his own room. At about 3.30 am, he heard some hue and cry raised by PW 3 and hearing the same he came out from his room and his brother Abdul Hasin also came out from his room and after coming out of their respective rooms they saw accused at the dock was running away from the house. They could not apprehend the accused and while he came back to the room where the occurrence took place he saw deceased Jubeda Khatoon was lying at the door step of thet said room. He further states that thereafter they spent PW 2 to Hailakandi Town to report the occurrence to the father of the deceased. Later on, he came along with Hasin and some other villagers to search the accused and they found accused was concealing himself on the body of a parking truck at Boalipar and they caught hold of the accused and while they were proceeding towards Hailakandi Town with the accused ; at Lakhirbond they saw PWs 1 and 2 were coming from Hailakandi Town and thereafter they all together handed over the accused to police, subsequently the all brothers returned back to their house and PW 3 narrated the story of the occurrence to them. Also they saw the axe left by the accused lying on the door step. After lodging the Ejahar by PW 1 police visited his house and recorded his statement and also seized the axe in his presence vide Ext. 2. Also they saw the axe left by the accused lying on the door step. After lodging the Ejahar by PW 1 police visited his house and recorded his statement and also seized the axe in his presence vide Ext. 2. The aforesaid witness was also cross-examined in respect of the statements made before the IO and the Magistrate (CW 1), who recorded the statement under Section 164 CrPC. A number of suggestions were also put to him by defence side in regard to the aforesaid aspects. From a perusal of the cross-examination of PW 4 in the light of the deposition of IO (PW 7) and the learned Judicial Magistrate (CW 1), it appears that witness Abdul Matin did not state before the IO that he along with his brother Hasin searched the accused but failed to trace him out. The said witness did not state before the IO that they sent PW 2 Abdul Rejjak to inform the matter to Abdul Rahim. Also he (PW 4) did not state before the IO, that he and Hasim took the accused to Hailakandi and they met PWs 1 and 2 at Lakhirbond village. PW 4 did not state before the IO that while they were returning to home after handing over the accused to police the matter was reported to them by Chinu Begum (PW 3). On a minute perusal of his testimonies, it appears that PW 4 also states during trial that on the date of incident and at the relevant point of time hearing the cries he came out from his room and he saw the accused was running away from the house. PW 5, Abdul Hasin being another brother of PW 1, stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused and the deceased were sleeping in the guest room of PW 2. At about 3.30 am, he came out of his room hearing hue and cry raised by PW 3 and while he entered into their room, he saw the deceased was lying dead on a bed. PW 5 also saw that an axe was also lying near the door step of the room. PW 2 tried to caught hold of the accused but failed. PW 5 also saw that an axe was also lying near the door step of the room. PW 2 tried to caught hold of the accused but failed. Thereafter, the brother (PW 2) of the PW 5 went to Hailakandi to report about incident to PW 1 and he and PW 4 came out in search of the accused and they apprehended the accused from inside a truck which was parked at Boalipara and they along with PW 1 and PW 2 handed over the accused to police. One Sri Amalendu Das (IO) was examined as PW 7 and his evidence is also reproduced below :- PW 7 , Amalendu Das is the IO of the case. According to him on 20.11.06 he was working as SI of Police at Hailankandi Police Station and on that day the O/C, Hailakandi PS after receipt of the FIR from PW 1 vide Ext. 1 registered a case and entrusted him to investigate into the case. During the course of investigation, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased in a room lying on a cot with injuries. PW 7 caused an inquest to be done by the learned Executive Magistrate Manash Das vide Ext. 5, wherein Ext. 5(1) is the signature of Executive Magistrate and Exts. 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4) are the signatures of witnesses of the inquest. In the course of investigation the IO (PW 7) seized one blood stained axe vide Ext. 2 which was lying by the side of the dead body; wherein Ext. 2(4) is his signature in the seizure list, one long pant having some blood stain vide Ext. 7 from the possession of the accused and Ext. 791) is his signature and Exts. 7(2), 7(3), 7 (5) are the signatures of the witnesses. He also prepared the sketch map of the PO vide Ext. 6 wherein Ext. 6(1) is his signature and he also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. At the time of his visit, he did not find the accused in the house. Subsequently, he sent the dead body to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. In course of investigation, he also sent some of the witnesses, namely, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 to the court for recording their statements u/s 164 CrPC. The accused was subsequently found at Hailakandi Civil Hospital. Subsequently, he sent the dead body to Hailakandi Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. In course of investigation, he also sent some of the witnesses, namely, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 to the court for recording their statements u/s 164 CrPC. The accused was subsequently found at Hailakandi Civil Hospital. He interrogated the accused there who was on police guard and on the following day the accused was arrested by him and forwarded him to court. and. in the seizure list. The IO had collected the post mortem report and after completion of the investigation finally he submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC vide Ext. 8 and Ext. 8(1) is his signature. In cross, the IO deposed that Ext. A is the arrest memo of the accused which was prepared on 21.11.2006 at 9.30 am and Ext. A91) is the date and time of arrest and Ext. A(2) is the place of arrest i.e. at Hailakandi Police Station. The IO further deposed that the alleged incident occurred on 20.11.06 at 3am and he recorded the statements of other witnesses such as Taj Uddin Mazumder, Abdul Khalique Barbhuiya, Faijul Haque Laskar, Hilal Begum Barbhuiya, Hijfur Rehman Choudhury, Dilwar Hussain Choudhury, Jaydul Islam Choudhury and others. All those witnesses were inside their respective rooms from the time of commission of offence till recoding of their statement u/s Section 164, CrPC, one blood stained calendar was found at the place of occurrence but that was not seized. As per the sketch map (Ext. 6), the house of one Amirun Begum is located adjacent to the PO but she was not examined. During cross, the IO was asked so many questions by the defence side in respect of statements made by the witnesses before him. 27. One Sri J. Koch, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, was examined as CW 1. According to him, during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Abdul Motin Borbhuiya (PW 4), Abdul Rejak Borbhuiya (PW 2) and Chinu Begum (PW 3) u/s 164 CrPC which he proved as Ext Y, Ext. X and Ext Z respectively. 28. As stated above, we have already found that the deceased died a homicidal death on sustaining grievous wounds being inflicted by heavy sharp object. X and Ext Z respectively. 28. As stated above, we have already found that the deceased died a homicidal death on sustaining grievous wounds being inflicted by heavy sharp object. The evidence of PW 2 clearly shows that on the fateful night, he was sleeping in one room and in another room the deceased and his wife were sleeping. At night, she got up from bed hearing hue and cry raised by his wife. As she came to the room of the accused person she saw the accused inside the room where he and his wife were sleeping on that night and that too with an axe in his hand. 29. She also saw the wife of the accused lying dead inside the room. Seeing all these, she raised hue and cry for which her husband came there. In the meantime, the accused tried to flee the scene throwing the axe in the door step. Although her husband tried to apprehend him he could not do so. Subsequently, he was apprehended by the people and was handed over to police. 30. On perusal of evidence of PW 2, it is found that PW 2 lends firm support to the testimony rendered by PW 3. Though we have noticed some inconsistencies in the evidence of those two PWs; yet, such inconsistencies hardly affect the credibility of the PW 2 and PW 3 or for that matter the prosecution case, which in turn, shows that the deceased died having sustained wounds inflicted on her by the accused person with a weapon as danger as an axe. 31. We have considered the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in the light of evidence rendered by PW 6, Dr. KZ Choudhury, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, and have found that the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 finds unfettered support from the evidence rendered by PW 6, Dr. KZ Choudhury, in so far as site, size and nature of the wounds found inflicted on the body of the deceased are concerned. 32. On the perusal of the evidence of other witnesses, more particularly PW 4 and PW 5, we have also found that the accused was apprehended while he was trying to flee from the scene sometime after the incident under consideration and was handed over to police. Such evidence finds support from the evidence of PW 1. 32. On the perusal of the evidence of other witnesses, more particularly PW 4 and PW 5, we have also found that the accused was apprehended while he was trying to flee from the scene sometime after the incident under consideration and was handed over to police. Such evidence finds support from the evidence of PW 1. Being so, the allegations that the accused tried to flee from the scene after committing the crime and was apprehended subsequently and was handed over to police, are found well established in view of evidence on record. 33. One may notice here that there is indisputable evidence to show that the trouser which accused was wearing when he was arrested by police on 21.11.06 was found stained with blood. He being found wearing clothes stained with blood soon after the deceased met a violent death in the house of PW 2, and that too, when she was sleeping along with her husband in such a room firmly demonstrate that the accused had attacked, injured and killed his wife in the house of PW 2 on the night in question. 34. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecution case cannot be believed for reasons more than one. However, our forgoing discussion reveals that none of those allegations has any leg to stand on. Being so, all those allegations are liable to be rejected. 35. In view of what we have discussed hereinbefore and what have emerged there-from, we are of the opinion, that the prosecution has proved the charge u/s 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the judgment under challenge invites no interference. 36. Accordingly, the appeal being found devoid of merit is dismissed. 37. We deeply appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the present appeal. We, therefore, direct the State Legal Service Authority to pay him Rs. 7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) as being his professional fees within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 38. Return the LCR.