JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. This Jail Appeal has been filed by accused-appellant-Ashfaq through Superintendent of Jail, Ghaziabad, against judgment and order dated 03.03.2015, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1468 of 2013, State v. Ashfaq, under Section 302 IPC, Case Crime No. 286 of 2013, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, convicting accused-appellant under Section 302 and 506 (2) IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and under Section 506(2) IPC, sentencing him to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix of case as emerging from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") as well as material placed on record is as follows. 3. A written report Ex.Ka-1 dated 01.07.2013 was presented in Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad by Informant PW-1 Mohd. Rabib, alleging that in the morning of 01.07.2013, there had an altercation between Muskan daughter of PW-3 and wife of accused Ashfaq on taking water which later on got settled. On the same fateful evening at about 8:30 p.m., PW-1 along with his son Jamshed (deceased) and PW-3 Qadeer was standing in front of Chiken Shop of Mamu (Mohd. Mahbubullah) PW-2, when accused-appellant came there and asked Qadeer as to why his daughter Muskan and his wife had quarreled with his wife i.e. wife of accused, and started abusing. On being intervened by victim, accused took knife out of his waist and gave repeated below of knife in the chest of victim Jamshed, who fell down on the earth. Occurrence was witnessed by Mamu and Shambhu Yadav also besides PW-1 and 3. Accused ran away from the spot by abusing and threatening. Victim sustained knife injuries and was taken to Yasoda Hospital, where he was declared dead. Written report Ex.Ka-1 was scribed by Sambhu Yadav (not examined) on the dictation of PW-1 who put his thumb impression on it and presented in Police Station concerned. 4. On receipt of written report Ex.Ka-1 and Chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka-2 was prepared by PW-4 Constable Satyendra Kumar who registered case under Section 302 IPC at Case Crime No. 286 of 2013. Written report Ex.Ka-1 was scribed by Sambhu Yadav (not examined) on the dictation of PW-1 who put his thumb impression on it and presented in Police Station concerned. 4. On receipt of written report Ex.Ka-1 and Chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka-2 was prepared by PW-4 Constable Satyendra Kumar who registered case under Section 302 IPC at Case Crime No. 286 of 2013. An entry of case was made in General Diary on 01.07.2013 at 22:00 p.m., a copy of which Ex.Ka-8 is on record. Immediately after registration of FIR, investigation was undertaken by PW-7 Sri Upendra Kumar Yadav, the then Station House Officer at Police Station Link Road, Ghaziabad, who took copies of written report and Chik FIR and proceeded to place of occurrence. He recorded statements of Constable Durendra Singh, Constable Satyendra Mishra, Sambhu proceeded to place of occurrence. PW-7, Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-11, took blood stained and simple earth, sealed them in the respective boxes and prepared memo Ex.Ka-10. 5. Pw-5 SI-Pramod Kumar Tyagi posted in Police Station concerned, under the direction of Station House Officer PW-7 conducted inquest of dead body of deceased, prepared inquest report Ex.Ka-4 and other relevant papers relating thereto. Thereafter dead body was duly sealed and sent for postmortem to District Hospital Ghaziabad along with letter of request to Chief Medical Officer, letter to R.I. and other necessary papers i.e. Challan Nash , Photo Nash etc. 6. Autopsy over dead body of deceased Jamshed was conducted by PW-6 Dr. A.K. Singh, Senior Consultant, Ortho, District Hospital M.M.G. Ghaziabad on 02.07.2013 at about 5:40 p.m. On external examination, deceased was found of average body built, aged about 27 years, rigor mortis had passed all over body. In the opinion of doctor, death had occurred about three-fourth of the day before at the time of autopsy. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person :- (i) incised wound 3cm x 4cm x chest cavity deep, on left side of chest 2cm away from left nipple at 2 o'clock position. (ii) incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of chest 3cm below the left nipple at 6 o'clock position. 7. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person :- (i) incised wound 3cm x 4cm x chest cavity deep, on left side of chest 2cm away from left nipple at 2 o'clock position. (ii) incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of chest 3cm below the left nipple at 6 o'clock position. 7. On internal examination, doctor found both chambers of heart were empty, one and half liter blood was present in chest cavity; left lung, heart, 3rd and 4th rib of left side cuts; stomach contained 250 gram semi-digested food. In the opinion of doctor, death had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. PW-6 prepared postmortem report Ex.Ka-9 under his signature and handed over dead body after sealing the same along with clothes of deceased and necessary papers to Constables who brought the corpse. 8. Pw-7 arrested accused-appellant on 02.07.2013 and on his pointing out recovered a knife involved in the incident, sealed, sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for examination and prepared recovery memo. 9. On PW-7 being transferred, PW-8 Bhanu Pratap Singh undertook the investigation and after completing all remaining formalities of investigation, submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka-12 under his signature against accused under Section 302 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance of offence. The offence being triable by Court of Sessions, case was committed to Sessions Court from where it was transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad who framed charges against accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 506 (II) IPC on 08.01.2014 as under : "I, Atul Kumar Gupta, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, do hereby charge you accused person Ashfaq as under:- 1. That on 1.7.13 at about 8-30 p.m. Near murga's shop near house of complainant Mohhamad Rabib, you committed the murder of Jamsad by giving knife blows on his chest. Hence, you have committed offence punishable u/s 302 IPC; which is within my cognizance. 2. On the same date time and place, you criminally intimidated jamsad by threading him to kill after giving knife blows on the chest of jamsad and while fleeing away from the spot. Hence, you have committed offence punishable u/s 506 IInd part of IPC; which is within my cognizance. 10. Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. On the same date time and place, you criminally intimidated jamsad by threading him to kill after giving knife blows on the chest of jamsad and while fleeing away from the spot. Hence, you have committed offence punishable u/s 506 IInd part of IPC; which is within my cognizance. 10. Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. Sessions Trial ultimately came to be heard and decided by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad. 12. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined total eight witnesses out of whom, Informant PW-1 Mohd. Rabib, PW-2 Mohd. Mahbubullah, PW-3 Qadir are the witnesses of fact and deposed ocular account of occurrence. PW-4 Constable Satyendra Kumar, PW-5 S.I. Pramod Kumar Tyagy, PW-6 Dr. A.K. Singh, PW.-7 Upendra Kumar Yadav and PW-8 Bhanu Pratap Singh are formal witnesses. PW-6 Dr. A.K. Singh had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Jamshed and has proved postmortem report Ex.Ka-9. PW-4 Constable Satyendra Kumar had registered FIR and has proved Chik FIR Ex.Ka-2, PW-5 Pramod Kumar Tyagi who has made inquest and proved inquest report Ex.Ka-4, PW-6 proved post mortem report Ex.Ka-9, PW-7 proved recovery memo of simple earth and blood stained earth Ex.Ka-10, PW-8 proved charge-sheet Ex.Ka-12. 13. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he has stated that he is innocent and entire prosecution case is false and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he did not have any knowledge about previous quarrel took between ladies of both sides. Accused-appellant desired to adduce evidence in defence but later on, he did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence in support thereof. 14. After analyzing entire evidence led by prosecution, learned Trial Court recorded the verdict of conviction and sentenced accused- appellant, as stated above. Feeling aggrieved with impugned order of conviction, present appeal has been filed through Jail. 15. We have heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A for State-respondents at length and have gone through the record available on file carefully. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the impugned judgment by advancing following submissions :- (i) PW-1 is father of deceased (close relative). PW-3 Qadir is admittedly relative of PW-1. (ii) There is no motive to accused to commit murder of Jamshed. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the impugned judgment by advancing following submissions :- (i) PW-1 is father of deceased (close relative). PW-3 Qadir is admittedly relative of PW-1. (ii) There is no motive to accused to commit murder of Jamshed. Motive shown by PW-1 is not sufficient to cause death. (iii) No independent witness has been examined from the side of prosecution. (iv) Medical evidence is not compatible with oral evidence. (v) There are several contradictions in statements of witnesses rendering prosecution case doubtful. (vi) FIR has been lodged by PW-1 (father of deceased) close relative after one and half hours without explaining any sufficient reason for delay in lodging FIR. 17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed submissions by submitting that PW-1, 2 and 3 are witnesses of fact, who had supported prosecution case; witnesses are natural and reliable; and medical evidence is totally compatible with the ocular evidence. The weapon involved in the offence has been recovered by Investigating Officer on pointing out of accused. 18. We now proceed to consider rival submissions on merits. 19. It is evident from record that PW-1, 2 and 3 are witnesses of fact. They proved prosecution story. The witnesses established that Jamshed was given knife blow by accused at about 8.30 p.m. on the date of incident. Victim succumbed to injuries. 20. Pw-1, father of victim, has lodged FIR on the same day, very promptly, within one and half hours at the distance of three kilometers. It has come in evidence of PW-1 that accused Ashfaq took knife out of his waist and had given repeated knife blow in the chest of Jamshed, whereupon he fell down on earth. He was taken to Yashoda Hospital in injured position, where doctor declared him dead then he lodged the F.I.R. in Police Station concerned situated at three kilometers from the spot. Therefore, we do not find any delay in lodging F.I.R. 21. Pw-2 Mohd. Mahabubullah, happens to be Mamu Murgewala as stated by PW-3, deposed that at about 8:30 p.m. on the fateful evening of 01.07.2013, PW-1 Mohd. Rabib, PW-3 Qadir and Jamshed (deceased) were standing in his chiken-shop, when accused-Ashfaq came there having knife in his hand. He had seen that Jamshed was lying down in injured position, who caught accused with knife. 22. Pw-3 deposed that on 01.07.2013 at about 8:30 p.m. he himself, Mohd. Rabib, PW-3 Qadir and Jamshed (deceased) were standing in his chiken-shop, when accused-Ashfaq came there having knife in his hand. He had seen that Jamshed was lying down in injured position, who caught accused with knife. 22. Pw-3 deposed that on 01.07.2013 at about 8:30 p.m. he himself, Mohd. Rabib PW-1 and Jamshed (deceased) were standing near Chicken-shop of Mamu (happens to be PW-2), when accused-Ashfaq came there and gave knife blow on Jamshed, who sustained grievous injuries. Accused-appellant ran away from spot. Victim succumbed to injuries on the way to Yashoda Hospital. It was also stated by him that on the same morning, there had been altercation between his daughter and wife of the accused for taking water, which was subsided by the neighbours. On this count, accused-appellant caused injuries to victim Jamshed. In his cross-examination, witness admitted that he was not present on the spot at the time of previous altercation. 23. All three witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing material could be brought in cross-examination as to disbelieve the prosecution version. 24. Pw-6 Dr. A.K. Singh conducting post mortem deposed that on 02.07.2013, he was posted as Senior Consultant, Artho Department in District Hospital M.M.G., Ghaziabad. Corps of Jamshed was brought to him for postmortem by Constable Mahoj Kumar and Constable Satyaveer Singh in sealed position. Autopsy over dead-body was conducted by him at about 5:40 p.m. On external examination, deceased was found of average body built, aged about 27 years, rigor mortis had passed all over the body. In the opinion of doctor, death had occurred about 3/4th of the day before at the time of autopsy. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person :- (i) incised wound 3cm x 4cm x chest cavity deep, on left side of chest 2cm away from left nipple at 2 o'clock position. (ii) incised wound 3cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of chest 3cm below the left nipple at 6 o'clock position. 25. Pw-7 stated that after recording statements of Dhurendra Singh, Sateyndra Mishra, Sambhu visited the spot took sample of blood stain and sealed in respective boxes. On 20.07.2013, he arrested accused-Asfaq, on his pointing out, a knife involved in incident was recovered from his possession. He recorded statement of informant, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-11. 25. Pw-7 stated that after recording statements of Dhurendra Singh, Sateyndra Mishra, Sambhu visited the spot took sample of blood stain and sealed in respective boxes. On 20.07.2013, he arrested accused-Asfaq, on his pointing out, a knife involved in incident was recovered from his possession. He recorded statement of informant, prepared site plan Ex.Ka-11. In cross-examination, he stated that first of all, he went to Hospital, where victim was brought. Statement of Shmabhu Yadav, who brought the victim to Hospital, was recorded in the Hospital. Accused was not accompanied in the Hospital. He had gone to spot directly from there. He did not prepare site plan in the night. Witness was cross-examined at length but nothing material has come out from the record, which may dent the prosecution story. 26. From the statements of PW-1, PW-2 PW-3 and PW-6 time, date and place stands proved, more so it was not disputed by accused. Medical evidence is consistent with ocular evidence. 27. Admittedly, PW-1 is father of the victim claims to be witness of occurrence. He has deposed that Ashfaq took knife out of his waist and had given repeated knife blows in the chest of Jamshed, whereupon he fell down on the earth. Accused-appellant ran away from spot. Nothing material could be elicited from his cross-examination, which could dent the prosecution case. He is found natural and reliable. 28. Testimony of eye witnesses merely because they happen to be a relative of victim cannot be discarded, as close relative would be last one to screen out the real culprit and implicate innocent person as law laid down in Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) AIR SC 364. Court has held as under :- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." 29. In Dharnidhar v. State of UP, (2010) 7 SCC 759 , Court has observed as follows :- "There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim" 30. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 298 , Court has held as under :- "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 UP, (2011) AIR SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. 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 UP, (2011) AIR SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., (2013) AIR SC 308)." 31. It is settled that merely because witnesses are closed relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out that whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 32. So far as non-examination of other witnesses is concerned, in view of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,1872'), we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 33. Law is well-settled that as a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of Act, 1872, but if there are doubts about the testimony, Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the numbers, the quantity, but the quality that is material. Time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Test is whether evidence has a ring of truth, cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 34. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 , Court re-iterated the view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. 35. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. 35. In Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) AIR SC 1381 a similar view has been taken placing reliance on earlier judgments including Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P., (1994) AIR SC 1251; and Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, (1957) AIR SC 614. 36. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gunjrat reported in, (2004) 12 SCC 229 , Court held that :- "The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitay eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments inasmuch as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye-witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it." 37. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in, (2002) 9 SCC 537 , Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. 38. So far as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case. 39. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 40. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. 40. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on 19.09.2018. 41. Knife recovered from the possession of accused on his pointing out was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. As per report Ex.Ka-14 of Forensic Science Laboratory, cut mark on the shirt of deceased might by occurred by knife recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. This fact also proved the guilt of accused. 42. So far as argument made by learned Amicus Curiae regarding the motive is concerned, we do not impress with the submission advanced by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as it is well settled that where direct evidence is worthy, it can be believed, then motive does not carry much weight. It is also notable that mind set of accused persons differs from each other. Thus merely because that there was no strong motive to commit the present offence, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 43. In Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC 196 , the Supreme Court held as under :- "As regards motive, it is well established that if the prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of motive looses practically all relevance. In this case, we find the ocular evidence led in support of the prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to discard it." 44. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR as pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae is concerned, it has come in the evidence of PW-1 that Victim was taken to Yasoda Hospital where he was declared dead. It is well settled that life is more precious than F.I.R., therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by learned Amicus Curiae for accused-appellant. 45. It is well settled that life is more precious than F.I.R., therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by learned Amicus Curiae for accused-appellant. 45. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and legal preposition discussed herein before, we are satisfied that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant and Trial Court has rightly convicted him for having committed an offence under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC. 46. So far as sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases. 47. 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'. [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 ]. 48. [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 ]. 48. Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, motive, nature of offence, weapon used in commission of murder and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant-Asfaq by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no ground appears to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him. 49. In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. 50. Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to District Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action and to apprise the accused-appellant through Jail Authority. 51. Before parting, we provide that Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae for appellant in present Jail Appeal, 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, without any delay and, in any case, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.