JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. 1. The instant two appeals arise out of a common judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2007 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2007 as passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, in Sessions Trial no. 18/April/2007 arising out of Sessions Serial no. 343/2007 whereby and whereunder the said court by the impugned judgment found both the accused persons namely; Rafiqul Sk. and Israfil Haque Sarkar @ Sk. guilty for committing offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and by the impugned order of sentence dated 08.10.2007, sentenced both the convicts to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for one month each with a direction that the period of detention shall be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. Convict Rafiqul Sk. felt aggrieved and thus preferred the Criminal Appeal no. 439 of 2008. Similarly Israfil Haque Sarkar @Sk. also felt aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of sentence and thus preferred Criminal Appeal no. 02 of 2008. 3. Since both the aforementioned two appeals have arisen out of the self same judgment and order of sentence, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by a common judgment. 4. For effective disposal of the instant two appeals the facts leading to the initiation of the aforesaid sessions trial are required to be dealt with in a nutshell. 5. One Giasuddin Mondal, son of Noor Md. Mondal of village Moktarpur, P.S. Domkal, District Murshidabad lodged a written complaint dated 08.12.2006 with the I/C Domkal Police Station, District Murshidabad stating inter-alia, that on 07.12.2006 at about 10 a.m. his minor son Habil Mondal (aged about 12 years) went to Paschim Math of the self same village along with two black coloured buffaloes for the purpose of grazing in the field. It was his further version that since 7 p.m. his said son with two buffaloes did not return from the grazing field and thus finding no other alternative the de facto complainant and his inmates started searching for his son and his two buffaloes but their attempt remained futile. It was his further version that since 7 p.m. his said son with two buffaloes did not return from the grazing field and thus finding no other alternative the de facto complainant and his inmates started searching for his son and his two buffaloes but their attempt remained futile. It was the further versions of the de facto complainant in the said written complaint that on 08.12.2006 at about 3:30 a.m. some people came to his house by riding a Maruti Van from village Choddomile and from the said villagers of Choddomile the de facto complainant came to learn that the villagers of the village Choddomile had detained one person with two buffaloes in their said village. 6. On getting such information the de facto complainant with some of his co-villagers went to the said village Choddomile and found his two buffaloes in tied condition and one person namely; Rafiqul Sk. of Village Moktarpur who was also detained in the said village. It was the further version of the de facto complainant that on being asked the said detained person Rafiqul Sk. disclosed to them that he and one Israfil Haque Sarkar @ Sk. of Moktarpur village conjointly induced his said son Habil Mondal and thereafter took him and his two buffaloes at Bhatsala Math (field) and thereafter both the aforesaid persons murdered his minor son Habil Mondal by throttling by using a nylon rope and Gamcha (napkin). It has also been disclosed in the said written complaint that as per the version of the said Rafiqul Sk. the de facto complainant and his co-villagers took the said Rafiqul Sk. to Bhatsala Math (field) and as per showing of the said Rafiqul Sk. the dead body of Habil Mondal was recovered from the mustard field of one Asmat Sk. of village Bhatsala. 7. On the basis of the said written complaint Domkal P.S. Case No. 266 of 2006 dated 08.12.2006 under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC was started. 8. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC against both the F.I.R. named accused persons. 9. of village Bhatsala. 7. On the basis of the said written complaint Domkal P.S. Case No. 266 of 2006 dated 08.12.2006 under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC was started. 8. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 364/379/411/302/34 IPC against both the F.I.R. named accused persons. 9. After commitment and transfer the learned trial court on perusal of the entire materials as placed before him framed charges under Sections 302/34 IPC as against the charge sheeted persons and since both the charge sheeted accused persons pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried, the aforementioned trial proceeded. 10. Trial Court Record reveals that for bringing home the charges as against the aforementioned two accused persons the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf. Though before the learned trial court no evidence was adduced on behalf of the aforementioned two accused persons but from the trend of cross-examination and from the answers as given by the two accused persons in their respective examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it reveals that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication. 11. For effective disposal of the instant two appeals we shall discuss about the evidence of those prosecution witnesses only which are relevant in our estimation. 12. On conjoint perusal of the evidence of PW-19 (Autopsy Surgeon) vis-a-vis the post mortem report of the deceased being Exhibit 9 it reveals that following is the version of PW-19 in his examination-in-chief: “On examination I found general height was 4’1/2.” Rigormotis is absent. A nilon rope was around the neck. Eyes was closed. Death was due to Aspectia with vagal inivition and cardiac arrest consistence with throatling. In my opinion death was antimortem and homicidal in nature. This is the said report prepared and signed by me. The same is marked as Exbt.9.” In course of his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from the mouth of PW-19 from which an inference can be drawn that the opinion of PW-19 being the Autopsy Surgeon of the dead body of the victim is wrong or is otherwise. In view of such we hold that the learned trial court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. 13. In view of such we hold that the learned trial court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature. 13. In order to come to a logical finding as to whether the learned trial court is at all justified in holding both the appellants herein guilty of committing of murder of Habil Mondal or not a look to the deposition of the relevant prosecution witnesses as have been recorded by the learned trial court is very much necessary. 14. PW-1 is the de facto complainant and the father of the deceased and on perusal of his entire deposition more specifically his examination-in-chief it appears to us that his examination-in-chief is merely reproduction of his version as made by him in his written complaint. PW-1 was extensively cross-examined by the defence but nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which is contrary to his deposition as given by him in his examination-in-chief. 15. PW-2 is a co-villager of PW-1 and in his examination-in-chief he testified that on the relevant day at about 4p.m when he was coming back from market he found that the victim Habil was grazing buffaloes and cows on a land and at that time he also noticed that accused Rafiqul was standing there. It was his further version that about 8/9 p.m. on the self same day he came to learn that the minor son of PW-1 i.e. Habil went missing with his two buffaloes and on the next day morning he heard that Rafiqul along with two buffaloes of Habil were apprehended at Village Chaddomile and on the self same day, he again came to learn that the dead body of Habil was recovered in Village Bhatsala at about 3 p.m. 16. PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and in course of his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution noting could be elicited from his mouth which may be helpful for the prosecution. 17. PW-4 being another co-villager of PW-1 who in his examination-in-chief stated that on 07.12.2006 at about 2 p.m. he found Rafiqul and Israfil were gossiping with Habil. PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and in course of his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution noting could be elicited from his mouth which may be helpful for the prosecution. 17. PW-4 being another co-villager of PW-1 who in his examination-in-chief stated that on 07.12.2006 at about 2 p.m. he found Rafiqul and Israfil were gossiping with Habil. He further testified when accused Rafiqul was brought from village Choddomile on the next day, he disclosed before him and others that he (Rafiqul) and Israfil murdered Habil but in his cross-examination he categorically testified that he is stating the said incident for the first time before the Court. In his cross-examination he further testified that in this regard he had no conversation with the police previously. In view of such, we consider that evidence of PW-4 has lost its significance in view of the aforementioned omission which tantamounts to a material contradiction in view of the provisions of Section 145 read with explanation of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. 18. PW-5 being another co-villager of PW-1 in his examination-in-chief testified that on 07.12.2006 at about 2/2:30 p.m. he found both the accused persons with the victim boy Habil. In his examination-in-chief he further testified that on the said day from the evening the victim Habil along with his two buffaloes went missing and in the intervening night of 07.12.2006/08.12.2006 at about 3:30 a.m. after getting information from the villagers of Chaddomile he along with PW-1 and some other co-villagers went to village Chaddomile and found accused Rafiqul and two buffaloes of PW-1 have been kept detained there and on being asked the accused Rafiqul denied to disclose anything at the first instance but subsequently the said accused Rafiqul confessed that he and Israfil murdered Habil at Bhatsala Bandher math. In his cross-examination PW-5 remained consistent and nothing could be elicited from his mouth to establish that his version in his examination-in-chief is opposite to the truth. 19. On perusal of the evidence of the PW-6 who is also a co-villager of PW-1 it reveals to us that he testified in the same line as of PW-5 and therefore we propose not to discuss the evidence of PW-6 in detail to avoid repetition. 20. 19. On perusal of the evidence of the PW-6 who is also a co-villager of PW-1 it reveals to us that he testified in the same line as of PW-5 and therefore we propose not to discuss the evidence of PW-6 in detail to avoid repetition. 20. PW-14 and PW-16 are both residents of village Chaddomile and in considered view of this Court their depositions are very much relevant for effective adjudication of the instant two appeals. On perusal of the deposition of PW-14 it reveals to us that it has been testified by PW-14 that on the relevant day in the evening when he and his other co-villagers were sitting in a tea stall near Chaddomile crossing, accused Rafiqul Sk. with two buffaloes came to them and asked for a cow boy. He further testified that accused Rafiqul wanted to take the buffaloes to Behrampur with the help of a cow boy for which he was ready to pay Rs. 500/-. PW-14 further testified that after seeing the conduct of the accused Rafiqul and also on seeing the two buffaloes with him, they became suspicious and thus they detained the said Rafiqul and his two buffaloes and started interrogating him and at that time Rafiqul confessed before them that he stole those buffaloes from village Moktarpur which actually belongs to PW-1. He further testified that Rafiqul became afraid and then he disclosed that he (Rafiqul) and one Israfil stole those buffaloes and he also confessed that while stealing the buffaloes both the accused persons murdered the son of PW-1. 21. PW-16 being the Secretary of Nazrul Sukanta Club of Village Chaddomile in course of his examination-in-chief practically echoed the version of PW-14. He also testified that after seeing Rafiqul and two buffaloes with him as well as after seeing the conduct of Rafiqul, especially when he was searching for a cow boy at a cost of Rs. 500/- they became suspicious and accordingly he and his other co-villagers of Village Chaddomile apprehended the accused Rafiqul and his two buffaloes and thereafter they started interrogating the accused Rafiqul and in course of such interrogation they sometimes threatened him also and such detention and interrogation continued from 8 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on the said day. 500/- they became suspicious and accordingly he and his other co-villagers of Village Chaddomile apprehended the accused Rafiqul and his two buffaloes and thereafter they started interrogating the accused Rafiqul and in course of such interrogation they sometimes threatened him also and such detention and interrogation continued from 8 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on the said day. He further testified that while on detention, the accused Rafiqul disclosed that he stole the buffaloes from the son of PW-1 and also murdered Habil (son of PW-1) and laid him in a land. It is pertinent to mention herein that both the PW-14 and PW-16 though remained consistent in their respective cross-examinations but PW-16 categorically stated in his cross-examination that though he and his co-villagers did not assault or commit mental torture upon the accused the Rafiqul but they threatened him. 22. It reveals from the Lower Court Record that learned Trial Judge court while passing the impugned judgment came to a finding that the case before him is based on circumstantial evidence and in the opinion of the learned trial judge all the circumstances as against the present two appellants have been duly proved to form a complete chain. While passing the impugned judgment learned trial court also considered the probative value of the extra judicial confession as claimed to have been made by the accused Rafiqul in the light of Section 21 of the Evidence Act and thus found the same is reliable one. It further reveals to us that learned trial court also found that the inference of guilt of the accused Israfil Sk. can also be considered favourably in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act and thus passed the aforementioned judgment of conviction which is impugned before us in these two appeals. 23. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2008 submits before this Court that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has assessed the evidence of prosecution witnesses in a wrong perspective and thus failed to consider that the last seen theory of the present appellants with the victim boy cannot be applied since the time gap between the last seen together and the recovery of the dead body is considerably long. It is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal no. It is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 2/2008 that the learned trial court is not at all justified in placing his reliance upon the alleged extra judicial confession of accused Rafiqul Sk. since from the evidence of PW-14 and PW-16 it would reveal that such extra judicial confession was not an outcome of free mind and on the contrary the same has been extracted out of threat and by keeping the accused Rafiqul in long detention. It is further argued by Mr. Bhattacharya that learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act in its proper perspective inasmuch as learned trial court has failed to consider that confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it should not be considered as a substantive piece of evidence in absence of any other positive evidence in this regard. Drawing attention to the examinations of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It has been contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, that in failing to put the relevant questions to the accused person regarding the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Rafiqul Sk. learned trial court is not at all justified in passing the impugned judgment of conviction. 24. Ms. Shabana Hasin, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 439/2008 duly assisted by Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, Learned Amicus Curiae while echoing the submissions of Mr. Pratha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2008 places her reliance upon the following reported decisions: (i) Krishnan @ Ramasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279 (ii) Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, 2013 (4) Supreme 509 (iii) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online 1396 Learned advocates for the appellants in both the aforementioned Criminal Appeals thus submit before this Court that it is a fit case for allowing both the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment. 25. Per contra, Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by Md. Kutubuddin, learned advocate and Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, learned advocate submits before this Court that there cannot be any justification to unsettle the decision as arrived at by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order. 25. Per contra, Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by Md. Kutubuddin, learned advocate and Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, learned advocate submits before this Court that there cannot be any justification to unsettle the decision as arrived at by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order. It is contended on behalf of the State that the learned trial court is absolutely justified in placing its reliance upon the extrajudicial confession as made by Rafiqul Sk. which has been proved from the corroborated testimony of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 vis-a-vis PW-14 and PW-16. Mr. Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further submitted before this Court that the learned trial court is also justified in applying the provision of Section 30 of the Evidence Act in its proper perspective and thus rightly accepted the extra judicial confession of the accused Rafiqul against Israfil Sk. and thus rightly found both the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 IPC. Mr. Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor thus submits that it is a fit case for dismissal of the instant appeal. 26. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for the contending parties we have also no doubt in mind that the case before the learned trial court which is the subject matter of the instant two appeals are based on circumstantial evidence. On perusal of the judgment as passed by the learned trial court it reveals to us that in the impugned judgment more specifically at page no. 22 of the impugned judgment learned trial court has specifically dealt with the alleged extrajudicial confession made by accused Rafiqul and on the basis of the evidence as adduced before him came to a specific finding that PW-14, PW-16 and PW-5 have duly proved the extrajudicial confession as made by the accused Rafiqul Sk. and learned trial court thus expressed the view that such extrajudicial confession can be accepted in evidence and can be the basis of conviction. 27. At this juncture we propose to look to the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is reproduced herein below in verbatim: “24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. 27. At this juncture we propose to look to the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is reproduced herein below in verbatim: “24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or 1promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.” 28. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision, if we look to the evidence of PW-14 and PW-16 conjointly it appears to us that both PW-14 and PW-16 are the residents of village Choddomile. From their examination-in-chief it reveals to us that both of them testified that on the relevant day in the evening accused Rafiqul came to a tea stall where both PW-14 and PW-16 were sitting and at that time he was looking for a cow boy for which he was agreeable to pay Rs. 500/-. From the testimonies of PW-14 and PW-16 it reveals to us that accused Rafiqul Sk. and the two buffaloes were intercepted by PW-14 and PW-16 as well as by the other co-villagers of Village Choddomile. PW-14 in course of his examination-in-chief testified that on being afraid accused Rafiqul Sk. disclosed that he and co-accused Israfil stole those buffaloes and subsequently also confessed that they have also murdered the son of PW-1. From the testimony of PW-16 it reveals that at that material time he was the Secretary of a local club of Choddomile village and after interception he and his other co-villagers started interrogating the accused Rafiqul Sk. and threatened him and then he disclosed that he stole the buffaloes from the son of PW-1 at about 12:30 a.m. In his cross-examination PW-16 candidly admitted that accused Rafiqul was threatened prior to making of alleged extrajudicial confession. and threatened him and then he disclosed that he stole the buffaloes from the son of PW-1 at about 12:30 a.m. In his cross-examination PW-16 candidly admitted that accused Rafiqul was threatened prior to making of alleged extrajudicial confession. Such being the position, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the alleged confessional statement of the accused Rafiqul is voluntary and is not the outcome of any force or threat or promise. It is pertinent to mention herein that from the version of PW-14 and PW-16 it reveals to us that though PW-14 was intercepted by them in the evening time at village Choddomile but the said accused disclosed about such theft and alleged murder at about 12:30 a.m. For the sake of argument even if it is presumed that the accused Rafiqul Sk. made voluntary statement about his guilt in presence of PW-14, PW-16 and vis-a-vis PW-4,PW-5 and PW-6 the same is not acceptable in evidence in view of clear bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act basically on the following grounds namely: (i) Such confession has been caused by the threat as given by PW-14 and PW-16. (ii) PW-16 can very well be termed as a person in authority since he was at that material time the Secretary of a local club of village Choddomile. (iii) A prolong custody of accused Rafiqul Sk. by the villagers of Choddomile immediately proceeding the making of confession which is sufficient to stamp confession involuntary unless it is properly explained. 29. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we are in total disagreement with the view taken by the learned trial court that though the witnesses have proved the extrajudicial confession against accused Rafiqul Sk. but the same cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence to draw an inference to the guilt of the accused Rafiqul Sk. 30. In our estimation since Israfil Sk. i.e. the appellant in CRA 02/2008 has been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the Rafiqul Sk. and even if for the sake of argument it is held that before the learned trial court such extra judicial confession has been proved in accordance with law even then the conviction of the appellant Israfil Sk. and even if for the sake of argument it is held that before the learned trial court such extra judicial confession has been proved in accordance with law even then the conviction of the appellant Israfil Sk. cannot be upheld in view of the limited scope of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced herein-below: “Section. 30: When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such person affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.” 31. The scope of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act has been well explained in the reported decision of Sasi vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 10 SCC 360 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following: “It is well settled that the confession made by a person as against the co-accused cannot be used as a substantive evidence. It can only be used as a corroborative piece. In the absence of any reliable substantive evidence as against A-2 to A-5 the confessional statement cannot be used for any purpose as against the co-accused.” The same view was taken in the reported decision of Bishnu Prasad Sinha vs. State of Assam, (2007) 11 SCC 467 and in the reported decision of State of M.P. vs. Paltan Mallah and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169 . 32. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharya as well as Ms. Shabana Hasin and Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, Leaned Amicus Curiae that from the totality of the prosecution evidence it would reveal that though PW-2,PW-5 and PW-6 being the co-villagers of Moktarpur village where the victim boy as well as the father (PW-1) used to reside stated categorically that in the afternoon of 07.12.2006 they found the victim boy and the accused persons together in the grazing field situated near to their village but all the aforesaid witnesses as well as the other prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the dead body of the victim boy was recovered on the next day afternoon at Bhatsala field which is away from the spot where the victim boy was found in the company of the accused persons. From the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon i.e. PW-19 nothing reveals with regard to the actual or probable time of death of the victim. At this juncture we may safely rely upon the reported decision in Satpal vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 2 CCrLR (SC) 465 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the subject of last seen theory vis-a-vis circumstantial evidence held thus: “Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularity. But when it is coupled with circumstances such as time when the deceased was last seen with the accused the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypotheses of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of the chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.” 33. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the reported decision of Zavir vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 (2) AICLR 174 (SC) as cited by Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned advocate for the appellant in CRA No. 02 of 2008. 34. In view of such proposition of law as enunciated in the decision of Satpal (supra) there leaves no room of doubt that in view of long gap between the victim found in the company of the accused persons and the recovery of the dead body that too from a far place and also in absence of proximate time of death of victim, Learned trial court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the present appellants while passing the impugned judgment. 35. 35. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we thus find sufficient merit in the instant two appeals and the instant two appeals are thus hereby allowed. 36. As a result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2007 and 08.10.2007 respectively as passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Behrampur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 18/April/2007 arising out of Sessions Serial. No. 343/2007 is hereby set aside. 37. The present two appellants namely: Israfil Haque Sarkar @Sk. and Rafiqul Sk. Are thus acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC in connection with the Sessions Trial No. 18/April/2007 arising out of Sessions Serial. No. 343/2007 as disposed of by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Behrampur, Murshidabad and they be released at once from the Correctional Home where they are detained now unless they are wanted in connection with any other case or cases. 38. For due assistance of Mr. Koustava Ratan Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiea as appointed by us in connection with Criminal Appeal no. 439/2008 in disposing both the appeals we request learned Secretary, Calcutta High Court Legal Service Committee to pay honorarium to Mr. Koustava Ratna Chatterjee, learned Amicus Curiae as per his entitlement at the earliest. 39. With the aforementioned observation both the appeals being CRA No. 02/2008 and CRA 439/2008 along with all connected applications are disposed of. 40. Department is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with the LCR to the learned trial court at the earliest. 41. Department is further directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, District Murshidabad, with a direction to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority Murshidabad to forward the said copy of the judgment to the Superintendent of the Correctional Home where the present appellants are detained now so that the release of the present two appellants can be expedited at the intervention of the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Murshidabad. 42. Department is further directed to forward another copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Calcutta High Court Legal Service Committee for doing his needful as aforesaid.