JUDGMENT Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 123/2015, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with default stipulation. 3. As per prosecution case, on 29.01.2015 at about 02.30 p.m., the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased Lebin Soren on some dispute relating to land and killed him by inflicting injury on his neck with a 'Dao'. An FIR was lodged by P.W.1, Bitikuri Hasda, on the basis of which, police registered Urimghat Police Station Case No. 04/2015 under Section 302 I.P.C. and commenced the investigation. During the investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the inquest report, sent the body for Post-Mortem examination and the confessional statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 4. The Post-Mortem examination of the body was conducted by Dr. Mukul Sarma (P.W.8), who found one extensive cut injury extending from right zygomatic bone including right ear to lower down the neck exposing great vessels carotid and artery and muscle of neck completely cut. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of extensive cut injury by sharp weapon and the death was within less than 24 hours before the Post-Mortem examination. 5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and eventually he stood the trial. 6. In course of trial, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. 10 (ten) witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charge. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he took the plea of innocence. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded sentence as indicated above. 7. We have considered the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Dutta and also scrutinised the evidence and materials brought on record. 8. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded sentence as indicated above. 7. We have considered the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Dutta and also scrutinised the evidence and materials brought on record. 8. On our assessment of the evidence and perusal of the impugned judgment, we find, that there was no other evidence except the confession of the appellant, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant solely on the basis of the confessional statement made by the appellant. It is pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, that while examining the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the confessional statement, which was the sole basis of conviction was not put to the appellant. We have carefully gone through the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Having gone through the statement of the appellant, we find that there is substance is the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae, in as much as, the confessional statement, which was relied by the learned trial Court to record conviction of the appellant was not put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is trite law, that recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is intended to enable the accused to explain the inculpatory evidence and circumstances brought against him and relied by the Court. Therefore, it is the solemn duty on the part of the Court to record the confessional statement with utmost sincerity, so as to enable the accused to explain each and every incriminating evidence and circumstances brought against him and sought to be relied by the Court. True it is, "every omission or error (i.e. insufficient examination) does not necessarily vitiate the trial unless the accused-appellant is prejudiced," but when the conviction itself is based on a particular piece of evidence and the said incriminating piece of evidence is not put to the accused, so as to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances, in our considered view, such omission would certainly prejudice the accused. 9. 9. Having taken note of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., we find that to not speak of putting the entire confessional statement, even the gist of the confession was not put to him, though the conviction was passed solely on the basis of the confession. In Harijan Megha Jesha vs. State of Gujarat, (1979) AIR SC 1566 , the Apex Court observed that when the circumstances against the accused is not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on that circumstance. The Apex Court in Machander vs. State of Hyderabad, (1955) AIR SC 792 , where the accused was charged with murder was not questioned about his confession, the error was considered to be so serious, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India without ordering a re-trial, acquitted the accused, as he was at trial for long period. In the facts and circumstances, the present case, failure of the learned trial Court to question the appellant or putting the confessional statement to him during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vitiated the trial inasmuch as the conviction was passed solely on the basis of confession of the appellant. 10. In the above facts and circumstances we are unable to sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant and accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence so as to enable the learned trial Court to decide the case afresh after recording the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in a proper manner. 11. Let the matter be remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who shall record the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. keeping in view the observation made herein above and pass a fresh judgment if necessary, giving opportunity to the learned counsel to argue the case afresh. 12. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby provide that she will be entitled to professional fee of Rs. 7500/-. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Ms. Sarma. 13. Send back the record. The learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to complete the exercise within a period of 4 (four) months as the appellant is in jail. Registry shall send back the record immediately, if necessary, by special messenger.