JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha through Superintendent of Jail, Varanasi against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2006 passed by Sri Ganga Ram, Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-3, District Deoria whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C for imprisonment of life and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, accused-appellant has further been directed to undergo further four months additional rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts surfacing from the First Information Report (hereinafter referred as 'FIR'), as well as material available on record are as follows:- 3. On 8.11.2003, PW-1 informant Ram Narayan Kushwaha submitted written report (Ex. Ka. 1), at P.s. Kotwali, District Deoria, alleging that he is resident of village Deoria Meer, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria. In the night intervening 7/8.11.2003 at about 1:30 AM, informant heard shrieks of his younger brother Shyam Narayan Kushwaha who was sleeping by the side of the books shop in tin-shed near well. On hearing noise of his brother, he rushed to the spot raising alarm. By that time informant's younger brothers Gautam Muni, Narad Muni and neighbours P.W.2 Ram Nivas Kushwaha, Ram Dhyan Kushwaha and P.W. 3 Rama Pati Kushwaha reached at the spot and all of them saw the accused-appellant (father of the informant) assaulting informant's younger brother Shyam Narayan Kushwaha by spade on his head. When the informant went forth, snatched the spade and tried to prevent the accused, the latter began to assault him also by the daab kept by the side, as a result whereof, the informant also sustained injuries on his hands, shoulders and head. Thereafter, the persons assembled at the spot caught hold of informant's father, accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha. Due to assault caused to informant's brother Shyam Narayan Kushwaha, he was writhing and bleeding. Informant and other villagers kept the injured Shyam Narayan Kushwaha on a cot and proceeded for Government hospital. They also took along with them accused-appellant. On reaching Government Hospital, Shyam Narayan Kushwaha breathed his last. Leaving the dead body of deceased in the hospital, Informant along with villagers and accused-appellant went to the police station-Kotwali. Informant and other villagers kept the injured Shyam Narayan Kushwaha on a cot and proceeded for Government hospital. They also took along with them accused-appellant. On reaching Government Hospital, Shyam Narayan Kushwaha breathed his last. Leaving the dead body of deceased in the hospital, Informant along with villagers and accused-appellant went to the police station-Kotwali. F.I.R. further states that accused-appellant had murdered his son Shyam Narayan Kushwaha over a trifling issue of squandering money and in respect thereof, some altercation had earlier taken place between deceased and accused-appellant. Accused also used to say that Shyam Narayan Kushwaha was unnecessarily spending money. On intervention of Informant and other family members the matter had earlier subsided. All of sudden on the fateful night, accused-appellant murdered informant's brother Shyam Narayan Kushwaha by spade. It was prayed in the F.I.R. that appropriate legal action be taken against the accused-appellant after registering the case. 4. On receipt of the written report of PW-1, Head Constable of P.S. Kotwali, Deoria, namely PW-5 Santosh Kumar registered the case and prepared Chick Report Ex.Ka.3 on 8.11.2003 at 4:00 pm at case crime no. 1591 of 2003, under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. He also made relevant entry of the crime in General Diary at 11:00 am on 8.11.2003. Initially investigation of the case was undertaken by PW-9 Laxman Rai who was then posted as Officer in-charge, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria. Immediately after registration of the case, accused-appellant was taken in custody who had been brought to the police station by the villagers themselves. He thereafter proceeded to the spot and collected sample of blood stained and simple earth, sealed them in separate packs and prepared recovery memo (Ex.Ka-14) in respect thereof. He also prepared Inquest Report (Ex. Ka-2). He took in possession Kudal (spade) and Daab and prepared recovery memos (Ex.Ka-15 and Ka-16) in respect thereof. He thereafter sent dead body for postmortem after sealing the same. Thereafter he was transferred and investigation was undertaken by PW-8 Chandra Prakash Tiwari Officer in-Charge, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria on 20.12.2003. He took into account postmortem report (Ex.Ka-5); recorded statements of witnesses and ultimately submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/307 I.P.C. in Court (Ex. Ka-13) against accused-appellant. 5. Cognizance of offence was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria on 28.1.2004. The case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, it was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.3.2004. He took into account postmortem report (Ex.Ka-5); recorded statements of witnesses and ultimately submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/307 I.P.C. in Court (Ex. Ka-13) against accused-appellant. 5. Cognizance of offence was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria on 28.1.2004. The case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, it was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.3.2004. It was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-4, Deoria who framed charges on 27.4.2004 as under: “I, O.P. Tripathi, Additional Sessions Judge/F T-4, Deoria, do hereby charge you Sugriv Kushwaha, as follows: Firstly-That you, on the intervening night of 7/8.11.2003 at about 1:30 am at village Deoria Meer, within the circle of police station Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Shyam Narain Kushwaha son of Sugriv Kushwaha, resident of the village aforesaid, by inflicting Kudal (spade) injuries, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and within my cognizance. Secondly-That you, on the said date, time and place did an act to blows to Ram Narain Kushwaha son of Sugriv Kushwaha, resident of the village aforesaid with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the dath of Ram Narain Kushwaha aforesaid you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused hurt to him by the said act, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct you be triad by this court and the said charges.” 6. Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all ten witnesses, out of whom, PW-1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha (son of accused-appellant and brother of deceased), PW-2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha neighbour of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 Ramapati resident of informant's village and P.W. 4 Neebulal are witnesses of fact. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 stated about the manner of happening the incident. P.W. 4, Nebu Lal is a witness of inquest. Rest are formal witnesses. P.W. 5, S.I. Santosh Kumar is Head Constable who had registered the F.I.R. on the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1) and prepared Chick Report and made entry of the occurrence in the General Diary. P.W. 6 is Dr. P.W. 4, Nebu Lal is a witness of inquest. Rest are formal witnesses. P.W. 5, S.I. Santosh Kumar is Head Constable who had registered the F.I.R. on the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1) and prepared Chick Report and made entry of the occurrence in the General Diary. P.W. 6 is Dr. S.B. Singh who was posted as medical officer in Civil Hospital, Deoria at relevant time and conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sugreev Kushwaha at 3:30 pm on 8.11.2003. 8. On external examination P.W.6 Doctor S.B. Singh found deceased of average body built and according to him, deceased was aged about 25 years; rigor mortis was found in both upper and lower extremities and his mouth and eyes were closed. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of deceased :- “(i) Incised wound size 11 cm X 4 cm X bone deep on left side skull at level of left eyebrow, left ear was also cut. (ii) Incised wound size 13 cm X 2 cm X bone deep on the left side of face at 2 cm below injury no. 1, underlying blood vessels and nerves are also cut, maxillary bone was also cut. (iii) Incised wound size 7 cm X 2 cm X bone deep on left side of face 4.5 cm below left eye, mandible bone underlying was also present.” 9. On internal examination, left temporal bone was found fractured; membranes and brain were lacerated and congested; trachea was found cut; heart weighed 200 gms; blood vessels of left side neck were cut; teeth 16 X 16, esophagus cut and congested; 200 gm digested food material was found present in the stomach; gases and faecal matter was found present in small intestine as well as large intestine; gall bladder was found empty and spleen weighed 120 gm. In the opinion of PW-6 Dr. S.B. Singh, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. After autopsy, he prepared post-mortem report Ex.Ka.5, sealed bundle of clothes belonging to the deceased and handed over the same to the constables who had brought the dead body of deceased. 10. P.W. 8, Chandra Prakash Tiwari is the second Investigating Officer who had submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-13) in Court and proved it. P.W-9 Laxman Rai is the first Investigating Officer who had undertaken investigation after registration of the case in the police station. 10. P.W. 8, Chandra Prakash Tiwari is the second Investigating Officer who had submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-13) in Court and proved it. P.W-9 Laxman Rai is the first Investigating Officer who had undertaken investigation after registration of the case in the police station. P.W-10 Dr. C.S. Azad was posted as Emergency Medical Officer, on 8.11.2003 in District Hospital Deoria and had examined informant P.W-1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha and found following injuries on his person:- (I) Multiple abrasion size 6 cm X 2 cm on right shoulder joint and blood stains, a layer of blood was found which had not dried. (II) Contusion size 2 cm X 1 cm on right side of forehead, 4 cm above right eyebrow. (III) Lacerated wound size 2 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep towards root of right thumb, whereon medicine was administered. 11. According to PW-10 Dr. C.S. Azad, duration of all the aforesaid injuries was within one day. All the injuries were simple in nature and caused by some hard and blunt object. He has proved (Ex.Ka-12) injury report prepared by him in respect of informant P.W. 1. 12. After closing evidence of prosecution, statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated the entire prosecution story to be false and concocted and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was adduced in defence. 13. On hearing Counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge found accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha guilty of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default, accused-appellant was directed to undergo four months additional rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court however found the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. not proved against the appellant and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order the appellant has preferred this appeal. 14. We have heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant, Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for State. 15. It has been argued by learned Amicus Curiae that prosecution has not examined the wife and other sons of deceased. Only P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha and P.W. 3 Ramapati who are friends of P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha were examined by the prosecution. Their presence at spot are neither natural nor reliable. 15. It has been argued by learned Amicus Curiae that prosecution has not examined the wife and other sons of deceased. Only P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha and P.W. 3 Ramapati who are friends of P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha were examined by the prosecution. Their presence at spot are neither natural nor reliable. He has further submitted that First Information Report is ante-timed and prosecution has also failed to disclose source of light at the place of occurrence as the time of occurrence is 1:30 AM, mid night of 7/8.11.2003. The finding recorded by trial Court is against the provision of law. Judgment and order of learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. Per contra, learned AGA has argued that in this case, accused-appellant is the father of deceased whereas P.W. 1 is real brother of the deceased and son of accused-appellant. Presence of eye-witness on the spot at the time of occurrence are quite natural. P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha is an injured witness. First Information Report has been lodged without any delay. Evidence of prosecution case is reliable and trustworthy. Ocular evidence is fully supported by medical evidence. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 18. In this case, accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha is the father of deceased Shyam Narayan Kushwaha. P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha is the real brother of deceased, as well as, son of accused-appellant. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that in the night on 7/8.11.2003 he was sleeping inside his house, whereas, deceased was sleeping under the tin-shed outside the shop. At 1:30 AM (mid-night) he awoke and came out from his room on the noise of deceased and saw that his father Sugreev Kushwaha was attacking with spade (kudal) on his brother Shyam Narayan Kushwaha (deceased). On his alarm, his younger brothers Narad Muni, Gautam Muni and neighbours Ram Niwas Kushwaha(P.W.2), Ramapati Kushwaha (P.W.3) and Ram Dhyan Kushwaha reached there. According to him, they tried to save his brother and caught accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha and also snatched the Kudal (spade) from him. On his alarm, his younger brothers Narad Muni, Gautam Muni and neighbours Ram Niwas Kushwaha(P.W.2), Ramapati Kushwaha (P.W.3) and Ram Dhyan Kushwaha reached there. According to him, they tried to save his brother and caught accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha and also snatched the Kudal (spade) from him. He has further deposed that thereupon accused-appellant assaulted him (Informant P.W.1), whereby, he also sustained injuries on his head, shoulders and hand. 19. P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha, an eye-witness, has also stated that occurrence had taken place on 7/8.11.2003 at about 1:30 AM. He has further deposed that his house is situated nearby the house of accused-appellant. According to him, on the alarm raised by P.W. 1, he along with Ram Dhyan Kushwaha and Ramapati Kushwaha (P.W.3) had reached at the place of occurrence and saw in the light of torch as well as in the moon light that accused-appellant was assaulting deceased Shyam Narayan Kushwaha by spade (kudal). When P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha snatched the spade from accused-appellant, he attacked P.W. 1 also by daab (wood cutting weapon). 20. P.W. 3 Ramapati Kushwaha who is also neighbour of accused-appellant has stated that his house is in front of appellant's house. According to him, he had also reached there on the alarm raised on 7/8.11.2003 at 1:30 AM. He has further deposed that he had also seen that appellant was causing injuries by spade (kudal) to his son Shyam Narayan Kushwaha whereupon P.W.1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha had snatched the spade and then he (accused) attacked P.W. 1 Rama Narayan Kushwaha by Daab. 21. According to P.W. 10 Dr. C.S. Ajad, three injuries were found at the time of medical examination on the body of P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha and these injuries were present on right shoulder joint, forehead and on right thumb. In site plan (Ex.Ka. 17), the house where he (P.W.1) was sleeping has been shown only eight steps away from the place of occurrence. Hence, his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is quite natural and cannot be disbelieved. Similarly, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are neighbours of accused-appellant and their presence are also natural. Therefore the plea of learned Amicus Curiae that the presence of eye-witness on the place of occurrence is not natural, has no force. 22. Hence, his presence on the spot at the time of occurrence is quite natural and cannot be disbelieved. Similarly, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are neighbours of accused-appellant and their presence are also natural. Therefore the plea of learned Amicus Curiae that the presence of eye-witness on the place of occurrence is not natural, has no force. 22. So far as the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that occurrence happened in mid-night and there was no source of light, rendering prosecution case doubtful, is concerned, from perusal of record, it transpires that accused-appellant is well known to P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha, P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha and P.W. 3 Ramapati. P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha is the son of accused-appellant whereas rest are neighbours. It is a common practice of human behaviour that well acquainted people may be recognized and identified by their voice and physique even in dark night. In this regard Supreme Court in Kedar Singh And Ors. vs. State of Bihar 1999 SCC (Criminal) 907 held as under:- “…..That apart, the act of Shivjee Singh in immobilising the deceased while lying down and let Kedar Singh chop off his head should have been an act comparatively slower and by that time, PW-2 could have gathered his wits and identify the assailants. It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of his body, clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. Identification possible by voice too......” 23. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination has specifically deposed that he was carrying torch at the time of occurrence. Moreover, P.W.1 is injured witness and real son of appellant, P.W.2 and P.W. 3 are neighbours of appellant. All the witnesses have stated that accused-appellant was caught on the spot and was carried by them to police-station. These witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel but nothing had come out to support the submission of learned Amicus Curiae. 24. Coming to point with respect to ante-timing in lodging the F.I.R., we find from perusal of record, that occurrence was caused in the intervening night of 7/8.11.2003 at 1:30 AM. P.W. 5 S.I. Santosh Kumar has deposed that on 7/8.11.2003 he was posted as Head Muharir at Police-Station Kotwali, Deoria. 24. Coming to point with respect to ante-timing in lodging the F.I.R., we find from perusal of record, that occurrence was caused in the intervening night of 7/8.11.2003 at 1:30 AM. P.W. 5 S.I. Santosh Kumar has deposed that on 7/8.11.2003 he was posted as Head Muharir at Police-Station Kotwali, Deoria. On 8.11.2003 at 4:00 AM, he had lodged First Information Report (Ex.Ka 3) Chick No. 268 of 2003; Crime No. 1591 of 2003, under Section 302, 307 I.P.C. on the written information (Ex.Ka.1) given by P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha. From perusal of Ex.Ka. 3, it transpires that place of occurrence is only six kilometers away from police-station. 25. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that firstly he went to hospital which is 7-8 Kilometers away from his village. He has further deposed that:- “....We had gone earlier, we would have taken about one hour in reaching government hospital. In hospital we would have remained for about 45 minutes. Villager caught hold my father and taken him to Hospital. I got my injuries examined the same day after getting the report registered at Police Station...” (English Translation by Court). 26. P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha in his cross-examination deposed as under:- “....It would have taken 40-45 minutes in reaching hospital. We had stayed in hospital for about 10 minutes. We started for hospital at quarter to two a.m....” (English Translation by Court). 27. P.W. 3 Ramapati in his cross-examination has also deposed as under:- “....After half an hour of incident, we set out with these person. My village situates towards east from Deoria. In reaching Deoria from the village it took about one hour. First, we went to hospital. We remained in hospital hardly 2-3 minutes. When Doctor came to hospital, he told that Shyam Narayan had died. Then we went to Kotwali along with Sugreev. We had gone to Kotwali on foot....” (English Translation by Court). 28. From perusal of above statements given by these eyewitnesses, it is clear that they had reached police-station on 8.11.2003 before 4:00 AM which cannot be said to be unreasonable or improbable having regard to the distance of Police Station from place of occurrence and the time spent by P.W.1 in hospital. Thus, First Information Report cannot be said as ante-timed and the submission raised by learned Amicus Curiae has no force. 29. Thus, First Information Report cannot be said as ante-timed and the submission raised by learned Amicus Curiae has no force. 29. P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha, P.W. 2 Ram Niwas Kushwaha and P.W. 3 Ramapati who were examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses have clearly deposed that accused-appellant had caused injury to deceased Shyam Narayan Kushwaha by spade (kudal). P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Singh who had conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased has also specifically stated that three incised wounds were present on the left side of skull as well as left side of face of deceased and these injuries would have been caused by sharp edged weapon (kudal). According to him, deceased might have died at 3:25 AM on 8.11.2003. Thus, the ocular evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence, hence, the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that ocular evidence is not supported by medical evidence carries no force. 30. So far as submission of learned Amicus Curiae that wife and other sons of accused-appellant having not been examined, prosecution case is doubtful, is concerned, P.W. 1 Ram Narayan Kushwaha is real son of accused and real brother of the deceased as well as himself injured witness whereas, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are neighbours of the accused-appellant as well as deceased Shyam Narayan Kushwaha. Their presence on the place of occurrence has been found quite probable and natural. 31. It is settled principle of Criminal law that no specific number of witnesses is required for proving prosecution case. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. From perusal of legal proposition propounded by Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 , It is clear that it is established principle of criminal law that Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment or bar in convicting an accused on the sole testimony of single witness. This principle is also based on the legal position provided in Section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that:- “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” 32. There is no legal impediment or bar in convicting an accused on the sole testimony of single witness. This principle is also based on the legal position provided in Section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that:- “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” 32. In the facts and circumstances of this case it would be against the established norms of human behaviour to suggest that an injured witness and real brother of deceased would falsely implicate his own father leaving aside the real culprit. Hence, the witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case are sufficient to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, non-examination of mother and other brothers of deceased by prosecution is not fatal to its case and the submission made by learned Amicus Curiae is not sustainable. 33. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of Court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". [Vide : [Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 34. In view of above propositions of law, the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. 35. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed and also the fact that if the punishment imposed upon accused-appellant in the present matter is taken into consideration, when prosecution was able to prove charge against accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, Trial Court has imposed minimum sentence for imprisonment of life then no further leniency can be extended to accused-appellant. Punishment imposed upon accused-appellant will also meet the ends of justice and will be to the conscience of society and Court. Appeal having no merit, is liable to be dismissed. Impugned judgment and order passed by Trial Court is liable to be affirmed. 36. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-3, Court No. 3, Deoria in Session Trial No. 122 of 2004 (State Vs. Sugreev Kushwaha) relating to Case Crime No.1591 of 2003, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria awarding sentence for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-to accused-appellant Sugreev Kushwaha for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is maintained and confirmed. 37. Lower Court record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to Trial Court concerned for necessary compliance. Copy of judgment be also sent to accused-appellant through the Jail Superintendent concerned for intimation forthwith. 38. Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. Copy of judgment be also sent to accused-appellant through the Jail Superintendent concerned for intimation forthwith. 38. Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to Sri Bhavya Sahai, Amicus Curiae, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.