JUDGMENT : M. Thakuria, J. Heard Mr. J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment & order, dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 107(T)/2016, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, has convicted the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 (six) months. 3. The brief facts, leading to this appeal, is that on 10.03.2016, one Shri Ansu Proja, lodged an F.I.R. with the Officer-In-Charge, Barekuri Police Station, to the effect that on 26.02.2016, the present appellant/accused assaulted the deceased-Sabita Praja with a brick on her head and subsequently she died of head injury. On receipt of the F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Barekuri Police Station, registered a case being Barekuri P.S. Case No. 03/2016, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and endorsed S.I. Chandan Das with the case for investigation. The preliminary investigation was done by S.I. Nabajit Das, who visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, sent the dead body for post-mortem and also seized the brick/stone weighing 3 kg, by which, the present appellant was alleged to have committed the murder of deceased-Sabita Praja. Subsequently, S.I. Nikunja Barman arrested the accused/appellant, who was remanded to judicial custody on completion of investigation and thereafter the Charge-Sheet was submitted against the present appellant-Shri Bitu Praja for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In due course, the case was committed by the learned Court below before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the accused; to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) numbers of witnesses including the I.O., M.O. and the informant. The convict/appellant did not adduce any evidence and simply took the plea of total denial while his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) numbers of witnesses including the I.O., M.O. and the informant. The convict/appellant did not adduce any evidence and simply took the plea of total denial while his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there was cross-examination of P.Ws. by the learned defence counsel. After hearing arguments put forwarded by both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, passed the impugned judgment & order, dated 22.11.2018, in Sessions Case No. 107(T)/2016, whereby, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default to undergo further period of imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 6. Dr. Prosanta Borgohain (P.W.-3) has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Sabita Praja in connection with this case and found the following injuries. “Injuries:- i. Lacerated injury of size 1.5 cm X 1 cm over the scalp on right parietal region and 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm on left occipital region. On dissection, scalp found congested on right front parietal region and left occipital region. Haemotoma on right temporal region present. Dura found congested. Intracerebral haemorrhage on right side 4 th ventricle and right lateral ventricle present. ii. Multiple contusions of small sizes found over the upper part of the chest, over back, upper part of thighs of both legs present. On dissection, subcutaneous haemorrhage preset. Membrane, liver and spleen – congested. Bladder – full. Larynx, trachea left lung and right lung – congested. Other organs were normal and healthy” 7. It is opined by the P.W.-3 that the death was caused due to coma as a result of intra cerebral hemorrhage from head injury, which was ante mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact and homicidal in nature. Rigor mortis were also partially present at the time of examination. Ext.-1 is the postmortem report. 8. From the evidence of M.O., the death is homicidal in nature caused by blunt force impact leading to intra cerebral hemorrhage. Now, it is to be seen as to who had committed the murder of the deceased-Sabita Praja. 9. Ansu Praja, the son of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.-3) with the allegation that he learnt from Smt. Dipali Nayak that convict/appellant-Bitu Praja, caused the death of his mother. Now, it is to be seen as to who had committed the murder of the deceased-Sabita Praja. 9. Ansu Praja, the son of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.-3) with the allegation that he learnt from Smt. Dipali Nayak that convict/appellant-Bitu Praja, caused the death of his mother. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that initially the informant was under the impression that his mother had sustained injury by falling down and hitting against some hard substance. But subsequently, he enquired the matter and then it was reported by one Dipali Nayak/P.W.-2 that the convict/appellant had committed the incident. So, the evidence of P.Ws. have to be scrutinized carefully. 10. The testimony of Shri Biron Nayakm (P.W.-1) is that his wife Dipali Nayak (P.W.-2), reported him when he returned home in the night at about 8 p.m. that Sabita Praja was assaulted by the appellant-Shri Bitu Praja with a brick and thereafter dragged Sabita to the house of the accused. Next day, he verbally informed the matter in the Police Station and the deceased succumbed to her injuries on the next day. The deceased was the aunt of P.W.-1. 11. P.W.-2 is a vital witness of the entire prosecution case being an eye witness to the incident. In her evidence, she deposed that on the day of occurrence, at about 6.00 p.m., the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased-Sabita Praja with a brick near her house and she saw the incident from her own house. She also saw that after hitting the deceased with a brick, she was dragged away by the accused to his house. Sabita sustained head injury and the blood was oozing out of her head. On the next morning, she came to know that the deceased-Sabita Praja died. She informed her husband on that day, at about 8.00 p.m., when he came back home. Her husband did not go to the house of the accused to see the deceased. And, on the next day, police came and seized the brick which was lying in front of the house of the accused. In her cross-evidence, it has come that the house of the deceased is about 50 feet away from her house and the incident occurred in the courtyard of their house. And, on the next day, police came and seized the brick which was lying in front of the house of the accused. In her cross-evidence, it has come that the house of the deceased is about 50 feet away from her house and the incident occurred in the courtyard of their house. She stated that, after the incident, she did not make any hue and cry and also did not inform about the incident to the family members of the deceased-Sabita Praja. Her father statement is that she was standing outside her house at that time. Her evidence also corroborates the medical evidence to the extent that the deceased died due to coma as a result of the head injury. 12. Both P.Ws. 4 & 5 came to the house of the deceased hearing hue and cry and they also found gathering of people in the house of the deceased. P.W.-4 also noticed injury on the backside of the head of the deceased and he heard that the present convict/appellant committed the murder of the deceased. P.W.-5 was also present at the time of seizure of the stone, by which, the accused/appellant had assaulted the deceased on her head. As per P.W.-5, the stone was lying near the dead body of the deceased when it was seized by police. He put his signature in the seizure list and also came to know from the P.W.-2 that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a stone on her head as a result of which, she died. His cross-examination also reveals that when the stone was seized by police, it contained bloodstains. But, at the time when it was exhibited as material exhibit, it did not contain any bloodstains. 13. P.W.-6 is also a hearsay witness who heard from the villagers that the deceased was killed by the appellant with a stone. 14. P.W.-7, Shri Nabajit Das Bagri, conducted the preliminary investigation as per direction of the higher authority due to absence of the Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station. Inquest was also done by him and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and he also recorded the statement of some witnesses. On the basis of the G.D. Entry No. 420, dated 26.02.2016, of Barekuri Police Station, he conducted the preliminary investigation and seized the material exhibit (stone) from the place of occurrence. Inquest was also done by him and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and he also recorded the statement of some witnesses. On the basis of the G.D. Entry No. 420, dated 26.02.2016, of Barekuri Police Station, he conducted the preliminary investigation and seized the material exhibit (stone) from the place of occurrence. However, it is seen from his evidence that he did not send the material exhibit, i.e. the stone, for FSL examination. Subsequent part of the investigation was done by P.W.-8, though he could not file the Charge-Sheet as he got transferred before the completion of investigation. Subsequently, P.W.-9 filed the Charge-Sheet on the basis of investigation done by P.Ws. 7 & 8 against the present convict/appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 15. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. J. Das, for the appellant, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the present convict/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. In this context, Mr. J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the present convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Though the P.W.-2 stated to be the eye witness of the entire incident, she did not make any hue and cry nor she informed anyone of the family members of the deceased or other neighbors regarding the incident, which cannot be a normal human conduct. Moreso, the evidence of both P.Ws. 1 & 2, reveals that when she reported about the incident to her husband (P.W.-1), he also did not visit the place of occurrence or to the house of deceased in the night itself and in the morning only, it has come to his knowledge that the deceased died. Moreso, from the evidence of P.W.-2, it is very much evident that the incident took place at about 6.00 p.m. and at the time of the incident, it was already dark. So, it cannot be possible for the P.W.-2 to see the incident from her own house. 17. The learned Amicus Curiae also raised point that the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, did not put all the incriminating questions to the accused appellant nor he was given any chance of hearing or adducing evidence in support of his case. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the appellant, who was not even afford to adduce his evidence or to take defence plea. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the appellant, who was not even afford to adduce his evidence or to take defence plea. In this context, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2018], wherein, in paragraph Nos. 19 & 20, it has been held as under: “… Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.[See Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289 ] 20. This Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 , while emphasising upon the significance of Section 313 CrPC, has delineated the duty of the trial Court and held thus: “22. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, trial courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defence. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice — “audi alteram partem”, as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the part of the court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defence, since the inception of the trial, with due caution…” 18. Further, it is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the purpose of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerge against him during the course of trial and the accused should be given an opportunity to place his defence plea or to adduce evidence in support of his case. But, here in the instant case, the learned Court below did not give any opportunity to place his defence plea or to adduce his evidence in support of his defence plea. 19. Per contra, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that at that point of time, the P.W.-2 may not be able to assess the gravity of the offence to inform the family members or other neighbours about the incident in the night itself. But, her evidence to the extent of hitting the deceased with a stone/brick by the present convict/appellant goes unrebutted. Further, there is no evidence that she had any difficulty to identify the deceased or the appellant for the darkness. She saw the entire incident from 50 feet away from her own house and she could identify the accused/appellant as well as the deceased, who was her aunt. Her evidence accordingly remained unshaken. 20. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted in context the recording of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that all the incriminating circumstances brought against the present appellant in evidence was put to him at the time of recording of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specially the evidence of P.W.-2. 21. It is admitted fact that she immediately raised no hue and cry nor she reported the matter to any family members of the deceased and she first reported the matter to her husband when he returned home at 8.00 p.m. But, her evidence could not be disbelieved or discarded only on the ground that she did not inform the family members of the deceased or the neighbours soon after the incident. From the discussion made above, it is also seen that her evidence remained unshaken and is also found to be reliable and convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve the P.W.-2. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in (2007) 15 SCC 393 (Umesh Vs. State of Maharashtra) has expressed the view that every person may react in his/her own way and his/her evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that he/she did not react in a particular manner. For ready reference, paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment is extracted herein below: “14. State of Maharashtra) has expressed the view that every person may react in his/her own way and his/her evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that he/she did not react in a particular manner. For ready reference, paragraph No. 14 of the said judgment is extracted herein below: “14. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the eyewitnesses is unnatural as they had not disclosed the genesis of the incident to the members of the family of the deceased on the same day or they had not immediately reported the matter to the police. On scrutiny of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that PWs 1 and 2 are natural and truthful witnesses. Their evidence is cogent, reliable and convincing and there is no good reason to disbelieve and discard their consistent and truthful version. It is well settled that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. Therefore, the High Court has rightly reappreciated the evidence of the eyewitnesses and we find no fault in the reasoning recorded by it. The evidence of the eyewitnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence.” 23. From the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is seen that the evidence of all witnesses were not put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, it is seen that the incriminating circumstances which reveals from the evidence of P.W.-2 was put to him at the time of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, simple error or omission while recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot vitiate the trial automatically unless it cause any prejudice to the accused. 24. In the case of Wasim Khan Vs. The State of U.P. [ AIR 1956 SC 400 ] and also in the case of Bhoor Singh & Anr. Vs. So, simple error or omission while recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot vitiate the trial automatically unless it cause any prejudice to the accused. 24. In the case of Wasim Khan Vs. The State of U.P. [ AIR 1956 SC 400 ] and also in the case of Bhoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1974 SC 1256 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that the provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are to bring the substance of accusation to the accused so that he can explain every circumstance appearing against him during the course of evidence and it is mandatory provision which casts a duty on the Court to give the opportunity to the accused to explain every incriminating circumstance brought against him in the evidence. But, the question whether the trial is vitiated or not due to non-compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would depend upon the degree of error and the accused must show that such non-compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has caused prejudiced or is likely to cause prejudice to him. 25. Similar view is also expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma’s case, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 439 (Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand). 26. Here the appellant failed to prove that he is materially prejudiced for any omission while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the same time, it cannot be inferred from materials on record that prejudice has been caused to the accused/appellant on this count. 27. This is a case of homicide in nature and as per Ext.-3 (F.I.R.), it is mentioned that death of Sabita Praja, the mother of the informant, was caused by the accused/appellant-Bitu Praja. Ext.-3 is not specific that the accused killed the mother of the informant, but is mentioned that the informant initially thought that his mother died by falling down. But, subsequently, on enquiry, he came to know from Smt. Dipali Nayak (P.W.-2) that the accused committed the incident. Ext.-3 is not specific that the accused killed the mother of the informant, but is mentioned that the informant initially thought that his mother died by falling down. But, subsequently, on enquiry, he came to know from Smt. Dipali Nayak (P.W.-2) that the accused committed the incident. Though the written complaint about the death was much later, the police had the information of that on 26.02.2016 itself, which was recorded vide G.D. Entry No. 420, dated 26.02.2016, and on the basis of that G.D. Entry, police visited the place of occurrence, seized the stone (M. Ext.-1) vide seizure list (Ext.-2) and examined the witnesses, conducted inquest on the dead body, prepared the sketch map and dead body was sent for post mortem (Ext.-1). 28. The reason for death of Sabita Praja, as revealed from Ext.-1 and from the evidence of Doctor, was due to coma as a result of intra cerebral hemorrhage from head injury, which is lacerated injury of size 1.5 cm X 1 cm size over scalp on right parietal region and 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm on left occipital region. 29. Now it is to be seen as to how the deceased sustained injury, as mentioned in the evidence of P.W.-3. The Injuries so described cannot be by a single fall. Otherwise there has to be multiple fall. The injuries resembles the description given by P.W.-2 that accused attacked the deceased with a brick near the house and dragged the deceased to the house of the accused. Brick piece, i.e. M. Ext.-1, was seized from the courtyard of the P.W.-2. She saw the incident from a distance of about 50 feet. The sole eye witness coming by the evidence led by the prosecution is P.W.-2. If her evidence is reliable and trustworthy, the prosecution charges stands establish against the accused with some corroboration from other witnesses. The test is whether the P.W.-2 is fully trustworthy or her evidence leaves any room for any further query or doubt. 30. The P.W.-2 deposed that on the day of incident, at about 6.00 p.m., from her house she saw accused assaulting Sabita Praja with a brick and then dragged her to his house and that due to assault, Sabita Praja sustained injury on her head and blood oozed out from her head and in that night itself, at about 8.00 p.m., she reported the matter to her husband-P.W.-1. Next morning, she heard about the death of Sabita Praja and police came and seized the brick which was lying in front of the house of the accused. 31. Without going through the cross-examination of P.W.-2, let us first see whether there is corroboration of the fact of the case and what the other evidence in record has to say. 32. The F.I.R of the instant case was lodged on 10.03.2016 by Ansu Praja, who mentioned about the incidence of night of 26.02.2016. The case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered only on receipt of the Ext.-3 (F.I.R.) against the accused on 10.03.2016, i.e. after 15 days of the incident. But the postmortem was done on 27.02.2016, at about 12.45 p.m., with reference to G.D. Entry No. 420, dated 26.02.2016. The I.Os. (P.W.-7, P.W.-8 & P.W.-9) have already mentioned about the said G.D. Entry. The G.D. Entry is not brought in the evidence as to what was the information as per the said G.D. Entry. The Charge-Sheet (Ext.-4) and the evidence of P.W.-9 has the reference to only F.I.R. of Ansu Praja, lodged on 10.03.2016. So, question arises if there is no information of assault, then why police reached the place of incident and seized the stone or piece of brick. Had the story been that the Sabita Praja sustained injury by falling down, then general prudence does not induce the instinct on police officer to seize the M. Ext.-1. The evidence of P.W.-7 is that Officer-In-Charge was absent on 26.02.2016 and Additional Superintendent of Police, on receipt of information of murder of a woman under Barekuri Police Station, directed him to take up preliminary enquiry. The G.D. Entry No. 420, dated 26.02.2016, was already there and he went to P.O., seized the stone weighing 3 kg, conducted the inquest and send the dead body for postmortem. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. The extract copy of the G.D. Entry contains that information received from the VDP Secretary, Dabang Baruah that dead body of a lady is lying in a Hatigarh Gaon. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. The extract copy of the G.D. Entry contains that information received from the VDP Secretary, Dabang Baruah that dead body of a lady is lying in a Hatigarh Gaon. It does not mentioned about cognizable offence, but after return of I.O. from P.O. and after doing the preliminary enquiry, including recording of statement of witnesses which includes Ansu Praja (since deceased) and P.W.-2 and it is at the information of a cognizable offence, who could have immediately returned to the police station, make the G.D. Entry and accordingly registered a case under cognizable Sections. Rather, the Case Diary mentioned about the registration of U.D. Case No. 01/2016. Thus, in spite of coming to know about the fact of cognizable offence and keeping idle of registering a U.D. Case and waiting for a written F.I.R. from the son of the deceased is highly deprecated. 33. Defective investigation cannot defeat the ends of justice. The duty of the Court is to see if the defence given in the Court should be relied and such lapse ignored [ (1972) 3 SCC 613 (Sathi Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh)]. It would not be right to acquit the accused solely on account of defective investigation. It would tantamount to playing in hands of the I.O., if investigation is defective [ (2004) 3 SCC 654 (Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors vs State Of Punjab)]. 34. The discussion above draws the conclusion that the death of Sabita Praja was due to head injury caused by assault of the accused with a piece of stone (M. Ext.-1). None of the P.Ws. have mentioned that reason behind the assault. Without reason these would not have been any cause to assault her unless mental disability. No doubt mensreabehind the offence is best known to the accused. Even if not specifically mentioned it can be inferred from the materials on record. In this case, if the cause is explained by the defence, it would have gone contra to its plea of defence of denial. But, the legal position is that the Court can consider such fact which goes in favour of the accused from the materials on record or CD. 35. In this case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the deceased informant, Ansu Praja, recorded by P.W.-7 contains that there was quarrel with the accused over non refund of loan. But, the legal position is that the Court can consider such fact which goes in favour of the accused from the materials on record or CD. 35. In this case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the deceased informant, Ansu Praja, recorded by P.W.-7 contains that there was quarrel with the accused over non refund of loan. None of the witnesses has narrated this fact and prosecution also did not try to bring out the reason. But the fact is that there was a reason for the incident and it was the dispute over loan. The accused gave a single blow with that stone on the head of the deceased. Had his intension been to kill her, he would have given more blows. 36. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Singh Vs. Poonam Singh, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 94 , has held that Court to consider such plea, if the same is available in the case record. 37. The assault by the accessed on Sabita Praja with a stone leading to her death having been established, it is to be seen whether the offence attracts Section 302 IPC or some other Section. The nature of assault, reason behind, rustic nature of the people concerned, etc need to be considered to conclude under what category of penal section the offence falls. 38. From the discussions made above, it is evident that the accused gave only a single blow. Had his intention was to kill her, he would have given more blows or would have used any weapon to assault or kill the victim as the incident had occurred near to his house. More so, from the statement of the informant made before the I.O., it is also seen that there was a dispute between his mother and the accused/appellant for refunding of a loan. Thus, it is seen that the accused/appellant had no pre-meditation to commit murder of the deceased and it was result of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and thus, the offence comes under exceptions I & IV of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 39. Thus, it is seen that the accused/appellant had no pre-meditation to commit murder of the deceased and it was result of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and thus, the offence comes under exceptions I & IV of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 39. To make out the offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that death of the person in question and as such, the death was caused by an act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his own is likely to cause death [State Vs. Sanjeev Nanda ( AIR 2012 SC 3104 )]. 40. Accordingly, we are of the view that modification is necessary in respect of Sections under which the appellant was convicted and we are of the view that the case against the appellant is established under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 41. In the result, the appeal succeed in part. The conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code stands converted to Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is accordingly awarded punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and the fine, as imposed earlier by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, will remain unaltered. The period of hazotee or imprisonment shall be set forth from the punishment awarded by this Court. 42. Before parting, we put on record the appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. J. Das, learned Amicus Curiae, and we recommend that he is entitled to a fee, as per the notified rate, to be paid by the State Legal Services Authority. 43. In terms of above, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. 44. Send back the case record.