Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1096 (GAU)

Akan Gogoi v. State of Assam

2019-09-24

M.R.PATHAK, NANI TAGIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lohit Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent/State. 2. This appeal from jail has been preferred by the accused appellant Akan Gogoi against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.1.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 152(J-J)/2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1150/2008 arising out of Jorhat Police Station Case No. 525/2008 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months. 3. On 05.10.2008 around 4:30 in the afternoon one Karuna Gogoi of village Gharfulia Gaon No. 2, Jorhat informed Bhogdoi Police Outpost under the jurisdiction of Jorhat Police Station over phone from Jorhat Civil Hospital that about 12:30 noon on the said date, his elder brother Sanjib Gogoi was hacked with a dao by his uncle's son Sri Akan Gogoi and that said Sanjib Gogoi was admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment Accordingly, GD Entry No. 71 in the Bhogdoi Outpost dated 5.10.2008 was entered (Exhibit-7) and on that basis police visited Jorhat Civil Hospital. 4. On 06.10.2008, the mother of the deceased Smti. Bhadra Gogoi, PW. 2 lodged an ejahar before the in-Charge of Bhogdoi Police Outpost stating that around 12 noon on 05.10.2008 (Sunday) a sudden quarrel took place at Raumanchuk of village Gharfulia Gaon No. 2 in which Akan Gogoi hacked her son Sanjib Gogoi with a dao and consequently, he suffered haemorrhage, whereupon he was admitted into Jorhat Jananayak Debeswar Sharma Hospital, but he was declared dead by the Doctors of the hospital after some time. In the said ejahar, the informant, PW. 2 requested the authority to take necessary action accordingly. 5. Bhogdoi Outpost registered the said ejahar of PW. 2 dated 06.10.2008 as a General Diary Entry No. 90 dated 6.10.2008 and forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station, wherein it was registered as Jorhat Police Station Case No. 525/2008 under Section 302 IPC. 2 requested the authority to take necessary action accordingly. 5. Bhogdoi Outpost registered the said ejahar of PW. 2 dated 06.10.2008 as a General Diary Entry No. 90 dated 6.10.2008 and forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station, wherein it was registered as Jorhat Police Station Case No. 525/2008 under Section 302 IPC. After registering the case, police visited the Jorhat Civil Hospital, Jorhat, held inquest on the dead body, found injury above the elbow of his left arm smeared with blood and excepting the same did not find any other injury on the person of the deceased. During such inquest made by the Investigating Officer of the case, PW. 12 found that since earlier, the deceased had been short of a left thumb. In the said inquest report it is also stated that as per the information provided by the brother of the deceased Karuna Gogoi (PW. 1) around 12:30 noon on 05.10.2008 his cousin brother, Akan Gogoi hacked the deceased in his hand with a dao and caused injury to him whereupon the deceased admitted in hospital, but the Doctor declared him dead during the treatment. The dead body of the deceased was forwarded to the Jorhat Civil Hospital for post mortem examination to ascertain the actual cause of death. The said Investigating Officer also visited the place of occurrence and drawn the sketch map Exhbit-8, arrested the accused person, recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC as well as the accused and also collected the post mortem examination report of the deceased dated 06.10.2008. As per the advice of the autopsy Doctor viscera of the deceased, stomach and its contents, part of liver and left kidney as prescribed was forwarded to the FSL for its necessary examination. After collecting the post mortem report dated 06.10.2008 as well as the FSL report dated 28.01.2009 Exhibit-5, finding prima facie evidence against the accused the I/O of the case vide charge-sheet No. 66 dated 31.03.2009 submitted the charge-sheet in said Jorhat P.S. Case under Section 302 IPC. 6. Since Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned CJM, Jorhat by his order dated 07.12.2012 committed the said GR Case No. 1150/2008 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat wherein it was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 152(JJ)/2012. 6. Since Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned CJM, Jorhat by his order dated 07.12.2012 committed the said GR Case No. 1150/2008 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat wherein it was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 152(JJ)/2012. The learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat on 03.04.2016, framed the charge of Section 302 IPC against the accused for intentionally causing murder of Sanjib Gogoi and it was read over to him, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial of the case proceeded. 7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the Autopsy Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the deceased, the I/O of the case, concerned police personnel who submitted the charge sheet in said Jorhat P.S. Case, the Senior Scientific Officer of Toxicology, Director of Forensic Science, Assam who examined the Viscera of the deceased. 8. After recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Trial Judge on 14.3.2016. Though the accused appellant was asked as to whether he will adduce any evidence, he denied the same. But the defence cross examined the prosecution witnesses. 9. Mr. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that though the prosecution have adduced evidence but it has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC sentencing him for life imprisonment, as there is no such ingredient for punishing the accused under Section 302 IPC. In this regard, the learned Amicus Curiae brought to the notice of the Court that the ejahar reflects that there was a sudden quarrel and the evidence adduced by the prosecution also reveals that the deceased also attacked the accused with a hoe in his head for which he sustained injuries and for which he was treated in the hospital as an indoor patient. Mr. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae also placed before the Court that the deceased sustained only one cut injury on his left hand above the elbow. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Mr. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae also placed before the Court that the deceased sustained only one cut injury on his left hand above the elbow. 10. On the other hand, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the prosecution by examining its witnesses proved that the accused was the aggressor of the incident and it is he, who inflicted the blow on the left hand of the deceased and because of the said injury and due to heavy loss of blood, said Sanjib Gogoi lost his life. As such, by the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2017, the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused as the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. PW. 1, Sri Karuna Gogoi is the younger brother of the deceased who informed the incharge of Bhogdoi Police Outpost in the afternoon on 05.10.2008 regarding the incident. Though in his examination-in-chief, said PW. 1 stated that the incident occurred in the month of October, 2008 in the afternoon between 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm while he was present in his house and after hearing the hue and cry as well as commotion from the nearby road, he came out of his house and saw that the accused chasing the deceased with a dao and hoe in his hand and that the accused Akan Gogoi gave a dao blow on the left hand of his elder brother, now deceased. He also stated that such dao blow was very severe due to which blood was oozing out from the left hand of Sanjib Gogoi. Said PW. 1 also stated that his mother PW. 2 also saw the accused fatting his elder brother. But the I/O of the case, PW. 9 did not corroborate such evidence of the PW. 1 as PW. 9 during his cross-examination stated that said PW. 1 did not state before him that at the time of the incident he was in his residence and that he heard hue and cry as well as commotion from nearby house and came out of his house and witnessed the incident that the accused was chasing his elder brother, the deceased with a dao in his hand. 12. PW. 2, Smti. 12. PW. 2, Smti. Bhadra Gogoi, the informant of the case deposed that the incident occurred on 05.10.2008 during day time on the road in front of their house while she was present in it and that PW. 1 was also present in his house that is located in the same compound as that of her house. During her examination-in-chief said PW. 2 stated that his son used to stay separately, but in the same compound. On the day of incident she heard hue and cry and commotion and hearing it, she came out of her house towards the road. She also stated that her son, the deceased on the date of the incident went out to attend a meeting that was to be held in the Jorhat District Library and she saw that the accused called her son asking him to come near him and at that time accused was armed with dao and a hoe. She further deposed that when the accused asked her son, i.e., the deceased, to come near him, he returned back to the accused and she saw that the accused assaulted her said son with a dao on his left hand and because of such assault, injury was caused to him and he died of severe bleeding. She went on saying that her son, the deceased had a common boundary with the accused but there was no dispute regarding the boundary land between them. During her cross examination by the defence PW. 2 stated that she and her son PW 1 witnessed the incident as the place of occurrence is very near to their house, from where the incident was clearly visible. The said PW 2 further stated that the accused threw a hoe towards his son and in self defence caught hold of the same and threw it back to the accused as a result of which the accused suffered minor injuries on Ms head and thereafter, the accused assaulted her son on his left hand causing severe bleeding. 13. PW. 3, Sri Jagat Chandra Bora is a witness to the inquest of the deceased Sanjib Gogoi who was present in the Jorhat Civil Hospital at the relevant time and he proved the said Inquest, Exhibit-1 along with his signature in it. 14. PW. 4, Sri Bipin Gogoi is a hearsay witness, who in his examination-in-chief stated that it was his wife, Smti. 14. PW. 4, Sri Bipin Gogoi is a hearsay witness, who in his examination-in-chief stated that it was his wife, Smti. Phula Gogoi informed him about the fight between the accused and the deceased. The said witness was declared hostile at the behest of the prosecution. During his cross examination by the defence said PW4 stated that the place of occurrence is situated about 700-800 meters away from the house of the deceased and the same is not visible from his house (from the house of the deceased) and that both the deceased and the accused are related to each other being cousins. 15. PW-5, Miss Trishna Ram Gogoi is also a hearsay witness and in her examination-in-chief she admitted that she did not see the incident. During her cross examination by the defence said PW. 5 stated that the place of incident is about 1/2 kilometre away from her house and that the accused is the uncle of her deceased father. 16. PW. 6 Sri Sunil Gogoi in his examination-in-chief stated that both the accused and the deceased are his nephews. He also deposed that the incident occurred in the afternoon hours while he was present at his residence and the place of occurrence is a road near the paddy field situated just near his house, and hearing hue and cry when he immediately came out from his house, he saw the accused assaulting Sanjib Gogoi with dao in his hand and that the incident took place about 25 feet away from his house. He also deposed that the accused assaulted the victim on his hand with the help of the dao. He further deposed that though the victim was taken to the Sub-Centre of their village immediately after the incident, but the authorities present therein informed that the injured should be shifted to the Jorhat Civil Hospital for better treatment and accordingly he was taken to the said hospital where he expired and he further deposed that he saw the incident with his own eyes. During his cross examination by the defence, he denied the suggestion that the victim struck a blow on the head of the accused by a spade and then accused inflicted dao blow on the hand of the deceased. During such cross examination, said PW. During his cross examination by the defence, he denied the suggestion that the victim struck a blow on the head of the accused by a spade and then accused inflicted dao blow on the hand of the deceased. During such cross examination, said PW. 6 denied the suggestion that the accused sustained severe injury on his head for which he was also admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital for treatment. 17. PW. 7, Mr. Prafulla Gogoi is also a hearsay witness who stated that both the victim and the accused were his brothers and that he was present during the seizure, Exhibit-3 and signed the same as a witness and proved the signature in it Exhibit 3(1). He further deposed that his house is adjacent to the house of the accused and the wife of the accused Smti Sumi Gogoi PW. 9 produced the dao and a hoe before police which was accordingly seized and that Material Exhibit-1 are those seizure articles i.e., the dao and the hoe. 18. PW. 8, Miss Nabanita Gogoi is the daughter of the accused who is also a hearsay witness to the incident who during her examination-in-chief stated that she carried the dao and the hoe which were lying at the place of occurrence on the date of the incident to her home and when police came to their house she showed the place where the dao and the hoe were kept and that Material Exhibit 1 are the seizure articles i.e., the dao and the hoe and she identified both the articles in the Court. She also deposed that her mother identified the said dao and the hoe which were recovered by police as shown by her and that her Borta (elder brother/father) who succumbed to his injuries on the date of the incident. 19. PW. 9, Mrs. Huni Gogoi wife of the accused is also a hearsay witness to the incident and in her examination-in-chief she stated that both the accused and the victim were taken to the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital for their medical treatment by the family members of the deceased victim. However, during her cross examination she denied to have witnessed the police seizing the dao and the hoe. 20. PW. 10, Dr. However, during her cross examination she denied to have witnessed the police seizing the dao and the hoe. 20. PW. 10, Dr. Dipak Baruah is the autopsy Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 06.10.2008 and also proved his post mortem examination report, Exhibit- 4 and his signature in it. During the postmortem examination of the deceased he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- "Injuries: Cut injury over mid portion of left hand of length 5 inches and depth 1/2 inch. Marks of Ligature on neck dissection etc: No. Scalp, Skull & Vertebrae- contested Membrane- Congested. Brain and Spinal Cord - Congested. Liver, Spleen Kidneys and Bladder- Congested. Walls, Ribs & Cartilage-Healthy. Organs of Generation, External & Internal -Congested. Walls, Peritoneum, Mouth, Pharynx and Oesophagus-Congested. Stomach and its contents-Contains food particles. Small intestine and its contents-Contains semi digested food particles. Large intestine and its contents - Contains fecal matters. Pleurae- Healthy. Right and Left Lung-Congested. Heart- Empty." During his cross examination by the defence said autopsy Doctor PW. 10 stated that injury found on the left hand of the deceased is not sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature and that the said injury was not on the vital part of the body. 21. PW. 11, Sri Samudra Baishya, Senior Scientific Officer of Toxicology, Director of Forensic Science, Assam at Guwahati at the relevant time and on receipt of the sealed parcel containing stomach and its contents of the deceased and one glass jar containing portion of liver and left kidney in two different jars covered and after examining it submitted his report on 28.01.2009 vide Exhibit-5 specifying that those parts of the body of the deceased did not contain any poison. 22. PW. 12, Sri Shyamal Kumar Bania is the Investigating Officer of the case and he deposed that the wife of the accused PW. 9 Sumi Gogoi produced one dao along with one hoe that was seized by him in presence of witnesses and that said PW. 9 Sumi Gogoi, wife of the accused put her signature in the seizure list containing material exhibits. He also deposed that the accused was admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital. 9 Sumi Gogoi produced one dao along with one hoe that was seized by him in presence of witnesses and that said PW. 9 Sumi Gogoi, wife of the accused put her signature in the seizure list containing material exhibits. He also deposed that the accused was admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital. After recording of the evidence of the witnesses, drawing the sketch map of the place of occurrence, arresting the accused person on 09.10.2008, he had to handover the case diary to the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station on 20.11.2008 as he was transferred out and later his successor Sri Mrinal Kr. Das, PW. 13 submitted the charge-sheet in the case. He submitted that PW-4 who was declared hostile in his 161 CrPC statement made before him stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw blood oozing out from the body of the accused as well as from the hand of the victim/deceased where he saw blood oozing out from hand joint of the victim and middle part of head of the accused and then he tied one Gamocha (local towel) that was in his hand on the head of the accused Akan Gogoi to stop blood corning out from the wound and that he took both the accused and the victim to the hospital in a vehicle that belongs to one of his relatives. During his cross examination by the defence said PW. 12, the I/O of the case stated that the accused was admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital on 05.10.2008 and he was admitted on the same day of the incident and that the dao that was seized in the case from the house of the accused being produced by his wife PW. 9 was filled with blood and it was not sent to FSL for its expert opinion and that the house of the accused is situated about 50 meters away from the place of occurrence. About the statement of PW. 6, Sri Sunil Gogoi, said PW 12, the I/O of the case deposed that said PW. 6 in Ms 161 CrPC statement stated before him that deceased Sanjib Gogoi struck a blow on the head of the accused by a spade and thereafter accused inflicted a dao blow on the head of the deceased Sanjib Gogoi. 23. PW. 13, Sri Mrinal Kr. 6 in Ms 161 CrPC statement stated before him that deceased Sanjib Gogoi struck a blow on the head of the accused by a spade and thereafter accused inflicted a dao blow on the head of the deceased Sanjib Gogoi. 23. PW. 13, Sri Mrinal Kr. Das, in his examination-in-chief stated that after receiving the case diary and on going through it, he found that the investigation was almost complete and thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused in the case. 24. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC against almost all the accusations of the prosecution witnesses, the accused stated that he did not commit the crime as alleged by the prosecution and that the deceased has assaulted him with a spade on him for which he sustained injury on his head and then fell down unconscious. But to a specific quarry made by the learned Trial Judge, with regard to the accusation made by the informant, PW. 2, Smti. Bhadra Gogoi and the question No. 14 as to whether he has to state anything to which the accused stated before the learned Trial Judge and admitted the fact that the deceased Sanjib Gogoi had threw a hoe towards him that was thrown by him towards the deceased and he sustained injury on his head due to which he fell down. 25. The deceased Sanjib Gogoi was the son of the informant PW. 2 and the evidence discloses that he used to reside in the same compound of PW. 2 in a separate house. Exhibit- 8, sketch map reflects that the house of the accused is adjacent to the house of the deceased and houses of PW.1, PW. 2, PW. 4 and PW 6 are very nearer to each other and that the place of occurrence, which is nearer to a paddy field, is also nearer to their houses. 26. PW. 2, mother of the deceased, in her evidence-in-chief deposed that her son, the deceased Sanjib Gogoi when went out to attend the meeting at Jorhat District Library, she saw the accused calling back him and asking her son to go near the accused. She also stated that she also proved the FIR (Ext. 2) lodged by her and her signature in it marked as Ext. (i) (2). 27. She also stated that she also proved the FIR (Ext. 2) lodged by her and her signature in it marked as Ext. (i) (2). 27. Further, in her evidence-in-chief stated that though the accused shared the common land with her deceased son, there was no dispute regarding the land between them and that she saw the accused giving the dao blow on the left hand of her son Sanjib Gogoi and he managed to go to Primary Health Centre of their village. Thereafter, he was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital. 28. In her cross-examination, mother of the deceased/informant of the case stated that it is the accused, who threw a hoe towards her deceased son, who in self-defence, threw back the hoe to the accused due to which the accused suffer minor injuries on his head and then the accused assaulted and gave the dao blow on the left hand of her son causing severe bleeding. 29. PW. 6 in his examination-in-Chief stated that he saw the accused assaulting Sanjib Gogoi with a dao and thereafter, the victim was taken to Sub-Centre of their village and then he was shifted to Jorhat Civil Hospital where he expired and also stated that he saw the entire incident with his eyes. 30. The statements of PW.2 and PW.6 could not be demolished by the defence. We have also seen from the record of the case that the accused was admitted in Jorhat Civil Hospital on 05.08.2008 and was released from the hospital on 09.10.2008 and thereafter, he was arrested by the police. There is also evidence that the accused sustained injury on his head when the victim Sanjib Gogoi threw back the hoe to the accused. 31. From the statement under 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused, we have also seen that the accused admitted the fact that it is he who threw the hoe to the deceased and then that was thrown back to him by the deceased due to which he sustained injury on his head. 32. PW. 2, mother of the deceased as well as informant of the case, proved the Ejahar and her signature in it as noted above, wherein, it is clearly stated that the incident took place on 05.01.2008 in a sudden quarrel. 32. PW. 2, mother of the deceased as well as informant of the case, proved the Ejahar and her signature in it as noted above, wherein, it is clearly stated that the incident took place on 05.01.2008 in a sudden quarrel. The accused Akan Gogoi gave a dao blow on the left hand of the deceased, her son with a dao causing severe bleeding due to which her son expired in Jorhat Civil Hospital. 33. From the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 4), we have noticed that there was a cut injury over mid portion of left hand measuring about 5" in length and 1/2" depth on the body of the deceased. 34. The aforesaid evidence clearly shows that there was sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased where the accused was the aggressor and that the deceased sustained only one dao blow on his left hand over mid portion and in the same fight, the accused also sustained injury on his head. We have also seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that only when the accused sustained injury on his head as deceased threw a hoe towards him that was initially thrown by the accused to deceased Sanjib Gogoi and then the accused gave a dao blow on the left hand of the deceased. 35. We observed that excepting the said dao blow in that sudden quarrel, the accused did not give any other blow on the person of the deceased. Evidence reflects that both the accused and the deceased were cousin brothers and the mother of the deceased/informant of the case clearly stated that while her son was on his way to Jorhat District Library to attend a meeting, the accused called him on and when her son came near to the accused, suddenly a quarrel took place between her son, the deceased and the accused and in that sudden quarrel, the accused gave a dao blow on the left hand of the deceased. The mother of the deceased in her evidence also deposed that there was no animosity between the accused and her deceased son. 36. The mother of the deceased in her evidence also deposed that there was no animosity between the accused and her deceased son. 36. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly reflects that there was no motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased Sanjib Gogoi, his own cousin brother and that there was no pre determination on the part of the accused Sri Akan Das to kill Sanjib Gogoi. From the injury sustained by the deceased, we have also seen that excepting the said cut injury gave on his left hand by a dao, the accused did not give any other blow or cut injuries on him. 37. PW. 10, the autopsy Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the person of the deceased during his cross-examination by the defence clearly stated that the injury found on the hand of the deceased was not sufficient to cause his death as, such injury on a person in ordinary course of nature is not sufficient to cause death and that the injury on the person of the deceased was not on the vital part of the body. 38. These evidences clearly reflect that the accused did not take any undue advantage or act anything cruel in manner. But the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused Akan Gogoi and none else, who killed the deceased Sanjib Gogoi. All these materials clearly reflects that the death of the deceased Sanjib Gogoi was without premeditation in a sudden fight where the accused Akan Gogoi did not take any undue advantage to assault/hit or hack the victim nor he acted in a cruel manner and such act of the accused indicates that it is a culpable murder under the exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. 39. We have also noticed that during such sudden fight between the accused and the deceased in a hit of passion where the accused being the aggressor threw a hoe to the victim Sanjib Gogoi who in self defence caught hold of it and threw back the same hoe to the accused due to which accused sustained head injury and immediately the accused gave a dao blow on the left hand of the deceased without his passion to cool down. Moreover, the injury sustained by the deceased Sanjib Gogoi was not grave as the autopsy doctor, PW. Moreover, the injury sustained by the deceased Sanjib Gogoi was not grave as the autopsy doctor, PW. 8 as noted above clearly stated that the injury sustained by the deceased was not sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature, where the injury was not on the vital part of the body. 40. For the reasons above, we are of the opinion that the accused Akan Gogoi though killed the victim Sanjib Gogoi and committed murder but his act comes under the provision of exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. 41. Accordingly, we modify the impugned conviction and sentence dated 07.01.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 152(J-J)/2012 convicting the accused appellant Akan Gogoi under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) years. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused in jail during investigation and trial of the case shall be set off. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months imposed by the learned Trial Judge stands affirmed. 42. Registry shall return the LCR to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat along with a copy of this judgment and order. 43. Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment and order to the accused appellant Akan Gogoi through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jorhat wherein the accused appellant is serving the impugned sentence. 44. We appreciate the assistance rendered by both, Mr. Lohit Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam in adjudicating this appeal. We direct the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority, Guwahati to pay a remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only to Mr. Lohit Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae. 45. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, to the extent above.