Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 430 (GAU)

Simnath Modi v. State of Assam

2019-04-04

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. Heard Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2014. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 and sentence him imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Learned Sessions Judge also directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh to the legal representative of the victim. 3. As per prosecution case, on 12.10.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant inflicted injuries to the victim Anil Mandal by 'dao' near the wooden bridge, while he was going to attend his duty in the water supply project and the victim succumbed to the injuries. 4. P.W.-2 lodged the FIR Exhibit-1, on the basis of which police registered Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 123/2013 under Section 302 IPC and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 5. 9 (nine) witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the autopsy doctor and the investigating officer to establish the charge. On appreciation of evidence brought on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 6. We have traversed the evidence on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. On our assessment of the evidence and materials on record and perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial Court basically relying on the oral testimony of the lone eye witness and the medical evidence recorded the conviction of the appellant. 7. Post-mortem of the victim was conducted by P.W.-8 Dr. Bijay Paul Das, who found the following injuries:- "EXTERNAL APPEARANCE A male body lying in supine position with 'rigor mortis' present. After removal of all clothes of the body a sharp cut injury seen right side of the face, which extend from right lower eye lid to the tip of the right mastoid. Also pinna is also cut. Size is about 12 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm. Maxila bone is also excised. Another cut injury in right forehead, size is about 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. Also pinna is also cut. Size is about 12 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm. Maxila bone is also excised. Another cut injury in right forehead, size is about 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. Another cut injury left side of the face which extend from left side of the face to the left ear lobe with fracture mandible left side. Another cut injury seen in the right hand, size about 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. There is no ligature mark noted around the neck. On examination there is a fracture in right frontal bone. Haemorrhage seen in the brain matter. Genital organs are intact. There is a fracture on right maxi la, left mandible and right frontal bone. Other organs are healthy." 8. The P.W.-1 Champa Mandal, wife of the victim deposed, that on the day of occurrence at about 6.30 p.m., there was a quarrel in the shop of her daughter Niva (P.W.-3) on the matter of some payment, which the appellant owe to Niva. Hearing commotion in the shop, P.W.-1 Champa Mandal, Bharat Mandal (P.W.-2) and Anil Mandal (victim) came to the shop of Niva and tried to pacify the appellant. She also stated that after the said quarrel in the shop of Niva, the appellant threatened to kill the family member of the victim. She further stated that the victim was working as a chowkidar in the water supply project. After about 10 minutes of the aforesaid incident, the appellant was proceeding to his duty. Apprehending danger to the life of the appellant in view of the earlier incident, she was also following her husband to the working place. When the victim reached the wooden bridge of the village, the appellant suddenly appeared there and dealt multiple 'dao' blows to the victim. Witnessing the occurrence she rushed to her husband, embraced him and fell unconscious. It was elicited during cross-examination, that at the time of occurrence, there was no other person at the place of occurrence. It was further elicited in cross-examination, that noticing the appellant inflicting the injuries she raised alarm. Though she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination nothing material, capable of creating any dent in her testimony could be elicited. It was elicited during cross-examination, that at the time of occurrence, there was no other person at the place of occurrence. It was further elicited in cross-examination, that noticing the appellant inflicting the injuries she raised alarm. Though she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination nothing material, capable of creating any dent in her testimony could be elicited. We have also noticed the previous statement of this witness recorded during investigation and we find, that she has given consistent and coherent statement in all the stages of the proceeding leaving no room to doubt the veracity of her testimony. 9. P.W.-7 Tapan Choudhury deposed, that having come to know from a village woman that Anil Mandal (victim) was cut by somebody near the wooden bridge, he rushed to the place of occurrence. On reaching the place of occurrence, he found that Anil Mandal (victim) was lying with injuries and his wife Champa Mandal was also lying near him in an unconscious condition. In the meantime, the villagers assembled and took both the husband and the wife to Dholaibeel PHC for treatment. This witness further deposed, that on the next day police came with the appellant Bhetka and Bhetka led the police to the place, situated behind the house of Lakhindar Modi of village Modibasti, and brought out a 'dao' from under the bush in their presence. He also stated that the accused confessed to have killed the victim with the said 'dao'. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the 'dao' was picked up by the accused Bhetka and handed over it to the police. P.W.-7 deposed that victim Anil Mandal was working in the water supply plant of the village. 10. P.W.-5 Biswajit Haldar, deposed that on the next day of the occurrence, police came accompanied with the accused and the accused led the police and the villagers to the house of Lakhindar Modi and showed a 'mit 'dao', which was kept concealed. Police seized the 'dao' on being produced by the accused from the hidden place and he put his signature in the seizure list (Exhibit-4) as a witness to the seizure. 11. According to P.W.-6, when he was in front of the shop of Niva Halder (P.W.-3), he noticed, that the accused was going home, uttering that he would kill the family members of Niva Halder one by one. 11. According to P.W.-6, when he was in front of the shop of Niva Halder (P.W.-3), he noticed, that the accused was going home, uttering that he would kill the family members of Niva Halder one by one. He also stated to have heard from the people assembled there, that there was a quarrel between Niva Halder and the accused. This witness further deposed, that while he was talking to his friends a child told, that a man met with accident near the wooden bridge and immediately he rushed to the place of occurrence and found, that the injured Anil Mandal (victim) was struggling with death and his wife Champa Mandal was also lying unconscious near him. According to him, the villagers shifted the victim and his wife to hospital. This witness further stated, that on the next day at about noon, the accused appellant was brought by police to Modibasti and the accused led the police and the local villagers to the campus of Lakhindar Modi, and accused took out a 'mit 'dao' from the midst of bamboo grooves behind the house and handover it to the police. During cross-examination he stated that he forgot the name of the boy who told about the accident having taken place near the wooden bridge. 12. P.W.-4 Sambhu Chakraborty stated, that at about 6.30 pm in the evening, while he was coming from Itakhola Centre, he had seen the accused threatening deceased Anil Mandal and the members of his family, that he would kill all of them. He further deposed, that after sometime when Anil Mandal (deceased) along with his wife (P.W.-1) was going to the water supply plant, he heard commotion near the bridge. However, immediately he did not go to the place of occurrence and later on, he came to know from the villagers that the accused/appellant assaulted the victim Anil Mandal. This witness also stated that on the following day, police came to Modibasti with the accused and the accused led the police to a place where the weapon of offence 'mit 'dao' was kept concealed behind the house of Lakhindar Modi under the bamboo grooves. Police seized the 'dao' on being led and shown by the appellant. 13. This witness also stated that on the following day, police came to Modibasti with the accused and the accused led the police to a place where the weapon of offence 'mit 'dao' was kept concealed behind the house of Lakhindar Modi under the bamboo grooves. Police seized the 'dao' on being led and shown by the appellant. 13. P.W.-3 Niva Halder, the daughter of the victim stated, that the accused/appellant came to her shop and enquired about the outstanding dues and when she told about the balance amount to be paid by the accused, he got angry, as according to the accused, the amount should have been lesser. There was a between them and the accused gave a push to Niva Halder (P.W.-3) and consequently, she fell on the floor. Because of the said incident, there was commotion in her shop and her children raised hue and cry. Hearing the commotion, her parents being the victim and P.W.-1 came there and tried to dissuade the accused. When the accused was going back from the shop of P.W.-3, he was threatening to kill the members of the family of P.W.-3 one by one. This witness further stated, that later on, she heard that her father was lying near the bridge and immediately she rushed to the place of occurrence and found her father lying there. In the meantime, the villagers assembled there and shifted her father (victim) as well as P.W.-1 to hospital and thus she went to the hospital, where she found her mother (P.W. 1) lying in an unconscious condition. She further stated that the victim died on the same night. According to her, on the next day when she went to the place of occurrence and found one wallet belonging to the accused, lying there which she brought and handed over to the police and police seized the same vide Exhibit-3. She further deposed that P.W.-1 after regaining consciousness, told her that the accused assaulted the victim with a 'dao'. The appellant during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., gave an explanation that his wallet fell in the shop of the P.W.-3, when he was manhandled during the quarrel. She further deposed that P.W.-1 after regaining consciousness, told her that the accused assaulted the victim with a 'dao'. The appellant during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., gave an explanation that his wallet fell in the shop of the P.W.-3, when he was manhandled during the quarrel. Having regard to the admitted fact that prior to the occurrence of the present case, there was a quarrel in the shop of the P.W.-3, trial Court accepted the explanation and did not take into account the evidence of P.W.-3 regarding recovery of the wallet from the place of occurrence as an incriminating circumstances. In view of the admitted position that there was a quarrel in the shop of the P.W.-3, learned trial Court in our considered opinion rightly rejected the aforesaid circumstances. 14. P.W.-2 Bharat Mandal stated that deceased Anil Mandal was an employee of the Water Supply Plant. He also stated, that there was a quarrel between the accused and Niva Halder and in the course of quarrel, the accused gave a push to Niva (P.W.-3) and she fell down. The villagers tried to dissuade the accused and consequently he went back home, but while going back, he was shouting that he would kill all the members of the family of the P.W.-3. After about 10-15 minutes of the said incident in the grocery shop of P.W.-3, his father, the victim went to attend his duty. 15. P.W.-9 the Investigating Officer deposed that on 12.10.2013, while he was posted as Second Officer at Jamuguri PS, the Officer-in-Charge of the Jamuguri PS, Shri Jayanta Kalita received an information over telephone, that a person met with an accident with some unknown vehicle and he was taken to Dholaibill Hospital. Upon such telephonic information, the O.C., made a GD entry, which was later on proved in trial as Exhibit-6 and entrusted him to investigate the matter and also issued requisition for medical treatment of the injured. Accordingly, he went to Dholaibill hospital and came to know from the doctor that the victim in the meantime succumbed to the injuries inflicted on his head and face by means of 'dao'. Due to darkness he could held the inquest and the FIR was lodged next morning at 8.00 AM, on the basis of which, the case was registered. Accordingly, he went to Dholaibill hospital and came to know from the doctor that the victim in the meantime succumbed to the injuries inflicted on his head and face by means of 'dao'. Due to darkness he could held the inquest and the FIR was lodged next morning at 8.00 AM, on the basis of which, the case was registered. This witness further stated, that during interrogation the appellant disclosed that he could lead the police to the place where the 'dao', which was used in the offence, was kept. Later on, the said 'dao' was recovered from near a bamboo grooves behind the house of Lakhindar Modi, on being led and showed by the accused/appellant, which was seized and proved as material Exhibit-2. In cross-examination he admitted, that the 'dao' seized on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant was not sent for forensic examination. 16. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony of the aforementioned prosecution witness crystallizes that the P.W.-1 was the lone eye witness to the occurrence and her evidence to the effect, that while she was following her husband, to his place of work, the accused/appellant suddenly appeared near the bridge and inflicted multiple cut injuries to her husband, which led to his death and that noticing the accused inflicting injuries, she embraced her husband and fell unconscious at the place of occurrence, remained unshaken. Admittedly, the victim was working as chowkidar in the water Supply Plant of the village. The presence of P.W.-1 at the place of occurrence has also been established beyond reasonable doubt, by the evidence of P.W.-3, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7, inasmuch as, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 and P.W.-3 stated that on reaching the place of occurrence they have found both the victim as well as P.W.-1, lying there and this evidence was not controverted during cross-examination. The above unshaken oral testimony of the P.W.-1 is also found to have been corroborated by the post mortem report Exhibit-5 and the evidence of the autopsy doctor, inasmuch as, all the injuries were cut injuries on the facial area of the victim. 17. The above unshaken oral testimony of the P.W.-1 is also found to have been corroborated by the post mortem report Exhibit-5 and the evidence of the autopsy doctor, inasmuch as, all the injuries were cut injuries on the facial area of the victim. 17. Learned Amicus Curiae referring to the GD Entry proved as Exhibit-6 and the opinion of the doctor in cross-examination, that the injuries sustained by the victim could also be caused by vehicular accident, contended, that since GD Entry was the information given to the police first in point of time, and acting upon such GD Entry, police proceeded to investigate the case, the FIR, Exhibit-1 could not be treated as FIR, as the same would be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Following was the contention of the GD Entry No. 237 marked as Exhibit-6. "Now, I/C, Itakhola inform over phone that an identified vehicle hit one person and the injured was taken to Dhaaibil Hospital. On basis of the information second Officer David Doimary is entrusted with the responsibility to investigate the matter, provide treatment to the injured and to submit report. Immediately thereafter, I, S.I. Kalita, the O/C, accompanied by I/O. S.I.D. Doimary, my PSO and an APBN party rush to Dhalaibil Hospital. ASI B. Borthakur remains on the charge (of the P.S.)." 18. The above GD Entry clearly demonstrates, that it was an anonymous information from the I/C Itakhola police outpost over phone, simply informing that a person sustained injuries due to hitting by an unidentified vehicle and the victim was taken to hospital. No material was brought on record, as to who inform the I/C Itakhola out post. The testimony of P.W.-9, who was entrusted by the Officer-in-Charge to enquire the information in the GD Entry clearly shows, that pursuant to the GD Entry, P.W.-9 along with the other police officials went to the hospital, where he came to know, that it was a case of assault and the victim already succumbed to the cut injuries sustained on his face and head. As it was late at night, no further step was taken to prepare the inquest report or otherwise and on the next morning, the FIR Exhibit-1 was lodged at 8.00 A.M., whereupon, the case was registered. 19. As it was late at night, no further step was taken to prepare the inquest report or otherwise and on the next morning, the FIR Exhibit-1 was lodged at 8.00 A.M., whereupon, the case was registered. 19. The evidence of the P.W.-9 shows that the GD Entry (Exhibit-6) was made only on the basis of an anonymous and cryptic information, that a person sustained injuries because of being hit by an unidentified vehicle, which neither made out any cognizable offence, nor any investigation was carried out on the basis of the said GD Entry, except taking some preliminary steps, inasmuch as, according to P.W.-9, upon arriving at the hospital, he came to know that it was a case of assault and not vehicular accident and further progress in the investigation started next morning. Evidently the FIR (Exhibit-1) was also lodged at 8.00 AM in the next morning. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered view, Exhibit-6, the GD Entry could not be considered as an FIR to affect the credibility of Exhibit-1, the FIR. The learned trial Court also rightly held taking cue from the decision of the Apex Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.V. Panduranga Rao reported in (2009) 15 SCC 211 , that the Exhibit-1 was the FIR, not the Exhibit-6, to which we are in full agreement with the learned trial Court, The Apex Court held as under: "Where the information is only one which required the police to move to the place occurrence and as a matter of fact the detailed statement was recorded after going to the place of occurrence, the said statement is to be treated as FIR. But where some cryptic or anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that the information was the first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of FIR. The matter has to be considered in the background of Sections 154 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence received by the police agency would not constitute a FIR. 6. The object and purpose of giving a telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the officer incharge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence received by the police agency would not constitute a FIR. 6. The object and purpose of giving a telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the officer incharge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including details about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of Code. That statement cannot be treated as FIR. To put it differently any telephonic information about the commission of cognizable offence irrespective of the nature of details such information cannot be treated as FIR." 20. On the facts and circumstances of present case and law laid down by the apex Court, as above, we are unable to accept the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that Exhibit-1 FIR was hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the GD Entry, Exhibit-6. Further contention of learned Amicus Curiae referring to the evidence of the doctor, where he had opined during cross-examination, that the injuries sustained by the victim could also be caused by a vehicular accident. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that in view of the medical evidence, suggesting a probability of the injuries being caused by vehicular accident and the contents of the GD Entry, no reliance can be placed on the oral testimony of the P.W.-1 and as such, the prosecution cannot be held to have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. As already indicated above, the GD Entry was anonymous one, which did not disclose, that anyone has seen the victim being hit by any vehicle. The GD Entry (Exhibit-6) only disclosed, that one person sustained injury in vehicular accident because of being hit by an unidentified vehicle which means that none had seen the victim being hit by the vehicle. As already indicated above, the GD Entry was anonymous one, which did not disclose, that anyone has seen the victim being hit by any vehicle. The GD Entry (Exhibit-6) only disclosed, that one person sustained injury in vehicular accident because of being hit by an unidentified vehicle which means that none had seen the victim being hit by the vehicle. Though P.W.-6 stated in his evidence that one boy of the village told him that an accident took place near the wooden bridge, he failed to remember the name of the said boy, nor the said boy has been examined. It is also not clear from the evidence of P.W.-6, that the said boy informed about any vehicular accident having taken place. 22. The medical evidence as deposed by P.W.-8 and the post-mortem report, Exhibit-5, transpires that the victim sustained one cut injury on the right side of the face which extends from right lower eye lid to the tip of the right mastoid. Pinna was also cut. Another cut injury was in right forehead. Third cut injury on the left side of the face which extend from left side of the face to the left ear lobe with fracture of mandible left side. The fourth cut injury was on the right hand. The doctor opined that all the injuries were anti-mortem and sufficient to cause death. However, during cross-examination the doctor said that "such injuries might also be caused due to road traffic accident." Therefore, the doctor seems to have opined as to the alternative probability, that such injury also might be caused because of vehicular accident. The medical evidence did not, however, rule out the possibility of the injuries being caused by sharp weapon, reason being that the doctor never stated, that the injuries caused on the person of the deceased, could not be possible in the manner deposed by the ocular witness. Therefore, this is not even a case of irreconcilable inconsistency or contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence. What the doctor opined is only about an alternative probability. 23. The appreciation of evidence and the law as regards ocular evidence vis-a-vis, the medical evidence is no longer re-integra. The Apex Court in Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 1747 , held that it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. 23. The appreciation of evidence and the law as regards ocular evidence vis-a-vis, the medical evidence is no longer re-integra. The Apex Court in Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2008 SC 1747 , held that it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rule out the injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per the testimony, then only in a given case, the Court has to draw adverse inference. 24. The Apex Court in the State of the M.P. Dhankale alias Govind Singh, reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 44 observed that in case of contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, the medical evidence is not to be given primacy over the ocular evidence. 25. In Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, AIR 2013 SC 3681 , it was observed, that where eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to an alternative possibility cannot be accepted as conclusive. 26. In the instant case, P.W.-1 has categorically stated that the accused inflicted cut injury to the victim by giving 'dao' blows on his head and face. Aforesaid oral evidence is supported by the medical evidence, because as many as four cut injuries by sharp cutting weapon on left and right side of the face and head were found on the person of the deceased. The fracture of right frontal bone as well as fracture of right maxilla and left mandible and right frontal bone can also be attributed to the impact of the blows given by the weapon causing cut injuries. Besides the above injuries as reflected in the post-mortem report, there was no other injury on the body of the victim. Had the victim been hit by a vehicle, in all probability there could have been other injuries on the lower part of the body of the victim. The cut injuries both on the left side and right side of the face, also in our considered view, rule out the theory of vehicular accident, reason being that by a single fall on the road, injuries on both sides of the face was an improbability. In that case injuries would have been on one side only. Admittedly, no one has seen the victim being hit by any vehicle. 27. In that case injuries would have been on one side only. Admittedly, no one has seen the victim being hit by any vehicle. 27. When the eye witnesses accounts is found to be fully reliable and trustworthy and the injuries sustained by the victim is also supported by the medical evidence and the medical evidence having specifically not ruled out the injuries as claimed to have been caused as per the oral testimony of the ocular witness, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned amicus curiae, to discard the unshaken oral testimony of the eye witness, on the basis of the opinion of the doctor merely pointing to an alternative probability. 28. We have also noticed that the accused made a disclosure statement that he would be able to led the police to the place, where the 'dao', with which the offence was committed was kept and pursuant to such disclosure statement, the accused led the police to a place, behind the house of one Lakhindar Modi and took out the 'dao' from the jungle under the bamboo grooves, which was seized and proved as material Exhibit-2. Evidently, the 'dao' was not sent for chemical examination. We are not oblivious of the legal proposition, that mere recovery of a purported weapon of offence at the instance or on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused is not a conclusive proof, to attribute culpability to the accused inasmuch as, the prosecution may need to adduce further evidence to establish the connectivity of the weapon with the commission of the crime. 29. Be that as it may, in the instant case, evidently the 'dao' was not sent for chemical examination for the reason best known to the investigating officer and as such, there is no any plausible evidence to directly connect the 'dao' recovered on being led by the accused with the offence. But the fact remains is that the 'dao' was recovered on being led by the accused which was kept concealed in a jungle. Apparently, P.W.-1 has clearly deposed, that the accused inflicted the injuries with a 'dao'. The nature of the cut injuries inflicted to the victim also suggests that such injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon like 'dao'. Apparently, P.W.-1 has clearly deposed, that the accused inflicted the injuries with a 'dao'. The nature of the cut injuries inflicted to the victim also suggests that such injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon like 'dao'. When a purported weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused, from a hidden place and the use of the said 'dao' in the offence not being an improbability, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the accused certainly owe an explanation in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as to how he knew that the weapon was concealed at the place of recovery. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused, however, sought to give an explanation, that the said 'dao' belonged to his brother who used the same for slaughtering goat, but the accused has not explained as to why or who kept the 'dao' concealed in the jungle and how he could know that it was kept there. Therefore, in absence of any reasonable explanation from the accused, the recovery of the 'dao' on being led by the accused, from a hidden place, though, may not be a conclusive evidence of the crime or a direct connectivity with the offence, the factum of discovery of the 'dao' on the basis of the disclosure statement and on being led by the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the case would certainly be an added circumstance to support the prosecution case as deposed by the ocular witness. 30. Therefore, in view of the clear and unshaken testimony of P.W.-1, supported by the medical evidence as well as the circumstance of the recovery of the 'dao' at the instance of the appellant, in our considered view, left no room for doubt that the accused inflicted the cut injuries to the victim which led to his death. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have stated, that before the occurrence, there was a quarrel between Niva Halder, being the daughter of the victim and the accused, on the issue of some amount to be paid by the appellant, and that the appellant, while living the place after the quarrel with P.W.-3 threatened to kill the members of the family of Niva Halder. The occurrence leading to the death of the victim, having taken place immediately within a short time after the above quarrel, also suggested the motive on the part of the appellant. The nature of injuries and the part of the body selected for inflicting such cut injuries speaks loud and clear, that the intention of the perpetrator was none other than, to cause death of the victim or to cause such bodily as is likely to cause death. 31. In view of the evidence brought on record as discussed herein before, we do find no reason to defer with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in recording the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and imposing sentence on him. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby upheld. 32. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby provide that he will be entitled to profession fees of Rs. 7500/-. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Mr. Hazarika. 33. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.