Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 289 (GAU)

Mainul Haque Laskar v. State of Assam

2019-03-05

M.R.PATHAK, SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. Heard Ms. Dipanjali Deka, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Mr. Hrishikesh Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 22/2010 wherein the appellant was held guilty of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of the same to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment of another 6 (six) months. 3. On 04.05.2008, the wife of the deceased (PW-1) lodged and Ejahar at the Hailakandi Police Station stating that at around 11.30 pm of the previous night when her husband went to the house of Faijur Rahman for an urgent piece of work, he was attacked by the accused with a sharp dao because of previous grudge he had, and on hearing his hue and cry, she went to the place of occurrence and tried to save him, but the accused also attacked her with the same weapon which almost severed her thumb. As a result of the assault by the accused, the deceased suffered about 20 injuries on his person including face, head and other parts of his body. And due to the injuries her husband became senseless and fell down on the ground. People from neighbouring houses came to her help and took her husband to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital but on the way to the hospital, her husband died. 4. On receipt of the Ejahar, the Hailakandi Police Station registered a case being Hailakandi Police Station Case No. 225/2008 under Section 302/326 IPC against the accused and the case was investigated. Inquest, post mortem and examination of witnesses were done and thereafter, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi who committed the same to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under 2 heads i.e., under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 of the same Code against the accused appellant. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under 2 heads i.e., under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 of the same Code against the accused appellant. The accused pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was conducted and during the trial, the prosecution produced and examined 11 witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body and the Investigating Officer of the case. The accused appellant did not produce any witness in support of his case. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused appellant was guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302/323 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant who is serving his sentence in jail has filed this appeal against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2014. 6. Ms. D. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant submitted that the trial court has committed serious error in having held that the accused-appellant is guilty of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 323 of IPC because; (i) the FIR was lodged after a day from the time of occurrence of the incident therefore, it lacks credibility and reliability, (ii) the PW-1, who is also the informant, is wife of the deceased and the PW-3 is her brother (brother in law of the deceased), and PW-7 and PW-8 are their daughter and son respectively therefore, they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon and (iii) there is no corroboration between the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. To substantiate her contention the learned Amicus Curiae, has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and we have seen that the PW-1, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 are from the same family. We also find that the FIR was lodged on the next day of the date of the incident occurred. However, we have found that the evidence given by the PWs are well corroborated with one another on the material facts. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP. submitted that the incident took place in the mid night of 03.05.2008 and the victim was taken to hospital in the same night. Therefore, lodging of the FIR on the morning of the very next day of the incident cannot be termed as a delay. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP. submitted that the incident took place in the mid night of 03.05.2008 and the victim was taken to hospital in the same night. Therefore, lodging of the FIR on the morning of the very next day of the incident cannot be termed as a delay. The learned Addl. PP also submitted that though there are some discrepancies in the evidence given by the witnesses, there is no contradiction on material facts. The learned Addl. PP also submitted that just because the eye witnesses or the prosecution witnesses are relatives, that alone cannot be the reason for discarding their evidence, if their evidence are otherwise found to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable. The learned Addl. PP cited the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Bhagga & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 13 SCC 442 . The relevant para is para 15 and the contents of the same are given here below:- "15. P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 have been believed both by the trial court and the High Court, but having regard to the fact that P.W.4 on returning to the spot with P.W. 1 remained at a distance of about 100 yards and also having regard to the fact that the eyesight of P.W.6 was weak, we will have to treat their evidence with caution. As held by both the courts below, the mere fact that all the said eye-witnesses belong to one family cannot be a reason to disbelieve their evidence, since they were all on the spot or nearby the spot when the incident occurred. There is also no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of the deceased in its entirety, but having regard to some amount of discrepancy in the evidence of the eye-witnesses, we are inclined to hold that the common object of all the accused to kill Babulal has not been established by the prosecution and Bhagga, Shankara and Bahadura, who are the appellant Nos. 2, 4 and 10 before us are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt." 8. The learned Addl. PP further referred to the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Sansab Ali Mondal & Anr. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (4) GLT 187. The relevant para is para 16. 2, 4 and 10 before us are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt." 8. The learned Addl. PP further referred to the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Sansab Ali Mondal & Anr. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (4) GLT 187. The relevant para is para 16. The contents of para 16 are given here below:- "It is a settled position of law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness, if otherwise his testimony is found to be credible. As because the witness is a related witness, it does not mean that his testimony is to be rejected in totality. The Court, however, is to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of the evidence of the related and interested witness and if on the scrutiny, such witness is found to be trustworthy, the same cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is a related or interested witness. The Court normally, in such circumstances, would look for corroboration by any independent witness." 9. On going through the Ejahar and the case record, we have found that the incident took place at around 11.30 pm which is almost mid night of 03.05.2008 and after the incident the victim was taken to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. It is quite natural that in that circumstances in the midnight of 3.5.2008, the informant would not have been ready both mentally and physically to lodge the Ejahar at the police station therefore, it is quite reasonable that the Ejahar was lodged in the morning of the next date i.e.. on 4.5.2008. The delay in lodging the Ejahar is duly explained by the circumstances itself. We find no reason to doubt on the veracity of the FIR because of the delay. We also find nothing in the evidence which could raise any doubt in one's mind on the veracity and credibility of the Ejahar. Therefore, we disagree with the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that because of the delay in lodging the FIR there is lack of credibility on the facts of the case stated therein. 10. We also find nothing in the evidence which could raise any doubt in one's mind on the veracity and credibility of the Ejahar. Therefore, we disagree with the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that because of the delay in lodging the FIR there is lack of credibility on the facts of the case stated therein. 10. The next point of contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae as stated already is that the 4 witness i.e., PW-1, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 are relatives of the deceased and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. We disagree with this submission of the learned Amicus Curiae for the following reasons:- In catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that just because witnesses are relatives it cannot be a reason for discarding their evidence, if the evidence given by them are otherwise reliable. We need not mention any more cases other than the ones cited by the learned Addl. PP but we may also add 2 more cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as stated. The first case is Nagappan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in (2013) 15 SCC 252 and at para 10 their Lordships observed that:-- "10. As regards the first contention about the admissibility of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 being closely related to each other and the deceased, first of all, there is no bar in considering the evidence of relatives. It is true that in the case on hand, other witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-10. The trial Court and the High Court, in view of their relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear, cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. This Court, in series of decisions, has held that where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness." 11. The second case we would like to add here is the case of Gangabhavani Vs. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness." 11. The second case we would like to add here is the case of Gangabhavani Vs. Payapati Venkat Reddy reported in (2013) 15 SCC 298 and at paras 14 to 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that:-- "10. Thus, it is evident that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. Evidence of a Related/Interested Witnesses: 11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ). 12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390 , this Court held: "5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the deceased." ......For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W. 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents." (Emphasis added) (See also: Chakali Maddilety & Ors. v. State of A.P., AIR 2010 SC 3473 ). 13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 5039 , while dealing with the case this Court held: "7......Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their presence." 14. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased." 12. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court referred to by the learned Addl. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased." 12. From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court referred to by the learned Addl. PP and also by us, it is very clear that evidence of PWs who are relatives cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are related to each other or to the deceased if the evidence has a ring of truth about it, clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy. The fact that the evidence of the informant given as PW-1 is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and corroborated by the evidence given by other PWs would be seen as we discuss them herein below:-- (i). The PW-1, namely, Fulerun Nessa who is the informant of the case has stated in her examination-in-chief that while her husband was on his way back home after visiting one Ansari at his home, about 8 pm of 3.5.2008, he was attacked by the accused appellant. And on hearing the hue and cry of her husband, she rushed to the place of occurrence and found her husband lying on the verandah of the house of one Faijul Haque (PW-2) where the accused was still assaulting him. On seeing her husband in that condition she tried to give him water but the accused-appellant did not allow her. Then she tried to stop the accused from further assaulting her husband but she was also attacked by him and in the process her left thumb was almost severed. The other persons who were present at the place of occurrence namely, Saidul and Nizam also tried to stop the accused but they could not. Being helpless, she informed her relatives and one Bablu helped her bringing her husband to Hailakandi Civil Hospital. But on reaching the hospital her husband was referred to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. However, her husband died on the way to the said hospital. She also stated that post mortem on her husband was conducted subsequently and she lodged the Ejahar thereafter. She stated in her cross-examination that the incident occurred around 11.30 pm and there was a land dispute between her husband and the accused person since the last 3 years from the date of the incident. She also stated that post mortem on her husband was conducted subsequently and she lodged the Ejahar thereafter. She stated in her cross-examination that the incident occurred around 11.30 pm and there was a land dispute between her husband and the accused person since the last 3 years from the date of the incident. From the evidence of the PW 1, one can safely conclude that she was an eye witness to the incident and there were other persons who were also present at the spot including the owner of the house that is Mr. Faijul Haque who also gave evidence as PW-2. The evidence of the witness PW 1 is natural, straight to the point, cogent and trustworthy and there was no sign of embellishment. Moreover, there is no contradiction in the statements of the witness where there is also nothing which controvert the same and her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses. (ii). PW-2, namely, Faijul Haque, at whose house PW-1 found her deceased husband being assaulted by the accused, stated that in the night of the incident he heard cries from the road in front of his house which awakened him and when he opened the door he saw the deceased who was crying and being killed by the accused - appellant. The witness also stated that he tried to stop the accused-appellant but could not stop him and he left only when the neighbours came to his house. There is nothing in the cross examination of the witness which controverts his statement as given in his examination-in-chief Therefore, one can conclude without any doubt that the house of this witness was the place where the incident occurred and he saw the incident with his own eyes and he being independent witness, he can be fully trusted. Needless to say but we may also add here that the evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of the PW-1. (iii). PW-3, namely, Babul Hussain Laskar is the brother of the informant. He stated in his examination in chief that after hearing about the incident over telephone he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased tossing about and he also saw the accused-appellant still standing beside the victim with a sword in his hand. (iii). PW-3, namely, Babul Hussain Laskar is the brother of the informant. He stated in his examination in chief that after hearing about the incident over telephone he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased tossing about and he also saw the accused-appellant still standing beside the victim with a sword in his hand. He also stated that when his sister, the informant, tried to give drinking water to her husband, the accused resisted and also inflicted injury on her. The witness further stated that thereafter, the people present there made hue and cry and by that time the accused - appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. The witness also stated that the victim succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital and thereafter post mortem was conducted over the dead body at Hailakandi Civil Hospital. According to the witness, he was one of the witnesses to the inquest conducted by police and he exhibited his signature on the inquest report. He also deposed that he was a seizure witness of Lungi (rap around). In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused and the deceased were brothers and they had a land dispute between them. Further, there is nothing which contradicted what he stated in his examination-in-chief, which would render the same as untrustworthy. On close scrutiny of the evidence given by the witness PW 3, one can conclude that though he was not present at the place of occurrence exactly when the accused-appellant was assaulting the victim, he reached the place when the accused was still present there with the weapon in his hand, just near the victim, whereby one can easily inferred or understood that he was the culprit. Therefore, we also conclude that the evidence of this witness do corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. In fact the evidence of PW-1 that she was prevented from giving water to her husband is also corroborated by this PW. There is nothing in evidence or in the way the witness deposed which would raise any suspicion that he had given such evidence just because the informant is his sister and he had vested interest in seeing that the accused-appellant is convicted in such a crime. Therefore, we find no reason to doubt on the truth or veracity of the evidence given by this PW. (iv). Therefore, we find no reason to doubt on the truth or veracity of the evidence given by this PW. (iv). PW-4 namely, Rahim Uddin Barbhuiya is a seizure witness. He stated in his evidence that police seized 5 blood stained teeths of the deceased on the verendah of Faijul Haque (PW 2). The witness is not an eye witness to the incident. There is nothing much which can be extracted from his evidence regarding the incident except that inference can drawn from his evidence that the incident occurred at the house of PW-2. (v). PW-5, namely, Dr. K.Z. Choudhury is the person who conducted the post mortem examination over the body of the deceased. According to him, there were 15 injuries on the body of the deceased and death was due to haemorrhage and grievous cerebral injuries and multiple grievous incised wounds caused by sharp weapon. He also stated that in his opinion, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The evidence given by this witness supports the evidence given by the informant and other witnesses to the incident that the accused - appellant had assaulted the victim several times with a dao at the time of the incident and caused so many injuries and because of that he died on the way to hospital. There is nothing in evidence which can lead us to a conclusion otherwise then the opinion and findings of this PW. Therefore, we conclude by stating that the evidence of this PW is trustworthy and it supports the evidence given by the other PWs so far discussed. (vi). PW-6 namely, Nasir Uddin Laskar stated in his examination in chief that on hearing about the incident he went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased at the verendah of one Hazi with cut injuries on his person. He also stated that the deceased breathed his last at the Verendah of Hazi but he did not find the accused person there. He also stated that he did not know as to who inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased. The witness in his cross examination stated that deceased was his brother in law and his house is situated at a distance of about 5 km from the house of the deceased. He also stated that he did not know as to who inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased. The witness in his cross examination stated that deceased was his brother in law and his house is situated at a distance of about 5 km from the house of the deceased. From the statement of this witness both in examination in chief as well as cross examination what can be made out is that he was not at the place of occurrence when the incident took place but saw the injuries over the body of the deceased which ultimately caused his death. (vii). PW-7, namely Kulsuma Begum is the daughter of the informant and the deceased. She stated that she knew the accused and the incident took place in the year 2008. She also stated that after hearing the hue and cry at the house of Faijul Haque (PW-2), she along with her mother and others rushed to the place of occurrence and found the accused appellant assaulting her father and causing injuries. The PW also stated like her mother (PW-1) that when her mother tried to give water to her father (the victim), the accused-appellant did not allow her and inflicted injuries on the left thumb. The PW also stated that they took her father to Hailakandi Civil Hospital and from there he was taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital but he died on the way. In her cross examination the witness stated that when they reached the place of occurrence she and her mother found only the accused and her father at the place of occurrence. On careful consideration of the statement given by this witness one thing is clear that she went to the place of occurrence along with her mother, the informant and saw her uncle, accused-appellant inflicting the injuries on her father which ultimately caused his death. There are some discrepancies between the statement of this PW and the statement of PW-1 but they are same on the material facts. The witness is consistent and her evidence is cogent and trustworthy because there is nothing in evidence to saw or even suggest that she had given such evidence just because the victim is her father and the informant is her mother. We find no reason to doubt on the truthfulness of her evidence. The witness is consistent and her evidence is cogent and trustworthy because there is nothing in evidence to saw or even suggest that she had given such evidence just because the victim is her father and the informant is her mother. We find no reason to doubt on the truthfulness of her evidence. Her evidence corroborates with that of the PW-1 and other PWs. (viii). PW-8 namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar is the son of the informant and the deceased. The PW in his evidence stated that after hearing the hue and cry he along with his sister (PW 7) and his mother (the informant PW-1) went to the house of Faijul Haque (PW 2) and found the accused-appellant inflicting injuries on the person of his father with a sword. Though they tried to stop him he could not be stop. When his mother tried to give water to his father, accused-appellant also inflicted injuries on the left thumb of his mother. The witness further stated that they took his father to Hailakandi Civil Hospital and then to Shilchal Medical College hospital but died on the way. In his cross examination there is nothing which controverts what he stated in his examination in chief. The PW stated further that on the day his father sold a land to Faijul Haque the accused-appellant protested and raised objection over the same and that may be the reason why the incident had happened. The witness also stated that the sword used by the accused was found at the verandah of the house of Faijul Haque by the police. From the evidence of this witness what we find is that the evidence given by the informant that the accused appellant inflicted injuries on the body of her husband which led to his death is well supported. There is nothing in his cross examination which could either controvert or contradict his statement given in his examination in chief and further there is nothing in his evidence or otherwise which would raise any doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Therefore, we find no reason to doubt on the truthfulness of the evidence given by this PW though he is the son of the victim and the informant (ix). Therefore, we find no reason to doubt on the truthfulness of the evidence given by this PW though he is the son of the victim and the informant (ix). PW-9, namely, Abdul Haque Laskar is a police constable who accompanied the Investigation Officer of the case when the inquest over the death body of the victim was conducted. He stated that they recovered the dead body from a house which is situated at a distance of 100 meters from the house of the accused. What can be gathered from the statement of this witness is that the house of the accused was quite near to the place of occurrence and the incident had happened when the victim had gone to the house of PW-2. This evidence of the PW makes the evidence of the PW-1, PW-7 and PW-8 that they were present at the place of occurrence when the accused-appellant was still assaulting the victim even more plausible and believable. (x). PW-10, namely Fatir Ali is an independent witness. This witness stated that 5 years ago at around 11 pm he went to the house of Faijul Haque on hearing hue and cry from there and when reached there he found the victim lying on the verandah of the house with injuries over his body and at the same time saw the accused-appellant with a weapon like sword leaving the place. He also stated that he along with others took the victim to Hailakandi Civil Hospital and from there to Silchar Medical College Hospital but he died on way. The PW further stated that the dead body was brought back to Hailakandi Civil Hospital where inquest was conducted and he was one of the witnesses. In his cross examination the witness stated that he was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence but he did not notice the injuries on the person of the deceased. From the deposition of this witness what we conclude is that he is one of the witnesses, who was present at the place of occurrence and saw the victim with injuries and the accused appellant with a weapon like sword. This statement of the PW supports the case of prosecution which alleged that injuries suffered by the victim were inflicted by the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence with a sharp weapon and because of the injuries suffered the victim died. This statement of the PW supports the case of prosecution which alleged that injuries suffered by the victim were inflicted by the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence with a sharp weapon and because of the injuries suffered the victim died. There is nothing in evidence which will make the evidence of this PW not trustworthy. Moreover, he being independent witness all the more there is no reason at all to even doubt his evidence. (xi). PW-11, namely, Sri Amalendu Das is the Investigation Officer of the case and as a witness he stated that the FIR was lodged on 04.05.2008 in the office of the Officer-in-Charge of Hailakandi Police Station by the informant. The witness exhibited the FIR as Exhibit-6 and the endorsement of the case to him as Exhibit-6(1). The witness also stated that soon after the endorsement of the case, he went to the place of occurrence, he examined some of the witnesses, prepared the sketch map, seized articles like cotton lungi (rap around) and 5 broken teeth of human being having blood stain. The witness also stated that thereafter, he went to the hospital where he found the dead body of Khalilur Rehman Laskar and held inquest over the dead body. He exhibited the inquest report as Exhibit-1 and his signature on the same as Exhibit 1(2). The witness also stated that thereafter, he took the dead body for postmortem examination and he arrested the accused when the later surrendered at the police station. There is nothing in the cross examination which would discredit or controvert his evidence given in his examination in chief. The evidence given by this witness does not only add credence to the case of the prosecution but support the facts stated by PW-1 and the other PWs. 13. On close examination of the evidence given by all the witnesses as stated above and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. we have no other conclusion to draw than what has been already drawn by the learned Trial Court on the guilt of the accused on the offences charged against him and on the sentenced awarded. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed. 15. Before we part with the judgment, we record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by the Ms. Dipanjali Deka, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed. 15. Before we part with the judgment, we record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by the Ms. Dipanjali Deka, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Hrishikesh Sarma, learned Addl. PP, Assam and while doing so we also direct the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- (Seven Thousand Five Hundred) to Ms. Dipanjali Deka, learned Amicus Curiae as her legal remuneration. 16. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order. 17. Registry shall also forward the Trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of District Jail, Hailakandi for onward communication to the appellant.