JUDGMENT : [R. Phukan, J.] 1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This appeal is preferred from jail by Shri Lahap Taiju, who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa, in Khonsa Sessions Case No.21/2019, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, with default stipulation. 3. It is to be noted here that the appellant has preferred this appeal from jail, and as no Advocate was engaged by him, Mr. T. Son, learned Advocate, Gauhati High Court Bar Association, Itanagar Permanent Bench, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 4. The factual background leading to filing of this appeal is briefly stated as under:- “The appellant -Shri Lahap Taiju is an inhabitant of Old Changlang village, under Changlang Police Station. On 10.09.2005, one Shri Haptu Taiju, younger brother of Shri Lahap Taiju, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Changlang Police Station to the effect that on 09.09.2005, at about 6 to 7 PM his elder brother-Shri Lahap Taiju had killed his daughter, namely Inchu Taiju, aged about 6(six) years, at his own residence situated at Old Changlang Village, with his dao without any reason. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge Changlang Police Station has registered a case, being Changlang P.S Case No. 28/2005, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and endorsed S.I.-Mr. W. S. Tutsa to investigate the same. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same for Post Mortem Examination and collected the report. He also arrested the accused person and forwarded him to the Court and seized the weapon of offence preparing seizure list. Upon completion of investigation he laid charge-sheet against Shri Lahap Taiju to stand trial in the court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He also arrested the accused person and forwarded him to the Court and seized the weapon of offence preparing seizure list. Upon completion of investigation he laid charge-sheet against Shri Lahap Taiju to stand trial in the court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is produced before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, and after hearing the learned Advocates of both sides, the learned Court below has framed charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and on being read and explained over the same to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge has examined as many as eight witnesses, including the Medical Officer (M.O.) and the I.O. and after closing the prosecution witnesses, examined the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And thereafter, hearing arguments of the learned Advocates on both sides, the learned Court below has convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being highly aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal from jail”. 5. Mr. T. Son, learned Amicus Curiae submits that, though, there are some defects in investigation and also in trial, yet, according to him the prosecution side has succeeded in bringing home the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr. Son, has pointed out that though, the statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is recorded by the Magistrate, but, the Magistrate, who had recorded the same is not examined. It is further pointed out that though the I.O. had seized the weapon of offence, i.e. the dao stained with blood, yet he did not send the same for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory. Mr. Son further submits that the offence is undoubtedly serious in nature, but, there is no direct evidence and as such the question of enhancement of the punishment does not arise. Mr. son also submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot since the commission of the offence, for more than sixteen years and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Son submits that inspite of the lapses pointed out by him, the prosecution case stands proved and therefore, contended to upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant. 6. Per contra, Mr. Son submits that inspite of the lapses pointed out by him, the prosecution case stands proved and therefore, contended to upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant. 6. Per contra, Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, submits that this is a heinous offence where the father had killed his own child of 3(three) years old. He also submits that altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution side and they have fully established the prosecution case, and the learned Court below had rightly arrived at the findings and having convicted, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 6.1. Mr. Tado, further submits that, though this Court has ordered for Medical Examination of the appellant seeing the evidence of the P.W.8, the brother of the accused, who deposed about mental illness of the accused and that he was insane prior to commission of the offence, and a report has been received to that effect, yet, the appellant had never taken the plea of insanity during the trial and also during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also submits that the burden to prove the plea of insanity lies upon the accused/appellant, but as no such plea has ever been taken by the accused/appellant, he cannot avail the benefit of the same. 6.2. Mr. Tado also submits that the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly attracted herein this case, and as the offence is heinous, the punishment so imposed upon him may be enhanced from life imprisonment to death penalty. However, to a pointed query of this Court, Mr. Tado, submits that no cross appeal is preferred either by the prosecution side or by the informant for enhancing the punishment of life imprisonment to death penalty. Mr. Tado, also referred two case laws, i.e. the Prithipal Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10 and also another case law, Ravirala Laxmaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 , in support of his submissions. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 21/2019. Also we have carefully gone through the record of the learned Court below and the case laws referred by Mr. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, we have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 21/2019. Also we have carefully gone through the record of the learned Court below and the case laws referred by Mr. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 8. It appears from the FIR, that the occurrence took place on the night of 09.09.2005, at about 6 to 7 pm. And the FIR was lodged on 10.09.2005, the very next day of occurrence, at about 1200 hrs. Apparently, there appears to be no considerable delay in lodging of the same, so as to spell inveracity to the prosecution version. Here in this case, from the evidence so adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also from the FIR, the charge-sheet, the inquest report and the Post Mortem Report it becomes apparent that Inchu Taiju died on the night of 09.09.2005, in the house of the accused. Her death is not disputed here in this case. Now, let it be seen whether, the death of Lt. Inchu Taiju was accidental, suicidal or homicidal in nature. 9. First, let us examined the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body, be examined. The prosecution side has examined the Doctor, Mrs. Mekcha Khimum as PW-3. Her evidence reveals that she conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lt. Inchu Taiju on 10.09.2005, at about 09.30 am, and she found as under:- External examination:- (1). A cut wound starting from middle of the left chin up to the left ear. The injury was measuring about 12 cm in length and 5 cm in depth. The age of the wound was about 15 to 16 hours. (2). A cut injury measuring 1 and ½ cm was found on left clavicle. The whole neck was cut except on the right side which was attached to left fascia and skin measuring 4 cm in length. She opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to massive haemorrhage caused by laceration to vital blood vessels and also due to the asphyxia. The death of the deceased was homicidal probably caused by a sharp weapon. She confirmed the Post Mortem Report, Exhibit-4 and her signature over the same. She opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to massive haemorrhage caused by laceration to vital blood vessels and also due to the asphyxia. The death of the deceased was homicidal probably caused by a sharp weapon. She confirmed the Post Mortem Report, Exhibit-4 and her signature over the same. Cross-examination of this witness reveals that the injury found on the deceased is sufficient to caused immediate death of the deceased. 10. We have carefully gone through the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-4), and we find that the same is also consistent with her evidence. Thus, it appears that Inchu Taiju died as a result of two cut injuries sustained over her neck, which lead to massive haemorrhage as a result of laceration to vital blood vessels and also due to the asphyxia. It also appears that the death is homicidal in nature. 11. It also appears that before sending the dead body for autopsy, the Investigating Officer had held inquest over the dead body and prepared a report (Exhibit-1). And during inquest he found only one cut injury over the left side of the neck of the deceased, caused by a dao. Thus, apparently there is contradiction in respect of number of injuries sustained by the deceased. Be that as it may, now, it is to be seen who had caused the injuries to Lt. Inchu Taiju, which led to her death. 12. The prosecution side, in order to prove the same has examined the eight witnesses, including the M.O. and I.O. But, there is no eye witness to the occurrence, and the evidence of most of the witnesses are hearsay. PW-1 is Shri Pahap Taiju is the clan brother of Lahap Taijo, who had deposed that the accused had 3 (three) children, but, only two of them are alive now. He also deposed that he heard that the accused had killed his daughter at his own house. The prosecution side then declared this witness hostile and cross examined him, wherein he denied that he had ever given his statement to police and also denied having told before the police that the accused killed his own daughter. He is not cross examined by the defence side. 13. The prosecution side then declared this witness hostile and cross examined him, wherein he denied that he had ever given his statement to police and also denied having told before the police that the accused killed his own daughter. He is not cross examined by the defence side. 13. Though PW-1 is declared hostile, yet, it appears that in doing so the learned Court below had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. But, the un-hostile part of his evidence reveals that he heard that the accused killed his own daughter. But, nowhere this witness stated as to from whom he heard about killing his own daughter by the accused. And as such the evidence of this witness could not come into aid to the prosecution side. 14. PW-4 is Shri Jemthong Taiju, and P.W.5 Miss Anpo Taiju are respectively, the son and daughter of the accused. They have also not seen the occurrence, though they were sleeping with the deceased and the accused at the relevant time. P.W.4 testified that he cannot say how his younger sister Inchu Taiju died, only his father can explained. He also testified that at the relevant time, he was sleeping and he heard crying of his elder sister and then, he noticed that his deceased sister was dead. This witness is not cross-examined by the defence side. The evidence of this witness also would not help the prosecution side in establishing the charge against the accused, except however strengthening the last seen together theory. 15. However, the evidence of PW-5 assumes some significance. Her evidence reveals that while she and her brother and the deceased and the accused, all were sleeping in the same bed on the relevant night, she heard her father shouting that he killed her deceased sister and then she noticed a cut injury over the neck of her sister, and her father was holding the dead body of her deceased sister on his lap, inside the TV room. It is elicited in her cross-examination that her father neither threatened to kill them nor assaulted them and she is not aware of if her deceased sister was killed by a person other than her father. Except this nothing tangible could be elicited in cross-examination of these two witnesses by the defence side. It is elicited in her cross-examination that her father neither threatened to kill them nor assaulted them and she is not aware of if her deceased sister was killed by a person other than her father. Except this nothing tangible could be elicited in cross-examination of these two witnesses by the defence side. Thus, to some extent this witness supported the prosecution version, besides strengthening the last seen together theory. 16. The evidence of PW-6 -Shri Rintu Taiju, PW-7 -Shri Hampa Taiju both, are hearsay. P.W.6 heard that the accused killed his daughter, but, he forgot the name of the person who told him about the incident. And PW-7 also heard that the deceased died due to the cut injury over her neck inflicted by the accused. It is elicited in his cross-examination that he has not seen the accused committing the offence and he just heard from the villagers that the accused killed his own daughter. Thus, the evidence of these two witnesses also would not help the prosecution side. 17. PW-8 -Shri Haptu Taiju is the brother of the accused. Though allegedly he had lodged the FIR, yet he denied the same and disowned his signature over there. He testified that he heard from the villagers that his brother killed his daughter, Lt. Inchu Taiju. But, he could not say from whom the heard. Thus, being his evidence hearsay, no evidentiary value could be attributed to it. 18. Thus, it becomes apparent that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution case solely rest upon the circumstantial evidence. Now, let it be seen, what are the circumstances, the prosecution side has been able to prove beyond all doubt to establish the charges against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The law, regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. To deal with this issue here in this case, with greater precision, we deemed it necessary to discuss some of the case laws here. 19. The law, regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. To deal with this issue here in this case, with greater precision, we deemed it necessary to discuss some of the case laws here. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , has considered the following five principles, aptly described as the Panchasil, on circumstantial evidence, which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused, based on circumstantial evidence held to be established:- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must or should’” and “not may be” established. (ii) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and, (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 20. In the case of Ravirala Laxmaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is settle legal proposition that:- “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eyewitness account is available, the principle is that: when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In cases where the accused has been with the deceased victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim has occurred. If the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstances which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” 21. If the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstances which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” 21. Thereafter in the case of Trimukh Maruti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:- “22…Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstances which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” 22. In the instant case, from the evidence on the record discussed herein above, following circumstances can be culled out:- (i) The accused/appellant is the father of the deceased and on the relevant night they were sleeping in the same bed after dinner, and it is apparent from the evidence of P.W.4 and 5. And it has not been disputed by the defence side. (iii) P.W. 5 had heard shouting of the accused in the night that he killed his younger daughter. She also noticed cut injury over the neck of her sister and the dead body of her deceased sister on the lap of the accused inside the T.V. room. (iv) The I.O., on arriving at the place of occurrence found the accused in an aggressive mode with a dao in his hand and the accused resisted them in entering into the room, where the dead body was lying. The I.O. had seized the dao vide seizure list Exthibit-2 and it was stained with blood. 23. Now, it is to be seen whether these circumstances are sufficient to complete the chain, so as to conclusively prove that the accused is the author of the crime. It is to be noted here that these circumstances are not disputed by the defence side. 23. Now, it is to be seen whether these circumstances are sufficient to complete the chain, so as to conclusively prove that the accused is the author of the crime. It is to be noted here that these circumstances are not disputed by the defence side. But, we find that though the I.O. has seized the dao stained with blood, vide seizure list Exhibit-2, yet, unfortunately, the I.O. had fail to send the same for examination in the F.S.L. Mr. T. Son, the learned Amicus Curiae has rightly pointed this out during his argument. And as such it cannot be said with certainty that the same was used in commission of the crime. However, from the evidence of P.W.4 and 5 the last seen theory stands established. And as such, and as the occurrence took place inside the four walls of his house, duty is case upon him to explain the circumstances under which death of his daughter had taken place, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maruti Kirkan (supra). 24. The accused, in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. had denied killing his daughter. He stated that on the day of occurrence while going to play volley ball he kept the dao on the bamboo wall of his residence. In the evening after preparing food they sleep together and the dao which was kept on the bamboo wall might have fallen due to some reason and the same was the cause of death of his daughter. While he was sleeping, the handle of the dao fallen over his face and then he woke up and found his daughter bleeding from her neck. Explanation, so forthcoming, appears to be inconsistent with the facts and circumstances on the record and the learned court below also found the same to be false. 25. Thus, the circumstances described herein above, coupled with failing to offer any plausible explanation for the cause of death of his daughter, which provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances, goes a long way to establish that it was none other than the accused who caused the cut injuries on the neck of his daughter, which was the immediate cause of her death. 26. But, it also appears from the evidence of PW-8 that the accused was not mentally fit and was insane at the time of commission of offence. 26. But, it also appears from the evidence of PW-8 that the accused was not mentally fit and was insane at the time of commission of offence. It appears from his evidence that before two months of commission of the offence the accused started to hear noise and also by on his own murmuring alone. At the time of offence, the state of mind of the accused was not fit and was insane. But, due to their economic condition they could not take him to any mental hospital. When he started to torture his wife without any reason his wife left the house and never returned back. Further, it appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW-2 that, after receiving verbal information about the incident, when he reached the place of occurrence, he found the accused in a very aggressive mood with a dao in his hand. The accused was resisting them from entering them from entering into the room where the dead body of his deceased daughter was lying. And as per his finding the accused has killed his daughter while he was mentally disturbed due to some financial constraints. 27. It is also to be noted here that, this Court, by an order dated 28.03.2022, to ascertain whether the appellant was suffering from any mental disease at the material point of time, direct the jail authorities of Khonsa Jail, where the appellant is presently being lodged, to make the necessary arrangement to place the appellant before the effective Medical Board comprising Competent Psychiatrists in the Tomo Riba Institute of Health & Medical Science (TRIHMS). Accordingly, the accused was produced before the Medical Board and the Board examined him and submitted a report as under:- Mental state at the time of index incident:- “There is a limitation to the assessment as there was no corroborative history available at the time of assessment; and the incident happened more than 18 years back. From the history obtained from Mr. Taiju, it suggests that he was under extreme stress due conflict with wife and their separation and having to look after his young children in the background of financial hardship. He seemed to have been suffering from psychotic illness (referential & persecutory ideas secondary to auditory hallucination) at that time. However, he denied any command hallucination or any thought to hurt himself or his children at that time of index incident. He seemed to have been suffering from psychotic illness (referential & persecutory ideas secondary to auditory hallucination) at that time. However, he denied any command hallucination or any thought to hurt himself or his children at that time of index incident. Current Mental State:-Mr. L. Taiju presented a kempt, calm, cooperative, and dressed appropriately to weather condition, maintained good eye contact and rapport. His psychomotor activity was normal. His speech output was within normal limits. Mood:-He reported his mood was fine; affect was euthymic and congruent to his though process.” 28. Thus, it appears that though the appellant has not taken such plea of insanity at the time of commission of the offence yet, the evidence of PW-8/PW-2 and also the report of the Medical Board reveals that he was suffering was from psychotic illness (referential & persecutory ideas secondary to auditory hallucination) at that time. It is to be noted here that the proposition of law in respect of the plea of insanity is well established from a catena of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ahamadullah AIR (1961) SCC 998, Hon’ble Supreme Court has that; “It was observed that burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time when he did the act.” 29. In the case of Shrikanth Anandao Bhosale vs. State of Maharastra (2002) 7 SCC 748 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; “The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 lies upon the accused under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the said Section, the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustration (a) to section 105 is as follows:- (a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.” 30. Again in the case of Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerela (2010) 10 SCC 582 , while referring to Dahyabhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563 , Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:- “Thereafter, upon further consideration, this Court defined the doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity in the following propositions:- 1. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. 2. There is rebuttable presumption that the appellant was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code; the appellant may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence-oral, documentary or circumstantial, but teh burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings.” 31. Also, in the case of Hari Singh Gond vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109 , AIR 2009 SC 31 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused. But where during the investigation, previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigator to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the Court and if this is not done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and in the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The onus, however, has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused shortly prior to the offence and his conduct at the time or immediately afterwards, also by evidence of his mental condition and other relevant factors. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act.” 32. In the case in hand, we find from the evidence of the I.O. that as per his findings, the accused has killed his daughter while he was mentally disturbed due to some financial constraint. His evidence further reveals that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found the accused in a very aggressive mood with a dao in his hand. The accused was resisting them from entering them from entering into the room where the dead body of his deceased daughter was lying. Inspite of this, the I.O. had failed to get the accused examined by the Doctor and to place the report of such examination before the Court. And as the same has not been done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Inspite of this, the I.O. had failed to get the accused examined by the Doctor and to place the report of such examination before the Court. And as the same has not been done, it creates serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In view of above, the ratio laid down in the case of Hari Singh Gond (Supra). 33. It is also to be noted here that the prosecution side has failed to prove motive of the crime here in this case. Since the case in hand is based upon circumstantial evidence the motive assumes significance here in this case. In the case of Sakharam v. State AIR 1992 SC 758 , held, that absence of Motive may not be relevant when Evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus point in case where the Evidence against the accused is only Circumstantial. Since here in this case motive is not proved it causes dent to the prosecution case to some extent. 34. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned Amicu Curiae and also considered the submission of the learned Addl. P.P. and we have no doubt that there is substance in the same. But, as the accused was not subjected to medical examination even having found him mentally disturbed and in an aggressive mode and no such examination report as regard to his mental condition at that stage was produced before the Court, we are unable to record concurrence with the same, instead, we are constrained to extend benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant. We have carefully gone through the case laws, Prithipal Singh (supra) and Ravirala Laxmaiah (supra) and we find that the ratio laid down therein fully supported his submission, but in the given facts and circumstances here in this case, the same are not applicable in all force, and therefore, we are not inclined to discuss the same in detail for the sake of brevity. 35. In the result we find sufficient merit in this appeal, and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 28/2005, stands set aside. The accused/appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. Send down the record of the learned court below. 36. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 28/2005, stands set aside. The accused/appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. Send down the record of the learned court below. 36. Before parting with the record, we sincerely acknowledge the service rendered by Mr. T. Son, the learned Amicus curiae. The registry shall pay the remuneration, which the he is entitled to as per rule, on production of a certified copy of this judgment and order.