JUDGMENT/ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This is an appeal against acquittal. 2. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. We have also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. Appellant is the informant. He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 350 (K-G) of 2009 acquitting the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 from the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. 4. Leave to file appeal was granted on 17.09.2013 whereafter appeal was admitted for hearing on 19.09.2013. 5. Prosecution case is that son of the informant (appellant) Rahul Singh @ Papu had left with his motor cycle bearing Registration No.AS-01-V-6197 from home on 17.09.2009 around 1 pm in the evening with some of his friends. Between 7.30 to 8 pm in the evening, appellant was informed by the local Police Station that his son had met with an accident and he was lying in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). On receipt of this information, appellant and his family members rushed to the hospital where they came to know that Rahul had already expired. After observing the body, appellant found some fresh injury marks because of which he apprehended that his son might have been killed by some unknown persons. Thereafter, appellant lodged an FIR in the Bhangagarh Police Station on the basis of which Bhangagarh Police Station Case No.107/2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC. In the course of investigation, police arrested respondent Nos.1 to 3 and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against them under Sections 302/379 IPC. Being a sessions triable case, it was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial whereafter case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati. Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused-persons. 6. In the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the official witnesses. The accused-persons, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) where they pleaded denial. However, they did not adduce any evidence. 7. After hearing the matter, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup passed the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 granting benefit of doubt to the accused-persons and acquitted them of the charges. However, they did not adduce any evidence. 7. After hearing the matter, learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup passed the judgment and order dated 24.06.2013 granting benefit of doubt to the accused-persons and acquitted them of the charges. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding of the Court below is contrary to the weight of the evidence on record. Both PW3, Simanta Banikya, and PW4, Niki @ Amrita Sonowal, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly identified respondent Nos.1 to 3 as the persons who had assaulted the deceased. The medical certificate also supported the testimony of PW3 and PW4. In the course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused-persons could not explain the circumstances which appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Their answer to all the questions put to them was a simple denial. He contends that in the face of the unwavering testimony of the two eye witnesses, trial Court had erred by taking the view that accused-persons were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Murder of the deceased by the accused-persons was conclusively proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were disbelieved by the trial Court for apparent lapse of investigation, such as, not carrying out Test Identification Parade (TIP), not making analysis of call detail record of the seized mobile phones, etc. Therefore, present is a fit case for reversing the finding of acquittal and convicting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 302/34 IPC. In support of his submissions, Mr. Biswas has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (2003) 1 SCC 425 = Yunis Alias Kariya Vs. State of M.P.; (2012) 5 GLR 364 = Matleb Ali Vs. State of Assam. 9. Mr. Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam supports the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Though State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal, he, however, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from fundamental flaws in so far appreciation of evidence of PW3 and PW4 are concerned and, therefore, appellate Court may reverse the finding of acquittal to one of conviction. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae, supports the judgment of acquittal and contends that the view taken by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is a plausible view. There was no TIP during the investigation. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae, supports the judgment of acquittal and contends that the view taken by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is a plausible view. There was no TIP during the investigation. PW3 and PW4 had identified the accused-persons for the first time before the Court during the trial. Trial Court has given good reasons why such testimony of the two witnesses could not be accepted. Such reasonings of the trial Court cannot be said to be hit by irrationality or perversity. In such circumstances and having regard to the settled legal position, appellate Court may not reverse the finding of acquittal to one of conviction. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed. In support of her submissions, amongst other decisions, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak Vs. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773 . 11. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record, including the record requisitioned. 12. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be apposite to advert to the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge analysed the evidence as under :- "In the back drop of above legal position, a brief analysis of the evidence become necessary to arrive at a finding as to whether death of the deceased was caused due to head injury sustained form the voluntary act of accused persons assaulting deceased with blunt weapon. From the evidence adduced by the PWs, it is seen that the evidence by the PW 3 and PW 4 is that on the date of occurrence, these two PWs alongwith the deceased Rahul Singh @ Pappu went to Narakasur Hill View Point for roaming and while they were sitting there, three youths came there and involved with altercation with the deceased and also assaulted the deceased. They further claimed that the three accused persons who were present in the dock of the Court while they were deposing in the Court are the persons who involved with quarrel with the deceased on the date of occurrence and assaulted the victim. Now, let me consider as to whether the above iota of evidence adduced by the PW3 and PW 4 are sufficient to identify the accused persons as the assailants of the alleged occurrence. Now, let me consider as to whether the above iota of evidence adduced by the PW3 and PW 4 are sufficient to identify the accused persons as the assailants of the alleged occurrence. From the cross-examination of IO (PW 13), it reveals that the IO affirms in the Court that PW 3-Simanta Banikya never stated before him during investigation that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased. In her cross-examination PW4-Amrita Sonowal was suggested by defence that she stated before the IO that the boys who assaulted Rahul are unknown to her and even if she could see them in future, she would be unable to identify them as because she was very much nervous at the relevant time which she denied. From cross-examination of PW13, it further reveals that during investigation, PW3 Simanta Banikya stated before him that he started taking heroine since the year 2009, on the date of occurrence there was birthday of Rahul and at the spot, Neikhi @ Amrita pushed heroin injection to Rahul first and then on herself and then, she injected heroin injection to the PW3 and after smoking a cigarette, PW3 became unconscious and could not say what happened later on. The IO (PW3) also adduced evidence that PW4-Amrita Sonowal also admitted before him that on their way to view point at Narakasur hill, they came to Manipuribasti and Simanta purchased heroin from a person near the shop of Kero Young and thereafter, they arrived at the place of occurrence and pushed heroine injection on themselves. The IO in his cross-examination further admitted that the PW3 and PW4 never stated before him that they could identify the persons who assaulted the deceased and as such, no TIP was held. *** *** *** Thus, in the case of hand it is seen that the accused persons were not named as the assailants of the deceased nor they were named by the PW 3 and PW 4, while the PW 3 stated before the IO that after PW 4 injected heroin to him and he smoke a cigarette and fell unconscious and he could not say what happened later on. If it be so, then fact that the PW 3 had seen the accused persons while assaulting the deceased cannot be believed at all. If it be so, then fact that the PW 3 had seen the accused persons while assaulting the deceased cannot be believed at all. The IO in his cross-examination further admitted that the PW 3 and PW 4 never stated before him that they could identify the persons who assaulted the deceased and as such, no TIP was held. The evidence of IO reveals that they were the deceased and PW 3 and PW 4 who had pushed heroin injection on themselves just before the alleged occurrence. From the statement of PW4-Amrita Singh U/S 164 Cr.PC, exhibited under Ext.3, it is further reveals that the said witness did not stated before the Judicial Magistrate that she could identify the assailants of the victim at the time of occurrence. Thus, while the PW 3 and PW 4 identified the accused persons for the first time in the Court, the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to their deposing in the Court cannot be ruled out in this case and hence, my considered opinion is that it would not be safe to place reliance on the identification of the accused persons for the first time in the dock by the PW 3 and PW 4." 13. After so analyzing the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup came to the conclusion that it would not be safe to place reliance on the identification of the accused-persons for the first time in the dock by PW3 and PW4 whereafer it was held as under:- "Now, what is important to note here is that IO during investigation of the case seized two mobile handsets from the possession of accused Sanjib Baishya and PW 12-Mamoni Limbu and Mamoni Limbu stated that her brother Pradip Das who is the accused in the case handed over her the seized mobile. Now, from the cross-examination of IO (PW-13), it reveals that during investigation, he did not found and collected any document to show that the seized mobile phones belonged to deceased Rahul Singh and PW3-Simanta Banikya nor he did investigate about the fact from where the said mobile handset were purchased. Now, from the cross-examination of IO (PW-13), it reveals that during investigation, he did not found and collected any document to show that the seized mobile phones belonged to deceased Rahul Singh and PW3-Simanta Banikya nor he did investigate about the fact from where the said mobile handset were purchased. PW 13 also admitted during cross-examination that during investigation, he did not conduct any investigation regarding IMEI number which was available in the mobile hand set nor he made attempt to collect the sim cards which were used in the seized mobile handsets nor he collected any CDR regarding the seized mobile allegedly recovered from accsued Sanjib Baishya and PW 12-Mamoni Limbu. The admitted fact that both the mobile handsets were seized without any sim card. No evidence was also accused by the prosecution that the PW 1 or PW 3 identified the seized mobile handset to be of the deceased and PW 3. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence that deceased Rahul Singh and PW 3 were the owners of the seized mobile handsets from accused Sanjib Baishya and PW 12 Mamoni Limbu or that the mobile handsets of deceased Rahul Singh and PW 3 which were lost during incidents are same mobile handsets which were seized from accused Sanjib Baishya and PW 12 Mamoni Limbu in connection with the case. Thus, the recovery of seized mobile handsets from accused Sanjib Baishya and witness Mamoni Limbu has no bearing to connect the proximity of the accused persons with the offence alleged by the prosecution in which death was caused to deceased Rahul Singh @ Papu. Thus, in the instant case, it is seen that it will not be safe to place reliance on the identification of the accused persons for the first time in the dock by the PW 3 and PW 4. It is further reveals from the evidence of the PW 4 that after deceased fell down due to the assault, she walked away from spot and after reaching at Bhangagarh, boarded in the city bust an arrived her house situated at Maligaon and in the evening, she came to know after watching TV news that Rahul had died due to over dose at Narakasur Pahar, then only on the following day she went to Panbazar PS an gave her statement before the police of Panbazar PS in connection with the occurrence. Thus, the question arises as to that if Rahul was assaulted at the Narakasur view point and his friend Simanta Banikya was laid down there, then why PW 4 did not inform such facts before police nor divulged the said facts to anybody else to rescue her two friends from the spot. On the account also the evidence of PW 4 is doubtful. It is also seen that the IO though recovered two mobile handsets from accused Sanjib Baishya and witness Mamoni Limbu but he did not try to prove that the said seized mobile handsets were the mobile handsets of the deceased and PW 3 which were lost during the occurrence. Hence, no such circumstances could be gathered from such seizure which would help this Court to link the nexus of the present accused persons with the commission of the alleged crime. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that suspicion, however, grave cannot take place of proof and strong pieces of circumstantial evidence cannot establish the guilt unless each piece links to another and every link in the chain is proved." 14. On the basis of the above, it was held that no such evidence was adduced by the prosecution which would enable the Court to hold confidently that accused-persons had assaulted the victim on the date of occurrence and had voluntarily caused grievous hurt leading to his death. Learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that there was no conclusive proof to pin down the accused and, therefore, they were entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. To appreciate the above conclusion, let us briefly analyse the relevant evidence on record. 16. PW1 is the informant, i.e., appellant. He stated that at around 12.30 p.m. on 17.09.2009, i.e., on the day of Biswakarma puja, his son, Papu, had gone out of his house with one of his friends in a motor cycle. Between 7.30 to 8 pm when he (PW1) was outside, his wife informed him over phone that police had come to his house to inform that his son had met with an accident and that he was at GMCH. Thereafter, he along with his family members, some friends and neighbouring people first went to the Police Station and thereafter to GMCH where he found the dead-body of his son covered by a cloth in the morgue. The attending doctor told him that his son was brought dead. Thereafter, he along with his family members, some friends and neighbouring people first went to the Police Station and thereafter to GMCH where he found the dead-body of his son covered by a cloth in the morgue. The attending doctor told him that his son was brought dead. When he looked at the dead-body of his son, he noticed several injury marks on his neck, back of the head and in the forehead. Returning to the Police Station, he lodged a first information which was written by Shri Utpal Deka, PW2, who had gone with PW1. Later on, the motor cycle was recovered and given to him in zimma though the Nokia mobile handset and wallet were not found. Later on, he could come to know that three boys were arrested by the police in connection with the death of his son. 17. PW2 supported the statement of PW1. 18. PW3, Simanta Banikya, a student, stated that deceased Rahul Singh @ Papu was his friend. On the day of Biswakarma puja, i.e. on 17.09.2009, on being called, he went to Rahuls house wherefrom they came out in a motor cycle at around 12 o clock. Rahul had told him that his friend Niki @ Amrita Sonowal was coming to Big Bazar. So they went there. When Niki arrived, the three of them went on the same motor cycle to the View Point at the top of Narakasur Hill. On reaching there, they sat down and PW3 lit a cigarette. While looking down, he felt dizzy and fell down. Niki and Rahul offered him litchi drink. After about 5/10 minutes, some boys arrived at the scene and talked to Rahul and Niki. One of them checked the pockets of the trouser of PW3. When Rahul objected to such checking, a scuffle took place between Rahul and the said boys whereafter Rahul fell down. Though he saw the fighting, he could not get up and became unconscious. He identified the three persons at the dock as the ones who had assaulted Rahul on the fateful day. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the Medical College Hospital. Next day in the hospital, his brother, Biplab Banikya, told that Rahul had expired. His Nokia mobile phone and wallet were missing. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Rahul, he and Niki took drugs on the day of the incident. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the Medical College Hospital. Next day in the hospital, his brother, Biplab Banikya, told that Rahul had expired. His Nokia mobile phone and wallet were missing. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Rahul, he and Niki took drugs on the day of the incident. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the accused-persons at the place of occurrence and that he did not give the police any description of the boys who had assaulted Rahul. Police did not produce him in the Court or jail to identify the accused-persons. 19. PW4, Amrita Sonowal, was with the deceased and PW3 at the time of occurrence. While narrating their meeting at Big Bazar and proceeding to Narakasur Hills View Point in an identical manner as stated by PW3, she stated that when PW3 fell down, she and Rahul lifted him. At that time, some boys came and asked Rahul and PW4 as to what had happened whereafter they checked the pockets of Simantas (PW3) trouser. When Rahul asked the boys as to why they were checking the pockets, there was an altercation which resulted in a scuffle between Rahul and the boys who were three in number. They dealt fist blows on Rahuls face and when he fell down, all of them trampled upon his face. She stated that she did not know the boys from before but identified the three accused-persons at the dock to be the three boys who had assaulted Rahul on that day. She became frightened and came down the hill on foot whereafter she returned to her home at Maligaon by a bus. That evening, she came to know from television that Rahul had died. She came to Panbazar Police Station the next day and informed about the incident whereafter she was taken to Bhangagarh Police Station. She also made statement before the Magistrate, Ext.3. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion of taking drugs and also the suggestion that Rahul had died after receiving grievous injury in an accident. She, however, stated that she did not raise alarm when Rahul was being assaulted. 20. PW7, Dr. R. Chaliha, was the Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH. On 18.09.2009, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Rahul Singh on being identified by police constables. She, however, stated that she did not raise alarm when Rahul was being assaulted. 20. PW7, Dr. R. Chaliha, was the Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH. On 18.09.2009, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Rahul Singh on being identified by police constables. He noticed the following injuries on the dead-body of Rahul :- "(1) An abrasion over right elbow measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. (2) An abrasion over the right forehead measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. (3) A lacerated injury over the lateral aspect of the left eyebrow measuring 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm along with brain. (4) Abrasion over the back of the right shoulder measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. (5) Abrasion over the back of the left shoulder measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. (6) An abrasion over the left elbow measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. (7) Linear sketch marks 5 in numbers was seen on the left side of the neck along with bruises of different sizes varying from 4 cm x 25 cm to 2 cm x .25 cm each on placed parallely. (8) An abrasion over the right side of the neck measuring 2 cm x 1 cm." 20.1. According to him, death had occurred due to comma because of the head injuries. Injuries were ante mortem and were caused by blunt force impact. In cross-examination, he explained that by blunt force impact, he meant that deceased might have fallen on a heavy substance or he might have been struck by a heavy object. 21. PW13, Shri Pradip Das was the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangagarh Police Station who had conducted the investigation. According to him, on receiving information that two youths were found lying near the View Point of Narakasur Hills, he along with his staff proceeded to the place of occurrence. There he found two boys in an unconscious state and one motor cycle in standing position. When he threw water on the face of the boys, one of them responded whereas the other did not. Thereafter, the two boys were sent to GMCH. He seized the following items from the place of occurrence as per Seizure List, Ext.7:- 1. Empty packet of Flake cigarette, 2. One small scissor, 3. One small sterile water bottle, 4. Sweet supari packet, 5. One motor cycle registration certificate. 21.1. Thereafter, the two boys were sent to GMCH. He seized the following items from the place of occurrence as per Seizure List, Ext.7:- 1. Empty packet of Flake cigarette, 2. One small scissor, 3. One small sterile water bottle, 4. Sweet supari packet, 5. One motor cycle registration certificate. 21.1. When he went to the GMCH, he was informed that one of the boys he had sent to the GMCH was declared dead by the doctors whereafter he came to know that the dead-body was of Rahul @ Papu. After informing the parents, he took over the charge of investigation. From source information, he could come to know that there was one girl who was present along with the two boys, i.e., PW4 whereafter she was taken into custody following which her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded. On coming to know about involvement of the accused-persons, they were taken into custody and during interrogation, they admitted committing the crime. One mobile handset was taken by Mridul Das whereas the other handset was taken by Sanjib Baishya both of which were recovered vide Ext.5 and Ext.6. 21.2. In his cross-examination, PW13 admitted that he did not try to collect the ownership papers of the seized mobile phones and also he did not examine any documents regarding the mobile handsets. The call detail records of the two mobile phones were not obtained and analysed. Mobile phones were also not sent for any scientific or forensic examination. According to him, PW3 never stated before him that he had seen the accused-persons assaulting the deceased. PW3 and PW4 also never stated before him that they could recognize the accused-persons. Therefore, no TIP was held. PW4 had told him that the boys who had assaulted Rahul were unknown to her and if she saw them in future, she would not be able to recognize them because at the time of the incident, she was very nervous. During investigation, both PW3 and PW4 never told him that they would be able to identify the accused-persons who were involved in the assault of the deceased. 22. Before we conclude the evidence part, we may briefly refer to Ext.3, which is the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. During investigation, both PW3 and PW4 never told him that they would be able to identify the accused-persons who were involved in the assault of the deceased. 22. Before we conclude the evidence part, we may briefly refer to Ext.3, which is the statement of PW4 recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. In this statement, she stated that while the three of them were chatting at Narakasur Hill View Point, one of them, i.e., Simanta became senseless and when they tried to help him, some unknown persons arrived at the scene and started helping them by providing water, etc. But suddenly the unknown persons started an altercation with Rahul and after some time, they started assaulting Rahul. When she tried to obstruct, the unknown persons threatened her and due to fear, she returned home. As she was so nervous, she did not disclose about the occurrence to anybody. It was only on the next day that she informed the police. 23. From a careful analysis of the evidence on record, what immediately comes to the fore is the very poor investigation carried out in this case. No TIP was conducted. Just because PW3 and PW4 had stated that they would not be able to identify the culprits, could not be the ground for not holding TIP. That apart, after mobile handsets were recovered, the Investigating Officer ought to have gathered the call detail records and an analysis of the same could have thrown significant light into the case. That was not done. 24. From the record, what also transpires is that neither PW3 nor PW4 in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC had identified the accused-persons as the culprits, possibly because of not holding of TIP. It was for the first time during the trial that they stated that the accused-persons standing at the dock were the ones who had assaulted the deceased. Even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, which in any case is not a substantive piece of evidence, PW4 did not mention the names of the accused-persons. 25. The legal position is that TIP is held in the course of investigation ordinarily at the instance of the investigating agency for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the accused-persons involved in the offence. 25. The legal position is that TIP is held in the course of investigation ordinarily at the instance of the investigating agency for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the accused-persons involved in the offence. Though failure to hold TIP would not render evidence of identification in Court inadmissible in law but ordinarily identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in Court should not form the basis of conviction because by its very nature, it is inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by previous identification in the TIP or by any other evidence. Previous identification in the TIP is a check-valve to the evidence of identification in Court of an accused by a witness. The same is a rule of prudence and not of law. Ordinarily, if an accused is not named in the FIR, his identification by a witness in the Court for the first time should not be relied upon especially when the witness did not disclose the name of the accused before the police or did not identify the accused in a prior TIP. 26. In the light of the above position, though certainly the needle of suspicion points towards the accused-persons, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of hard proof. That apart, view taken by the trial Court is a plausible one on the basis of the evidence on record. It is the time-tested principle which is followed by an appellate Court while considering an appeal against acquittal that a judgment of acquittal should be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. 27. On a thorough consideration of the matter, we are not persuaded to reverse the finding of acquittal to one of conviction. Though we reiterate that the investigation carried out was not up-to the mark and despite grave suspicion, in the absence of clinching evidence, conviction of the accused-persons may not be legally sustainable. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 28. Before parting with the record, we find that the trial Court had not adverted to payment of victim compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC. 29. Government of Assam has framed the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 which has been amended from time to time. The scheme provides for compensation of Rs. 28. Before parting with the record, we find that the trial Court had not adverted to payment of victim compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC. 29. Government of Assam has framed the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 which has been amended from time to time. The scheme provides for compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in the case of death. 30. Supreme Court in Suresh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227 , has held that at the stage of final hearing, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to advert to the provisions of Section 357A Cr.PC and record a finding regarding grant of compensation, award of which can be interim. Referring to the scheme adopted by the State of Kerala which provides for compensation up-to Rs. 5 lakhs in the case of death, Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in State of MP Vs. Mehtab, (2015) 5 SCC 197 has held that the scheme adopted by the State of Kerala is applicable to all the States. Dealing with the issue of victim compensation, this Court in a recent order dated 23.01.2018 in IA (Crl.) No.823/2017 in Crl. Appeal No.159/2015 observed that quantum of compensation fixed by the State of Assam particularly in the case of death is on the lower side and requires upward revision. It was observed as under :- "While respectfully agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh (supra), we are of the view that the quantum of compensation fixed by the State of Assam, vide notification dated 05.03.2016, particularly in the case of death, following the Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, appears to be on the lower side. There is need for upward revision of the quantum of compensation in case of death. We hope and trust that Government of Assam in the Political (A) Department will do all that is necessary to take a logical view and consider upward revision of the quantum of compensation, particularly in the case of death." 31. Having regard to the above, we direct Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to pay interim compensation of rupees two lakhs to the appellant for the death of his young son. Such interim payment be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 32. Having regard to the above, we direct Assam State Legal Services Authority (ASLSA) to pay interim compensation of rupees two lakhs to the appellant for the death of his young son. Such interim payment be released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 32. While the appeal is dismissed, the above direction is issued to the ASLSA. 33. Before parting with the record, we place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned amicus curiae who shall be paid her fees by the ASLSA, which we quantify at Rs.7500.00.