Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1388 (GAU)

Raju Mura v. State Of Assam

2022-12-16

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : A.D.Choudhury, J Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Assam. 1. The present appeal is preferred from Jail through the Superintendent of District Jail Golaghat, by the accused appellant Sri Raju Murah, who was convicted on 01.03.2017 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default S. I. for 2 (two) months under Section 302 of IPC in connection with Sessions Case No. 206/2014 (GR Case No. 2021/2013) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat. Being an appeal from jail, this Court had appointed Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae in the matter to represent the case of the appellant. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by one Raju Karmakar before the Officer in Charge, Khumtai Police Out Post, inter alia, alleging that his son Mintu Karmakar went out of his house in the evening on 31.10.2013 and he did not return home on that night and in the morning he came to know that around 11:00 PM on the previous night, the accused/appellant Raju Murah killed his son Mintu Karmakar by assaulting him brutally and putting the dead body in a gunny bag and kept the dead body concealed under his bed. He further came to learn that one Sri Babu Karmakar and Sri Buslu Murah were present at the place of occurrence. 3. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, laid charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC against the present accused/appellant. 4. On the basis of such charge-sheet the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat framed charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant on 08.01.2015. Since, the appellant had pleaded not guilty, the matter went up for trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses to bring home the charge framed against the appellant and exhibited 10 (ten) documents, including Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report and the confessional statement made by the accused/appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is noted that the prosecution has examined 10 (ten) witnesses, however, marking of the witnesses do not disclose deposition of any PW-2 and PW-3. It is noted that the prosecution has examined 10 (ten) witnesses, however, marking of the witnesses do not disclose deposition of any PW-2 and PW-3. This Court has also perused the record and judgment of the learned Court below and it is found that there is no deposition of any PW-2 and PW-3 and after marking of the PW-1, next marking of witness starts from PW-4 to PW-12. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, had passed the judgment and sentence, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The same is under challenge. The appellant was convicted primarily on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 7. The prosecution witness:- Before any determination by this Court in this appeal, let this Court examine the prosecution witnesses:- I. PW-1, Raju Karmakar who is the father of deceased Mintu Karmakar and the informant. He deposed that prior to the Kali Puja festival in the year 2013, one evening, his son Mintu Karmakar went out of their house along with accused Raju Murah. Both of them went towards the daily market at Khumtai Tea Estate. However, Mintu did not return that night. At about 04:00 AM on the following day, his nephew Babul Karmakar informed him that there had been a quarrel between accused/appellant and Mintu at accused/appellant’s home regarding a mobile phone and Babul was present there. He further deposed that when Babul came to inform the aforesaid matter to him, Babul’s shirt was stained with blood. Babul stated before him that in course of quarrel, when Raju assaulted Mintu with his hands, Mintu fell down over bricks and when Babul went to lift Mintu, his shirt got stained with blood. Having learnt this, he went to Raju’s house and found Raju’s brother Bhendeala, and Bhendeala informed him that Raju had gone to a nearby house for consuming ganja. PW-1 further deposed that he found Raju in the house where Raju was consuming ganja and on being asked about the incident, Raju told him that, when both of them were sleeping in the night, Mintu took out Raju’s mobile phone from his pocket and when Mintu asked about the matter, Mintu denied to have taken the mobile phone and then Raju assaulted Mintu with wooden batten. The PW1, further deposed that Raju told him that Mintu had run away when he had released him after assaulting. Thereafter, according to PW-1, he left the place to attend his duty. Later, he came to learn that Raju himself surrendered in Khumtai Police Station and confessed there that he had killed Mintu and put his dead body in a gunny bag, concealed it beneath the bed of Raju’s own house. PW-1 received information about the incident from the Police Station while he was on duty. Thereafter, he along with the Police came to Raju’s house and took out the dead body stacked in a gunny bag from under the bed. He was all along with police, when police took out the dead body. He noticed injury on the back of the head of the dead body and found the legs fractured. He witnessed the inquest and put thumb impression in the inquest report and lodged the ejahar after recovery of the body. Police seized the wooden batten used in commission of the offence. Police also seized two gunny bags in which the dead body was stacked. He witnessed the seizure and put his thumb impression in the seizure list. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that Babul had come to his house to tell him about the incident that happened on the previous night regarding the quarrel between Raju and Mintu over a mobile phone. II. PW-4, Sri Deben Kurmi, is the seizure witness of the batten. He deposed that police seized a wooden batten and obtained his signature in the seizure list. He heard from public that Raju had killed Mintu. He proved the seizure list and his signature. He also identified the seized wooden battens in the Court, exhibited as Mat. Ext. 1, 2 and 3. During cross-examination, he deposed that he didn’t know where police found the batten. III. PW-5 Sri Jiten Kurmi, is the seizure witness to the 3 (three) wooden battens (Exhibit-1). He deposed that police from Khumtai Out Post obtained his signature in Exhibit-1. On seeing a gathering at the place of occurrence, he stopped there for a while, at that time, Police asked him to put his signature in the seizure list as he was acquainted with the police. Accordingly, he put the signature in the seizure list and proved his signature as Exhibit-1(2). On seeing a gathering at the place of occurrence, he stopped there for a while, at that time, Police asked him to put his signature in the seizure list as he was acquainted with the police. Accordingly, he put the signature in the seizure list and proved his signature as Exhibit-1(2). During cross-examination, he deposed that Exhibit-1, was blank when he put his signature. During examination-in-chief, he deposed that he does not know the accused Raju Murah, or deceased Mintu Karmakar. IV. PW-6, Sri Bhuban Urang is another seizure witness to Exhibit-1. He proved his signature during his examination-in-chief as Exhibit-1(3). He deposed that he didn’t know how Mintu died or who killed him. He also stated that the police obtained his signature in the Inquest Report (Exhibit-2) and he proved his signature in the Inquest Report as Exhibit-2(1). During cross-examination he deposed that while putting his signature in the seizure list, he was not aware of its content. He also stated that he did not know what was seized. He stated that he put his signature on being asked by police to do so. V. PW-7 Sri Jiten Mura, who is the brother of the accused. During his examination-in-chief, deposed that he knew the accused who was his brother and also know the informant. He stated that he heard that Mintu Karmakar had died in the house of the accused. He also stated that he cannot say how the deceased had died. This witness was declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution and the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine him. During the cross-examination by the prosecution, he deposed that on the night of the incident, at about 01:00 o’clock, the accused, deceased and Babul Karmakar called him while he was sleeping in his house. On waking up, he saw them standing in the veranda of his house then he noticed blood coming out of the head of deceased and his clothes were stained with blood. The accused asked PW-7 about a mobile phone. Then he told the accused that he did not understand what he had asked him about the mobile phone. Then accused told him that the deceased had given him the mobile phone of the accused. Then PW-7 informed the accused that the deceased had not given him any mobile phone. Thereafter, they left for the house of the accused. Then he told the accused that he did not understand what he had asked him about the mobile phone. Then accused told him that the deceased had given him the mobile phone of the accused. Then PW-7 informed the accused that the deceased had not given him any mobile phone. Thereafter, they left for the house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he stated before Police that Babu Karmakar informed him that on the night itself, suspecting the deceased to have stolen his mobile phone, the accused had assaulted the deceased with lathi, as a result of which the deceased had sustained grievous injury in this person and he died. He further denied the suggestion that he has stated before the Police that Babu Karmakar informed him that he had witnessed the incident. During the cross by the defence he deposed that he did not witness the incident. VI. PW-8, Dr. Manjit Singh is the Doctor who performed the post mortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Mintu Karmakar. He deposed that he had found the following injuries. Injuries:- i. There is lacerated wound over left fronto temporal scalp of size-7 X 4 X 3 cm. On dissection, there is comminuted fracture of the left temporal skull bone underneath of which, there is a large haematoma of size 5 x 5 x 4 cm with mass effect and midline shift of brain matter. ii. There is abrasion over the right shoulder of size- 6 x 5 cm. iii. There is bruise over the left chest wall of size – 5 x 3 cm in both arms and knee joints. iv. There is abrasion over the lateral aspect of abdominal wall of size – 5 x 6 cm. v. Pleura, right lung, heart-all congested. vi. Stomach contains undigested food matters. vii. Small intestine contains semi digested food matters. viii. Large intenstine contains – faecal matters. ix. Liver, spleen and kidney - congested. He opined that the death was caused due to head injury sustained by the deceased and the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. He proved the postmortemreport and his signature. During cross-examination, he deposed that injury mentioned in the post mortemreport can be sustained by dashing against hard substance. VII. ix. Liver, spleen and kidney - congested. He opined that the death was caused due to head injury sustained by the deceased and the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. He proved the postmortemreport and his signature. During cross-examination, he deposed that injury mentioned in the post mortemreport can be sustained by dashing against hard substance. VII. PW-9, Sri Prafulla Ganju was the seizure witness of the 2 (two) gunny bags and he proved the said seizure list as Exhibit -3 and his signature as Exhibit-3(1). He also proved the Mat. Exhibit-4 i.e. the set of said two seized gunny bags and identified the same in the Court. He deposed that both the accused and the deceased used to work together on daily wage basis. He heard that on the day prior to the day of incident, the accused had lost his mobile phone and there had been a quarrel between the accused and deceased over the allegation that the deceased had stolen the mobile phone. In the following morning of the incident when he inquired about the incident, Babul Karmakar informed him that the deceased had run away. Around 10:00 AM Police informed him over phone that the accused had surrendered in the Police Station after killing the deceased. Thereafter, he accompanied the police to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased in two gunny bags kept under the bed inside the house of the accused. During cross-examination, he deposed that generally, gunny bags like the Mat. Ext. 3 are available in most of the families. He stated that he did not read the contents of Ext. 3 before putting his signature. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not state before Police that on the previous day of incident that there had been a quarrel between the accused and the deceased over a mobile phone. He further denied the suggestion that he did not state before Police that in the following morning of the incident when he inquired about the incident, Babul Karmakar informed him that the deceased had run away. VIII. PW-10 Sri Gulendra Ganju is the neighbor and he knows the accused, informant and the deceased. At noon on the day of incident, Police apprehended him and took him to the Police Station. He came to know in the Police Station that someone had killed the deceased. VIII. PW-10 Sri Gulendra Ganju is the neighbor and he knows the accused, informant and the deceased. At noon on the day of incident, Police apprehended him and took him to the Police Station. He came to know in the Police Station that someone had killed the deceased. Inquest was done in his presence and he noticed injury in the body of the deceased. The defence did not cross-examine him. IX. PW-11, Sri N. J. Dutta, is the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nazira who recorded the confessional statement of the accused appellant. He deposed that on 02.11.2013 while he was working as JMFC at Golaghat Court, accused Raju Mura was produced before him on arrest along with case record of Kamargaon PS Case No. 94/13 corresponding to GR Case No. 2021/13 with a prayer for recording of confessional statement by the IO. Prayer was allowed. He deposed that on being produced, the accused was explained the consequences of making confessional statement and as it was found necessary to give him time for reflection and accordingly he deposed that he gave 4 (four) days time to the accused for reflection. The Superintendent of District Jail, Golaghat was directed to take steps to keep the accused in seclusion so that the accused can reflect during the period of reflection. Accordingly, accused was remanded to judicial custody and on 07.11.2013, the accused person was again produced before him. He enquired the accused whether he was willing to make any confessional statement and cautioned him that he was not bound to make confessional statement and if he did so the same would be used as evidence against him at the time of trial. The accused person desired to make confessional statement. However, PW-11 gave him sufficient time for reflection i.e. for another 3 hours. Then he handed over the accused person to his office peon and allowed him to sit in his Court chamber. Later on, after completion of his Court works, he asked the accused person whether he was willing to confess and if he would confess, the same will be used as evidence at the time of trial. He further deposed that in spite of repeated cautions being given to the accused person, he desired to make confessional statement. Accordingly, PW-11 recorded the statement of the accused person by observing all legal formalities. He further deposed that in spite of repeated cautions being given to the accused person, he desired to make confessional statement. Accordingly, PW-11 recorded the statement of the accused person by observing all legal formalities. He further deposed that he had satisfied himself before recording the confessional statement that the accused person is not subjected to any undue influence from any quarter. After completion of recording of the statement, he issued the certificate. He proved Ext. 4, i.e. order dated 02.11.2013, Ext. 5, i.e. order dated 07.11.2013 and Ext. 6 i.e. the confessional statement. He proved his signature as Ext. 6(1) and the signature of the accused person as Ext. 6(2) to 6(7) and deposed that the accused put his signatures before him. He proved the certificate issued by him as Ext. 7 and his signature as Ext. 7(1). During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that he had not recorded the confessional statement of the accused named Raju Mura as per provision of law. X. PW-12 Sri Joseph V. Kaivom was the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 01.11.2013, he was working as I/C of Khumtai Out Post and at around 10:10 AM, accused Raju Mura came to the Out Post and informed that the last night he had a quarrel with his friend Mintu Karmakar regarding a mobile phone and a fighting took place between them over that matter and that when he had dealt blow on his friend’s head with a wooden batten, the latter had fallen down in their veranda and he had been lying there. The accused also informed him that after waking up when he saw that his friend had died, he immediately put his friend’s dead body in gunny bag and kept it beneath the bed inside the house and left home. On receiving such information, the PW-12 made G. D. Entry being No. 3 dated 01.11.2013. He proved the extract copy of the GD Entry as Ext. 7 and his signature as Ext. 7(1). He further deposed that he took the accused along and came to the place of occurrence and being shown by the accused, he found the dead body in gunny bag kept under a bed inside the house and it was the dead body of the deceased. 7 and his signature as Ext. 7(1). He further deposed that he took the accused along and came to the place of occurrence and being shown by the accused, he found the dead body in gunny bag kept under a bed inside the house and it was the dead body of the deceased. He inspected the place of occurrence, drew sketch map, seized three pieces of wood with which the accused assaulted the deceased from the place of occurrence, held inquest on the dead body in presence of witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. in the evening on that day and the F.I.R. was sent to Kamargaon police Station. Thereafter, he submitted the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he deposed that PW-1 did not state before him that on the following day of the incident babul came to his house and informed that there had been a quarrel between accused Raju and Mintu regarding a mobile phone and that he noticed blood on Babul’s shirt and that at the relevant time that night Babul had been with Mintu and Raju. He further deposed that he did not state before him that the accused had assaulted Mintu with wooden batten regarding mobile phone and also did not state before him that he had noticed injury on the back of deceased’s head and found both the legs of the deceased fractured. He further deposed that PW-9 did not state before him that on the previous day of the incident there had been a quarrel between the accused and deceased regarding a mobile phone. He also did not state before him that they found the dead body stacked in gunny bag kept under a bed inside the house of the accused. 8. The defence Case:- I. The accused appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. denied his involvement and took a stand that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 9. 8. The defence Case:- I. The accused appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. denied his involvement and took a stand that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 9. The decision of the learned Trial Court:- Based on the aforesaid evidence brought on record by the prosecution and relying on the confessional statement made by the accused before the PW-11, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life etc. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant:- I. Learned counsel for the appellant Ms. B. Sarma argues that there is no material available on record to show that there is any eye witness to the alleged commission of offence and the accused has been convicted only on the basis of his confessional statement which is not permissible under law. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel further submits that even on the basis of the confessional statement, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. At best, this can be a case under Section 304 Part-II of IPC inasmuch as prior to the incident there had been a scuffle between both the accused and deceased and when deceased tried to assault the accused, the accused had given the fatal blow. Therefore, this is not a case, where the accused had confessed that he had killed the deceased. II. The learned Amicus Curaie, further submits that the vital witness namely Babul Karmakar has not been examined by the prosecution though the prosecution has projected him to be the eye witness to the incident and such omission on the part of the prosecution has vitiated the entire prosecution. 11. Argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution:- I. Per contra, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though Babul Karmakar was a vital witness and was a listed witness after many notices issued, the said Babul Karmakar did not appear before the Court to give his evidence before the trial Court. However, as the accused had candidly confessed his guilt, and all procedure has duly been followed while recording his confessional statement, which has been proved by the PW-11, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law or facts in convicting the accused. II. However, as the accused had candidly confessed his guilt, and all procedure has duly been followed while recording his confessional statement, which has been proved by the PW-11, the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law or facts in convicting the accused. II. He further submits that law is well settled that when the confession is unambiguous, clear and voluntary, a person can be convicted on the basis of such confessional statement. 12. The determination:- I. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, perused the evidence on record. II. It is undisputed in the present case that Babul Karmakar was projected as the eye witness to the incident, however, he was not examined and the judgment and conviction was awarded basically relying on the confessional statement and the discovery of the dead body beneath the bed of the accused. Therefore, before discussing other witnesses and other evidences, let this Court first look into the confessional statement of the accused. III. The accused confessed before the Magistrate as follows:- a. While the accused was sleeping at his home, the deceased Mintu stole his mobile phone from his pocket. Mintu Karmakar and Babu Karmakar were along with him while he was sleeping. b. On waking up, as he did not find his mobile phone, he enquired them about the phone, whereupon Babu Karmakar asked Mintu to return the mobile phone, but Mintu told him that Jiten had stolen the mobile phone. c. Then he along with Mintu went to Jiten’s house and Jiten informed them that he has not taken the phone. d. Then Mintu and the accused came to their house. e. In his house, Babu again asked Mintu to return the mobile phone but Mintu did not return it. He then showed him his anger and attempted to strike him with a kotari (Pruning knife). Then only, the accused hit Mintu on his head and hands with a stick used for plastering lime which was lying nearby. f. Mintu then fell down on the ground and blood was coming out of his head. When Babu Karmakar called his uncle, the latter restrained him. He then fell asleep. g. The following morning Mintu was found dead. Thereafter, he surrendered in the Police Station. IV. f. Mintu then fell down on the ground and blood was coming out of his head. When Babu Karmakar called his uncle, the latter restrained him. He then fell asleep. g. The following morning Mintu was found dead. Thereafter, he surrendered in the Police Station. IV. From the materials as discussed hereinabove including the confessional statement of the accused, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident took place on 31.10.2013 at around 10:30 PM inside the house of the accused. Along with the accused and deceased, one Babul Karmakar was also present, however, Babul Karmakar was not examined. The confessional statement also reflects that Babul Karmakar called the uncle of the accused and that uncle restrained the accused. However, the said uncle has not been examined by the prosecution. V. From the materials available on record, it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a quarrel between the accused, deceased and Babul regarding the allegation of accused of stealing his mobile phone by the deceased. VI. It is also established beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature from the Inquest Report (Exhibit-2) and Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-2). The quarrel is also proved from the deposition of hostile witness Jiten Mura (PW-7) and the informant (PW-1). 13. In Pakala Narayana Swamy –Vs-Emperor reported in AIR 1939 PC 47 , Privy Council observed as follows:- “A confession is a statement which either admits in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession.” The Hon’ble Apex Court has followed the dictum of Pakala Narayan case in the landmark case of Palvinder Kaur –Vs-State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 354 , wherein it was held that “the confession must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. Admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even conclusively incriminating facts is not by itself a confession. The statement that contains self exculpatory (self-defending) or other matter cannot amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of the same facts which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even conclusively incriminating facts is not by itself a confession. The statement that contains self exculpatory (self-defending) or other matter cannot amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of the same facts which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. The statement which when read as a whole is of exculpatory character and in which the prisoner denies his guilt is not a confession, and cannot be used in the evidence to prove his guilt.” 14. In the case in hand, from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that a quarrel was going on between the accused and victim from the previous evening regarding the loss of mobile phone. It is also established that these two accused persons and Babu were together from previous evening and in the midnight, they went to the place of PW-7. Such fact of a quarrel between the accused and the victim is also reflected in the confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of the Doctor and the injury report also establish that the cause of death was the single blow in the head of the deceased victim. Thus, from the aforesaid it is established that though the accused might have been aware that the blow would cause death to the deceased, however, the intention of the accused to murder the victim is not available on record inasmuch as, had the accused intended to murder the victim, he could have done so at the earlier point of time since it is established that both of them were together since the previous evening. Thus from the aforesaid materials i.e. the testimony of PW-1, PW-7 read with the confessional statement of the accused it is clearly established that there was sudden provocation from the victim which led to the accused giving the fatal blow on his head. 15. From the above evidences, it is clear that there was distinct possibility of grave and sudden provocation from the deceased upon the appellant, immediately before the occurrence and therefore, though the same had not been specifically pleaded by the appellant, the possibility that the appellant acted under a heat of passion having lost of self control cannot be ruled out. 16. 16. The offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder is explained under Section 300 of the IPC. The Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC provides that the culpable homicide which would not amount to murder. The Exception 4 is quoted herein below:- “Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in ``a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” 17. The materials available on record, in our view leads to an unhesitant conclusion that the accused had in most likelihood acted without premeditation and it is certainly not a planned or premeditated killing to come under the scope of Section 302 IPC. Therefore, in the totality of evidences, we are of the considered opinion that being provoked by the deceased, the accused/ appellant had acted in the heat of a moment having lost his self control. We have also considered the fact that the accused went to the police station and surrendered before the police. 18. From the materials, on record we are of the considered opinion that though it cannot be said that the accused did not have the knowledge that it would cause death to the deceased in the manner he had used the weapon, however, the accused did not had the intent to cause death to the deceased. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the accused would come under Section 304, Pt-II of IPC. We accordingly, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and convict him under Section 304 Pt-II of the IPC. 19. Accordingly the accused namely, Sri Raju Murah is awarded sentence of 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, would however, remain unaltered. The period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellant shall stand set off and reduced from 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment awarded to the appellant by this Court and shall be released on completion of the aforesaid period of sentence. 20. The appeal is partly allowed. Send back the LCR.