Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 482 (GAU)

Md. Asab Uddin v. State of Assam

2019-04-12

M.R.PATHAK, MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Ujjal Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 2. This appeal from jail is filed by the accused appellant, Md. Asab Uddin against the judgment dated 18.02.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 127 (Mcr)/2013 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Asma Khatun and minor daughter Momtaz and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year as well as for offence under Section 201 IPC he was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1 year, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months, where the sentences to run concurrently setting off the period in custody undergone by the accused appellant during investigation and trial of the case. 3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Bairan Ali (PW.1) on 29.07.2012 lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Merarchar Police Station stating inter alia that the accused Md. Asab Uddin married his sister Asma Khatun about an year back and in course of their conjugal life her sister was pregnant for eight months. Since 24.07.2012 said accused Md. Asab Uddin, on instigation of other accused persons named in the ejahar, physically and mentally tortured his said sister Asma Khatun and on 29.07.2012 the said accused, with the aid of other accused persons killed his sister Asma Khatun and also his 3 years old niece Mumtaz, who were found lying dead with multiple injuries on their person in the kitchen of the accused Md. Asab Uddin and that they were kept concealed by jute sack. The said ejahar of PW.1 dated 29.07.2012 was registered as Murajhar Police Station Case No. 80/2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 437/2012 under Sections 143/120(B)/302/201 IPC. 4. Asab Uddin and that they were kept concealed by jute sack. The said ejahar of PW.1 dated 29.07.2012 was registered as Murajhar Police Station Case No. 80/2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 437/2012 under Sections 143/120(B)/302/201 IPC. 4. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map, held inquest on the dead bodies and sent the dead bodies to Abhayapuri Civil Hospital for their post mortem examination, arrested the accused persons, seized ropes and other materials by which the dead bodies were tied and some other materials, in presence of the witnesses, by preparing seizure memo, collected post mortem reports of both the deceased and on completion of investigation of the case, finding sufficient incriminating materials against the FIR named accused persons of committing offence punishable under Sections 143/120(B)/302/201 of the IPC, submitted the charge sheet (Exhibit-6) vide No. 21 dated 13.04.2013 against the FIR named accused persons of the case including the appellant herein. 5. Since Sections 120(B)/302 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri forwarded the records of said G.R. Case No. 437/2012 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 127(MCR)/2013. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon on perusal of the statements under Section 161 CrPC and the post mortem reports of the deceased persons, being prima facie satisfied, vide order dated 12.09.2013 framed charge under Sections 302/201 IPC against the accused persons of the case for causing death of his sister and niece and for concealing their dead bodies, so as to wipe out evidence of the case, which were read over and explained to them, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly trial of the case commenced. 7. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence and after completion of recording of evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Judge on 03.01.2014 recorded the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC, where the accused persons denied all the statements and allegations made against them by the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the present appellant in his 313 CrPC statement submitted that on the date of the incident he left for Guwahati and after getting the information that his wife and daughter were killed, he left Guwahati on the following day, went to the PI Court at Abhayapuri, from where he was taken to Merarchar Police Station by its Officer-in-charge and thereafter, he was arrested in the case. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence from its side. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2015 acquitted all the accused persons of the case except the present appellant, as the prosecution failed to prove the case against them. However, the learned Trial Judge, by the impugned judgment found the accused appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Asma Khatun and her 3 (three) years old daughter Mumtaz and convicted him under Section 302/201 IPC and accordingly, sentenced him. 9. Learned Amicus Curie Mr. U. Choudhury submitted that there is no ocular witness to the incident and the entire matter rests on circumstantial evidence and that the evidence led by the prosecution failed to complete the chain of evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. As such the Amicus Curie urged before the Court that the accused appellant needs to be acquitted in the case. 10. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam Ms. S. Jahan submitted that although the case rests on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution could complete the chain of evidence, thereby proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which does not call for any interference. 11. Considered the submissions advance by the learned counsels for both the parties, perused the evidence that were adduced before the learned Trial Judge, the impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. To examine the correctness of the impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence, let briefly scrutinized the evidence on record. 12. PW.10, Dr. To examine the correctness of the impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence, let briefly scrutinized the evidence on record. 12. PW.10, Dr. Shalini Bhasin, is the Autopsy Doctor, who on 29.07.2012 conducted post mortem examinations of both the deceased persons, Asma Khatun and Mumtaz in the afternoon around 04:30 pm and 05:00 pm respectively at Bongaigaon Civil Hospital, where she was serving as Medical and Health Officer-I. During the post mortem examination of deceased Asma Khatun, the said doctor found the following on her person - A thin built, stout, starved, 22 years pregnant woman of approximate 7 months pregnancy examined, Non-decomposed body. Face was smashed on the right side, cut injury on right side of forehead. Multiple bruises present over body on both arms, legs and abdominal wall. Strangulation mark seen on the neck. A thin plastic rope found around the neck. Ecohymosis present over the chest wall. Abrasion was found over chest wall. On examination, she was pregnant approximately 7 months with foetus inside the uterus. Fracture of right exidle zygomatic process and right side of mandible. Scalp, skull, vertebrae - Intact & congested. Membrane - Intact and congested. Brain and spinal cord - Congestion seen in brain peripheral tissue. Walis, ribs and cartilages - Congested and ecohymosis present over the chest wall. Abrasion present over chest wall clearly and profusely. Pleurae - Congested and intact. Larynx and trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium, heart and vessels - Intact & congested. Walls - Intact and pregnancy of approximate 7 months in uterus feutus found. Peritoneum - Intact, Mouth, pharynx, oesophagus - Frothing seen in mouth. Stomach and its contents - Intact and congested and contains small amount of undigested food materials. Small intestine and its contents - Intact and contains small amount of partially digested food material. Large intestine and its contents - Intact and contains faecal matters. Liver, spleen, kidneys - Intact and congested. Bladder - contains small amount of urine. Organs of generation, external and internal - Intact. PW.10, the autopsy doctor opined that the cause of death of deceased Asma Khatun was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation, which was ante mortem in nature and she identified her signature in the post mortem examination report, Exhibit-8 of the deceased Asma Khatun. 13. PW-10, Dr. Organs of generation, external and internal - Intact. PW.10, the autopsy doctor opined that the cause of death of deceased Asma Khatun was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation, which was ante mortem in nature and she identified her signature in the post mortem examination report, Exhibit-8 of the deceased Asma Khatun. 13. PW-10, Dr. Shalini Bhasin, the autopsy doctor on the same day also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Momtaz Khatun, 3 years old female child and found the following: A fresh non-decomposed, medium built, swarthy complexion of approximate 34" height of three years age. Multiple abrasion and bruises on face, legs, hands seen. Strangulation mark seen on the neck. Frothing was seen inside the oral cavity. Right side of the face was smashed. Fracture of right zygomatic and maxilla bone seen. Intro cerebral bleeding was seen. Scalp, skull vertebrae - Intact. Membrane - Intact and congested. Brain and spinal cord - Intact and congested. Introcerebral bleeding seen. Walis, ribs and cartilages - Congested and bruised. Pleurae, Larynx and trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium, heart and vessels - Congested. Walls - Intact and congested. Peritoneum - Intact. Mouth, pharynx, oesophagus - Frothing seen inside the oral cavity. Stomach and its content - Congested and contains small amount of undigested food materials. Small intestine and its contents - Congested and contains small amount of semi digested food material. Large intestine and its contents - Congested and contains faecal matters. Liver, spleen, kidneys - Intact and congested. Bladder - Intact, contains small amount of urine. Organs of generation, external and internal - Intact. As per the opinion of said Autopsy Doctor PW.10, the cause of death of deceased Momtaz Khatun was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation, which was ante mortem in nature and she identified her signature in the post mortem examination report, Exhibit-7 of the deceased Momtaz Khatun. 14. In her cross examination said Autopsy Doctor PW.10, stated that the post mortem examinations of both the deceased persons were conducted with sufficient light in the post mortem room of the hospital. 15. By examining the concerned Autopsy Doctor PW.10, the prosecution could prove that both the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation, which were ante mortem in nature, which clearly indicates that death of the deceased persons were homicidal. Now let us briefly examine the evidence of the other prosecution witness. 16. 15. By examining the concerned Autopsy Doctor PW.10, the prosecution could prove that both the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation, which were ante mortem in nature, which clearly indicates that death of the deceased persons were homicidal. Now let us briefly examine the evidence of the other prosecution witness. 16. The PW.1, Bairan Ali, informant of the case and brother of the deceased Asma Khatun stated that she earlier married to one Moijuddin from whose side they had a daughter, namely, Momtaz, his niece who was also killed along with his said sister. He stated that his sister Asma Khatun, during existence of her marriage with Moijuddin, fell in love with the accused Asab Uddin and she eloped with accused Asab Uddin, taking her minor daughter Momtaz along with them, without dissolution of her previous marriage with Moijuddin. Said PW.1 also stated that at first relation between his sister and the accused was good, but as time passed, the accused started having an aversion with her work, which led to quarrel between them and his other sister PW.3, Hamida Khatun and for all these reasons, the accused tortured her. It is also deposed by PW.1 that on his advice, the accused told him that he will take Asma Khatun to doctor on the next day and the day when the accused was to take his wife (the deceased sister of PW.1) to hospital, his other sister (PW.10) visited the house of the accused, found his house locked and while she was to return the house of the accused, she noticed that his kitchen was open and entering on it, she found both his sister Asma Khatun and her niece Momtaz, lying dead covered with jute sticks. Noticing the same when his said sister PW.3 (Hamida Khatun) made hue and cry, the villagers arrived at the place of occurrence and on being informed by Jahirul (PW.5) on his mobile phone, said witness reached the place of occurrence and found the deceased with injuries on their face and accordingly informed the police through his ejahar, (Exhibit-1), wherein he named the husband of his deceased sister Md. Asab Uddin, his parents and his family members as accused persons of the case. Asab Uddin, his parents and his family members as accused persons of the case. Said PW.1 also deposed that he was a signatory to the inquest (Exhibit-2) of his deceased sister as well as his niece and also a signatory to the seizure memo (Exhibit-3) with regard to seizure of jute stick and plastic rope. Said PW.1 also deposed that at the time of said incident his deceased sister Asma Khatun was pregnant. 17. During his cross examination PW.1 stated that the accused Asab Uddin earlier married one Mazeda Khatun, lived with her for about 5/6 years and two children were born to them from the said marriage and that during continuation of his said marriage, the accused fell in love with his sister Asma Khatun, eloped with her with his niece and brought her to his house. He also stated that when his sister eloped with the accused, she did not divorce her previous husband, and that the accused Md. Asab Uddin did not live with the other accused persons of the case and he stayed separately, with his sister in a differrent place. In his cross-examination PW.1 also stated that after the accused brought his sister to his house, his first wife Khajeda Khatun left him and stayed in her paternal home with their two children and that his sister Asma had a peaceful conjugal life with the accused for about a year and she never informed him about any quarrel between her and accused Asab Uddin. He also stated that he did not see any assault on his sister by the accused and it is only from his other sister PW.3 Hamida Khatun, he gathered that the accused had assaulted his wife Asma. 18. PW-2, Hawa Khatun is a co-villager and she visited the place of occurrence only after coming to know about the death of Asma and saw Asma and her daughter Momtaz lying dead in the kitchen of the accused. 19. PW.3, Hamida Khatun, sister of the informant as well as the deceased Asma in her examination-in-chief deposed before the learned Trial Judge that first wife of the accused kept on quarrelling with her sister Asma for which her sister Asma was assaulted by the accused and on the previous day of the incident, Asma told her about it. 19. PW.3, Hamida Khatun, sister of the informant as well as the deceased Asma in her examination-in-chief deposed before the learned Trial Judge that first wife of the accused kept on quarrelling with her sister Asma for which her sister Asma was assaulted by the accused and on the previous day of the incident, Asma told her about it. Said PW.3 also deposed that she went to the house of the accused and asked him to take her sister Asma to doctor for her treatment and the accused replied her that he will take her on the next day. On hearing such reply PW.3 stated that she will also go with her sister Asma while visiting the doctor and on the next day around 8/9 am when she went to the house of the accused, she found the door of his house locked from outside and did not find any one in it and when she went to the kitchen and opened the door, she found some jute sticks near the door and when she pushed open the door of the kitchen see saw some bodies and legs under the jute sticks, which fell down on pushing the door of the kitchen. After removing those jute sticks she found her sister Asma as well as her niece Momtaz lying dead who were tied with ropes behind her hand and also found that her niece Momtaz was lying on the back side of her deceased sister Asma. She also found injuries on their person, which were swollen and turned black. Thereafter, said PW.3 made hue and cry and on hearing it the villagers assembled in the house of the accused. 20. In her cross-examination PW.3 stated that before marrying her sister Asma, the accused lived separately and also stated that he did not live with his parents. She also stated that prior to the occurrence; her sister Asma did not say anything regarding any such assault on her by the accused and she denied the suggestion that she did not tell police during the investigation that the accused assaulted her sister and also saw the injuries on her person. 21. PW.4, Sanjab Ali is a hearsay witness to the incident and deposed that the deceased and the accused lived in the house of the accused Asab Uddin, wherein the sister and niece of the informant, PW.1 died. 22. 21. PW.4, Sanjab Ali is a hearsay witness to the incident and deposed that the deceased and the accused lived in the house of the accused Asab Uddin, wherein the sister and niece of the informant, PW.1 died. 22. PW.5, Jahirul Islam in his examination-in-chief deposed that both the accused and informant are his co-villagers and that the deceased Asma got married to one person before eloping with the accused appellant and while eloping with the accused, Asma brought her daughter Momtaz, who was born out of her first marriage and that at the time of her death Asma was pregnant. He also deposed that about 7 days prior to the incident, while he went to cut grass, around 7/7:30 in the morning along with his two brothers, Sahidul and Saiful they saw a huge gathering in the house of the accused and saw Azad Ali, Jaher Ali sitting there and the public assembled therein raised a commotion. On their inquiry they were told that the accused had assaulted his wife and that said wife Asma should be given treatment by doctor and after 5/6 days of the said incident he went to Guwahati, where he came to know about the murder of said Asma. Later he was asked by the Investigating Officer of the case to accompany him to the house of the accused and accordingly he went there. 23. During his cross examination said PW.5 denied the suggestion that he did not state before police that the deceased Asma was not pregnant and also not stated that seven days prior to the incident in the morning he did not see public gathered in the house of the accused, wherefrom they came to know that the accused had assaulted Asma, sister of the informant/PW.1. 24. PW.6, Amir Hamja @ Hussain a co-villager of the informant and the accused, in his examination in chief stated that the deceased Asma, sister of PW.1 was initially married to some other person from whom she had a daughter and later on she married the accused, also brought her daughter who was born from her first marriage, to the house of the accused and they lived together. He also deposed that the first wife of the accused lived with them. He also deposed that the first wife of the accused lived with them. He further deposed that on the date of incident, noticing many people gathered in the house of the accused, he too went there and saw the dead bodies of the deceased Asma and her daughter inside the kitchen, kept covered with jute sticks, hands and legs of the deceased Asma tied with rope and that blood was oozing out from the mouth of the minor daughter Momtaz. He also deposed that the accused was not present at his home. 25. During his cross examination said PW.6 stated that the accused lived separately with his two wives. 26. PW.7, Abhijit Singha, a Circle Officer, who conducted the inquest on the dead bodies of Asma and minor Momtaz, deposed that the inquests on both the dead bodies were done at Abhayapuri Police Station campus. He also deposed that during such inquest on Asma Khatun, he found cut mark on her head, slight cut mark on her chest, cut mark on her left leg, her right hand was found swollen with black marks on it and that right side of her face was smashed and that Exhibit-2 is the inquest report of said Asma Khatun. With regard to the inquest of minor female child Momtaz, PW.7 found that her face was smashed and Exhibit-3 is the inquest report of said child. During his cross-examination by defence, he stated that though inquest was done in presence of the witnesses, but fathers name and the addresses of those witnesses were not mentioned in the inquest reports. 27. PW.8, Ainuddin, is also a co-villager of the informant as well as the accused and he is a hearsay witness to the incident. After getting the information about the death of both the deceased, he went to the house of the accused. He deposed that when the accused married the deceased Asma, his first wife went to her paternal home. During his cross-examination PW.8 stated that he did not have any visiting term with the family of the accused and only on hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of the accused and found presence of many people in the house of the accused and he does not know how both the deceased died. 28. During his cross-examination PW.8 stated that he did not have any visiting term with the family of the accused and only on hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of the accused and found presence of many people in the house of the accused and he does not know how both the deceased died. 28. PW.9, Darbesh Ali Ahmed, Sub-Inspector of Police and the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that on the basis of the FIR lodged by PW.1, Bairan he registered the case and took up its investigation. On his visit to the place of occurrence, he found both the dead bodies tied with a rope, covered with jute sticks that were kept in the kitchen of the house of the accused and both the dead bodies were taken to Abhayapuri Police Station, where their inquest were conducted by an Executive Magistrate. He deposed that finding some jute and plastic rope lying at the place of occurrence, he seized them and during his investigation as he found sufficient material, submitted the charge-sheet in the case (Exhibit-6) against the appellant and others under Sections 120(B)/302/201 IPC. 29. During his cross-examination PW.9 stated that the incident occurred on 28.07.2012 whereas the FIR was lodged on 29.07.2012 at about 11.30 am and there was no explanation about the delay in lodging the same. He stated that on his visit to the place of occurrence, after lodging of the FIR, he found that both the dead bodies were tied with thread but not with rope. Accordingly, he drew the sketch map of the place of occurrence, seized the threads/rope by which both the dead bodies were tied, but did not forward the same for FSL examination. He further stated that as the cloths of deceased Asma was not stained with blood, he did not seize the same. He found the little girl lying naked. In his cross examination, PW.9, the Investigating Officer also stated that PW.3, Hamida Khatun, sister of the informant did not state before him that the first wife of the accused kept on quarrelling with the deceased Asma. He also stated that said witness PW.3 did not tell him that PW.1 told her that for such quarrel, the accused use to assault their sister Asma nor she stated that she had seen any injury on the left hand of the deceased Asma. He also stated that said witness PW.3 did not tell him that PW.1 told her that for such quarrel, the accused use to assault their sister Asma nor she stated that she had seen any injury on the left hand of the deceased Asma. PW.9 further stated that said PW.3 did not state before him that as the accused was sitting near Asma, she could not tell anything to her. 30. In the present case it is seen that PW.3 Hamida Khatun, sister of the deceased Asma went to the house of the accused on the previous date of the incident around 03:00 pm and then accused told her that he will take Asma, his wife, sister of PW.3, to the doctor on the next day and that said PW.3 replied that she will also accompany her sister Asma to doctor along with him. On the next day i.e., on the date of the occurrence when she visited the house of the accused around 8-9 am, she found the door of the house of the accused locked from outside and then she went to the kitchen of the house, pushed its door and on such pushing, the jute sticks fell down. On entering the kitchen, she saw legs under the jute sticks that had fallen on pushing the door of the kitchen and on removing those jute sticks; she found both her sister Asma and her niece Momtaz lying dead in that kitchen. 31. PW.6, Amir Hamja @ Hussain, in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross- examination categorically stated that the accused Asab Uddin, his first wife and deceased Asma use to live with the accused and PW.3 is totally silent in this regard. From the sketch map, Exhibit-5 we have noticed that the house of the accused B, house of acquitted accused Tota Mia C, the kitchen D and the place of occurrence A, respectively are located differently, whereas the place of occurrence A is different from the kitchen D. According to PW.3 she found the dead bodies of her sister Asma as well as her niece Momtaz in the kitchen after pushing the door of the same beneath the jute sticks. But Exhibit-5 sketch map reflects that the dead bodies were recovered in a different house at A which is away from the kitchen D. 32. But Exhibit-5 sketch map reflects that the dead bodies were recovered in a different house at A which is away from the kitchen D. 32. The post mortem examination reports of both the deceased Momtaz and Asma, Exhibits - 7 & 8 respectively though reflected that their small intestines contain small amount of undigested food material, but those PM reports did not state the time of death of both the deceased. 33. It is seen that the prosecution case fully rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is purely on circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and must unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution and it is already settled that only when the chains of circumstantial evidence is complete, then only the accused of the incident can be convicted. 34. In a criminal case, it is settled that Court should go for strict proof of evidence on the face of which the accused can be connected with the offence like murder and when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied by the prosecution has to be fully established with the chain of events which can connect the accused with the crime, which if happen to be broken in any way, then there will be no option before the Court, except to come into a reasonable conclusion with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, a red coloured thin rope about 4 feet long (Mat.Ext-1) and bundle of jute sticks, lying at the place of occurrence were sized vide Seizure List, Exhibit-4. The I.O. of the case PW.9, in his cross-examination by defence stated that Mat.Ext-1 was actually not a rope but a thread. Prosecution failed to show that it is the same Mat.Ext-1 that has been used in the commission of the offence in strangulating both the deceased. Prosecution also failed to establish by leading any evidence that it is the accused who strangulated both the deceased. 35. Prosecution failed to show that it is the same Mat.Ext-1 that has been used in the commission of the offence in strangulating both the deceased. Prosecution also failed to establish by leading any evidence that it is the accused who strangulated both the deceased. 35. From the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and that he is the author of the crime. We found that the Trial court was not justified in convicting the accused appellant, since the chain of circumstantial evidence remained broken and incomplete. As such, the appeal is allowed. 36. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused appellant, named above, dated 18.02.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 127 (Mcr)/2013 is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant Md. Asab Uddin is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and it is directed that he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 37. Before parting with the case, we acknowledge the assistance rendered by the leaned Amicus Curiae of this case, Mr. Ujjal Choudhury as well as Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The Gauhati High Legal Services Authority, Guwahati is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Ujjal Choudhury towards his remuneration. 38. Registry shall return the Trial Court records alongwith a copy of this Judgment.