High Court · 2012

On the production of accused Rohit Mian before the Court of sessions and on the perusal of documents, referred to in Section 173 CrPC, learned trial Cou rt framed charge under Section 148,302/149 IPC and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused persons, he pleaded not guilty and claime d to be tried. 13. During second round of trial, the prosecution side has relied on the evi dence of witnesses who were already examined by the Court while holding trial ag ainst accused Abdul Gafur and Samsul Haque, since acquitted. However, on being r equired by defence, all those witnesses were recalled for cross examination to f acilitate a proper trial against the accused Rohit Mian (accused appellant herei n). 14. On conclusion of the trial against Rohit Mian, the learned Trial Court r ecorded his statement under section 313 CrPC. The accused plea was of total deni al. After hearing the argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court held the accused guilty of the offence under sections 148/3 02/149 IPC, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to punishment as aforesa id. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this appeal. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant, has, now, contended that the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable in law for reasons more t han one: They are:- I. Some vital witnesses, such as, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 did not implicate the accused Md Rohit Mia, appellant herein, with crime under consideration. II. Prosecution case is fundamentally based on evidence of witnesses who bei ng related to the deceased are biased. They are ,therefore, not trustworthy and reliable. III. There was a land dispute between the deceased on one side and the accuse d appellant and other accused persons on the other side which profoundly influen ced the witnesses to give false evidence against the accused person. IV. itted by the Trial Court long ago in first round of trial The real culprits who were named by the witnesses had already been acqu

16. However, learned trial court has ignored all those vital infirmities in the prosecution case and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused/ appellant Md Rohit Mia beyond all reasonable dou bt and as such, it convicted him of the offence U/s 148/302/149 IPC and sentence d him as aforesaid. He, therefore, urges this Court to acquit the accused pers on of the said offences on setting aside the judgment which has been impugned he rein this appeal. 17. On the other hand, the learned PP appearing for the State contends that the judgment of the Trial Court is free from any infirmity, whatsoever since the Trial Court has considered all the evidence and other materials on record in pr oper perspective and on marshalling the evidence on record in accordance with la w, it came to a finding that the prosecution has proved the charge, leveled agai nst the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and such a judgment, based o n well proved facts, warrants no interference ,whatsoever, from this Court of ap peal and therefore ,he submits this court to confirm the judgment of the Trial C ourt instead. 18. We have given our anxious consideration to the materials on record, hav ing regard to the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties afo rementioned. However, before could we ascertain which side of the stories is tru e ,we find it necessary to reproduce the evidence of the PWs and for this purpo se, the evidence of the Doctor is first taken up for consideration. 19. PW 4 is Dr.Kamal Khound. It appears from his evidence that on being inde ntified by Const. Dandi Rajkhowa and one Allauddin being relative of the decease d, he performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muslemuddin on p olice requisition on 03.02.1991. While holding post-mortem examination, PW 4 fou nd the following:- External appearance: A beheaded body of an adult person, decomposed, few gray pu blic hairs, ligature marks on both wrist and ankles 2 cm in breadth, penis circu mscribed, the beheaded at the region of 4th cervical vertebrae, the circumferenc e was 35 cm at that region. Injuries: Injury No.1: cm x 1cm. Injury No.2: A stab wound on right anterior chest above the nipple - 3 cm x 4 A stab wound on right anterior chest above the nipple literal to the injury No.1 - 3cm x2cm x1cm in size. An incised wound on the left shoulder 5cm x 3cm x 2cm. A stab wound on left anterior chest 3cm x 2cm x 2cm above the 5t A stab wound on left anterior chest 3cm x 2cm x 2cm on right spa A stab wound on right anterior chest below on 6th Space - 3cm x A stab wound on right anterior chest below the nipple 3cm x 2cm A stab wound on left anterior axillary line 3cm x 3cm x 2cm at t Few gray hairs around the head, mouth half open, decomposed, circumferen Injury No.3: x 2cm. Injury No.4: 2cm x 2cm. Injury No.5: ce. Injury No.6: h rib. Injury No.7: he middle. Injury No.8: Head: ce of the base around the neck was 30cm at the 4th cervical vertebrae region. An incised wound on the vertex involving the scalp 7.5cm x 5cm x 2.5 cm. The head fitted with the beheaded body, the sliced vertebrae of both fitted with out disparity. PW 4 was of the opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to haemorr hage, shock and come as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased and s uch injuries were anti mortem in nature. He submitted his report Ext.1 in that c onnection. (cid:28) 20. No serious allegation has been made against the evidence of the Doctor. On perusing the evidence of Doctor together with post mortem Report Ext 1 , we c onclude that the deceased died a homicidal death and it was ’due to haemorrhage, shock and come as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased and such i njuries were anti mortem in nature’. 21. Now, the question is who occasione d the death of the deceased in that diabolic manner as aforesaid. Prosecution cl aims that the deceased was killed by a group of persons, named in the charge she et and they did so in prosecution of their common objects and the accused / appe llant herein was one of those marauders. 22. In order to take its claim to its logical conclusion, prosecution has ex amined as many as 9 witnesses, out of which PW 1,PW 2,PW 3, PW 5, PW 6, are said to be eye witnesses to the incident in question. Being so, before reproducing the evidence of the other witnesses, we propose to consider the evidence of the witnesses who claim to have seen the incident in question. As stated above, PW1 , Md. Abdul Salam is the informant of the case under consideration. According to him, on the date of incident at about 6 AM ,he along with h 23. is mother and father when to Borchala Ghat which is situated on the bank of the river Brahmaputra. As soon as they arrived at Borchala Ghat, his father went to Ghat where some workers were loading Ikra on a boat which belonged to them leavi ng PW1 and his mother on the embankment. Precisely at that time, the accused Md. Rohit Mian, Md Jakir and one Md Nuruddin came there, all armed with weapons and went to the place where his father was sitting and supervising the work of the laborers. 24. The moment they reached his father, Md Jakir gave his father a dao blow and it was inflicted on his head. Soon thereafter, Md Nuruddin and Md Rohit too planted blows with dao on the body of his father. The accused Md Ranjan, Md Za hed Ali and Md Khaleque also came to such place in a boat, joined those accused persons and took his father to their boat. After taking his father to their b oat, they started proceeding towards the main course of the river. But sometime thereafter, they threw the body of his father into the water however only to ret rieve it a little latter. 25. After collecting the body of his father the second time, they severed th e head from the trunk and threw the body and head into the water once again. It is also in his evidence that he, thereafter, went to the police station and lod ged an FIR with the Police. A few days later, the Police arrested the accused pe rsons while they were parlaying in some char area (sand barge). Police also reco vered some weapons from them. 26. In his cross examination, he has stated that his father was attacked by Jakir, Nuruddin, Rohit, that Ranjit, Kadir, Nakul and Lal Mia, were working at the ghat during the time aforesaid, that Jakir gave his father the first blow an d that when he went to the place of occurrence to rescue his father, the accused threaten him for which he ran away there-from.

27. PW 6 Must Sayera Khatun, is the wife of the deceased. According to her, on the fateful day, in the morning, at about 6/6.30 AM, she along with her son and husband went to the place of occurrence which is situated at Barchala Ghat. On arriving there, her husband went to the bank of the river. Precisely at that time Jakir, Nuruddin and Rohit came there, all armed with dao. On reaching her husband, Jakir gave him a blow with the dao on his head. Nuruddin and Rohit too gave blows on her husband with the weapons in their hands. 28. Thereafter, they took the body of her husband to their boat and tied hi s hands and legs. Then they proceeded towards the main course of the river and t hrew the body of her husband into the river water. Sometime thereafter, they aga in retrieved the body of her husband from the water, took it back to the boat, s evered the head from the trunk, threw the body and head into the river once agai n and then left for some unknown destination. In her cross examination, she st ated that at the time when the incident occurred, her husband was sitting on the bank of the river, that she saw the incident from a distance of 2/3 nals, that labourers like Kadir, Nakul and Lalu were also there at the time. 29. The other witnesses on whom prosecution places enormous reliance and who claimed to have seen the alleged incident were PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5. According to PW 2, Abdul Khadir, on the fateful morning at about 6 AM, he along with Nukul , Siddique, Ramjan and Lal Mia, were at the place of occurrence loading ikra int o the boat of one Muslemuddin. Muslemuddin too arrived there around the same ti me and was sitting near to them. Around the same time, the accused Jakir, Nurudd in and Rehim came there. 30. It was Jakir who first gave a dao blow on the head of Muslemuddin. Soon other two other accused persons started planting blows on Muslemuddin, with dao in their hands. As Muslemuddin dropped down to the ground, they took the body o f Muslemuddin to the boat and started proceeding towards the center of the river . Sometime thereafter, the accused Nuruddin severed the head of the deceased fr om the trunk and threw the head and trunk into the water of the river. In his c ross examination, he claims that he saw the incident from a distance of 2 nals o nly. 31. PW 3, Nukul Islam, deposes that on the fateful morning at around 6 AM, h e along with Abdul Kadir, Abubakkar Sidique, Romjan Ali and Lal Mia, were workin g at Borchala Ghat. They were actually loading ikra into the boat of Muslemuddin , the later was sitting at a place close to them. Around the same time, the acc used Jakir, Nuruddin and Rehim, came to such place. Out of them, Jakir first gav e Muslemuddin a dao blow on his head. Nuruddin and Rehim soon followed Jakir and planted many blows on his body with the Dao in their hands.

32. Thereafter they took the body of Muslemuddin to the boat along with some other persons and started proceeding through the river and sometime thereafter, they threw the body into the water only to collect it little latter. Seeing suc h horrible scene, they made no attempt to save the victim. In his cross examina tion, he has stated that Jakir, was the first man to plant dao blow on the decea sed, that place of occurrence is situated on the Bank of the river Brahmaputra a nd that he along with Lal Mia, Abdul Qadir and Ramjan Ali, were present at the p lace of occurrence during the time in question. 33. PW 5, Romjan Ali, deposes that on the fateful day, at around 6 AM, he a long with Lal Mia, Kadir, Nukkul Islam, Siddique, etc, were at the place of occu rrence loading ikra into the boat of one Muslemuddin. Muslemuddin was also sitti ng there at that time. Around the same time, accused Jakir, Nuruddin and Rohit came there, all armed with dao etc. Jakir, first gave a dao blow on Muslemuddin . In the meantime, Nuruddin and Rohit to started assaulting him with dao. There after they took the body of Muslemuddin to the boat and started proceeding towar ds the middle part of the river. 34. Sometime thereafter, they threw the body of aforesaid person to the water. However, they took the body back to the boat once again and beheaded it and the n threw the head and torso to river water. In his cross examination, he is hear d saying that on the fateful morning, they were loading ikra into the boat of on e Muslemuddin and that seeing such incident he fled the scene. So situated, let us reproduce the evidence of Shri Anadi, the I.O. of th 35. e case. Shri Das was examined as PW 9. According to him, on 21.11.91, he was w orking as attached officer at Moirabari Police Station. On that day, the officer -in-charge received a FIR and he accordingly registered a case thereon. Thereaf ter, he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. Being so required, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map of such place (Ext 4) an d seized a part of skin with hair thereon from the place of occurrence. 36. He seized such a skin and also took the earth stained with blood from th e place of occurrence. He examined the witnesses during the course of the invest igation. On getting information on 3.12.91 that a dead body was seen floating i n the river Brahmaputra, he proceeded to such place and retrieved a part of the dead body. In the meantime, he also got information that the head of a person w as seen at Mitmari under Laharighat Police Station at a distance of 10km from th e place where the torso of the deceased was recovered. 37. He also retrieved the same and conducted inquest on both the aforesaid b ody parts and sent those body parts to the Civil Hospital for Post Mortem Examin ation. In due time, he arrested the accused persons, seized some weapons ,such a s, Ramdao, two swords, one Naga dao and two daos from some of the accused person s on the strength of seizure list, Ext 2. 38. On completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against as many as 9 accused persons including the accused appellant Md. Rohit Miya and fo rwarded them to the Court to stand their trial. It is also in the evidence of th e PW 9 that the accused persons absconded soon after the alleged incident and we re arrested sometime thereafter from Majuli Char. Moreover, the inquest reports, he prepared, also demonstrate that there were many incised wounds on the body o f the deceased. 39. Here, it may be mentioned that PW 7 and PW 8 are Abul Karim and Abdul Ma zid respectively. They are not eye witness to the incident in question. But they claimed to have seen the seizure of weapons from some of the accused persons by the Police during the course of the investigation. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence mak 40. es out the charge leveled against the accused persons. We have already found th at the star campaigners from the side of the prosecution are PW 1, Md. Abdul Sal am and PW 6, Musst Sayera Khatoon, they being the son and wife of the deceased r espectively. On the perusal of evidence of PW 1, we have found that Rohit, Jaki r and Nuruddin came to the place of occurrence together and arriving there, the accused Jakir first planted a blow with a dao on the head of the deceased who wa s then supervising the work of the labourers at the place of occurrence. His evidence further reveals that almost simultaneously Rohit and Nurudd 41. in started planting blows with dao on the body of the deceased. A little therea fter, Ranjan Ali and Abdul Khaleque came to the place of occurrence, joined the other three accused persons aforesaid and took the body of the deceased to the b oat and proceeded towards the main course of the river. It is also in his eviden ce that they threw the body of the deceased into the river but they retrieved th e same soon, took it back into the boat, severed the head from the torso and the n threw it back into the water of the river and left the place of occurrence. This evidence, tendered by PW1 finds unfettered support from the testimo 42. ny rendered by PW 6, for, she is also found saying that at first, the accused Ja kir gave her husband the blow with a sword on his head and other two accused per sons, namely Rohit and Nuruddin, soon started planting blows on her husband. He r evidence too reveals that other accused persons, viz, Ramjan,Jahed and Khalequ e arrived at such a place and took the body of the deceased to a boat and proce eded towards the main course of the river and threw the dead body into the river water .

43. But they collected the dead body once again, took it back to the boat an d then severed the head from the body and threw it to the river water once again and left such place. On the other hand, PW 5 who is found to be an independent and neutral witness, lends support to the testimony of the PW1 and PW6, on all the fundamental aspects of the prosecution case. Thus testimonies, rendered by t hose PWs are found to be cogent, consistent and clear on all the matters they ha ve taken care of and as such, in our opinion, full reliance can be placed on the ir evidence, in upholding the prosecution claims herein. 44. It may be stated that PW 2 and PW 3 are found saying that Jakir, Rohim a nd Nuruddin came to the place of occurrence on the morning in question and it wa s Md. Jakir who first gave a dao blow on the head of the deceased. Other two acc used persons followed him since they too soon started inflicting blows on him wi th weapons in their hands. PW 2 and PW 3 further support the claims of the othe r PW 1 and PW 6 that assailants took the body of the deceased to their boat only to be thrown into the river after separating the head from the trunk. Apparently, these two witnesses did not implicate the accused Md. Rohit 45. with the crime in question. However, PW2, in his cross examination, completely c larifies the role of accused Md. Rohit Mia in the crime under consideration, fo r, in his cross- examination, PW 2, very emphatically, denied the suggestion tha t he did not tell the Police that he did not see Md. Rohit Mia assaulting the de ceased at the place of occurrence on the morning aforesaid meaning thereby that the accused Rohit Mia did assault the deceased at the place of occurrence on th e morning aforesaid. Such evidence of the PW2 which he rendered in his cross-examination unmi 46. stakably demonstrates that accused Md. Rohit Mia was one of the perpetrators of the crime under consideration since he along with other accused persons did assa ult of the deceased on the morning aforesaid. When we consider the evidence of t hose PWs in totality, it would appear more than clear that it was Jakir who firs t gave a blow on the head of the deceased and Rohit along with Nuruddin took par t therein and inflicted blows with dao on the body of the deceased. 47. Here, it needs to be mentioned that the prosecution has proved that duri ng the course of investigation, Police recovered from the possession of some of the accused persons various weapons and Police seized such weapons on the streng th of the seizure list, which was proved as Ext 2. The weapons, so recovered and seized, matched completely with the description of the weapons which the accuse d allegedly used in inflicting wounds on the body of the deceased on the morning in question.

48. The recovery of those weapons as well as description thereof as given by the PWs remains totally unchallenged. Recovery of weapons from some of the accu sed persons soon after the alleged incident, in the facts and circumstances of t he present case, became a stamp of witnesses herein being truthful. Such revelat ion becomes one more testimonies of the accused/appellant being one of the perpe trators who extinguished the life the deceased on the morning aforesaid. 49. The post crime conduct of the accused is equally important. He along wit h other accused persons, charge sheeted went under ground for some time. However , Police were successful in apprehending them from their place of hiding sometim e after the alleged incident. The accused/ appellant’s fleeing from justice alon g with other accused persons soon after the incident in question has huge bearin g on the case we have been seized with and it coupled with other circumstances, detailed herein before, speaks loud and clear that the accused, so fled from jus tice, only to screen him from punishment for the crime which he committed along with other accused persons. On our further perusal of the evidence on record, we have also found tha 50. t the evidence of Medical Officer as far as nature of wounds the body of the dec eased, site thereof, nature of the weapons in inflicting those wounds etc. are c oncerned matches completely with the testimonies rendered by the ocular witnesse s on those aspects. 51. More important, the description of the wounds as given in the inquest re ports has again supported the Medical Officer on one hand and the eye witnesses on the other hand. Evidence of the Doctor, in the facts and circumstances of the present case assures that the correctness of the testimonies rendered by PWs, m ore particularly PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 and PW 6. However, the final endorsement to the prosecution case came from the ave 52. rments, made in the FIR, for, the story, as stated in the FIR, tallyes with the story told and re-told by witnesses during the course of trial. Near symmetry b etween the story, told and retold by the PWs before the Court and the story as s tated in the FIR, coupled with the fact that ejahar was lodged without any delay whatsoever, therefore, totally fortify the claim of the prosecution that the ac cused herein was one of the assailants who took very active part in extinguishin g the life of the deceased on the morning in question. 53. The prosecution case has, however, come into sharp criticism for reasons more than one which has already been detailed herein before. One of the charges was that the witnesses examined are related to the deceased and as such, their evidence should not be believed. However, such an argument does not hold any wa ter. It is not true to say that the case under consideration is founded only on the evidence of related witnesses, for, in this case, apart from examining PW 1 and PW 6, the prosecution has examined PW 2 and PW 5 who are no way related to t he deceased or his other family members. 54. In this context, it may be stated that it is a well settled proposition of law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown away only because some of the witnesses are related to the injured/deceased if their testimonies are otherwise found acceptable. Coming back to our case, we have found that PW1 and PW 6 or for that matter other PWs have properly explained as to why they were there at t he place of occurrence on the morning in question. Equally important, they rende red evidence before the court which is found to be totally trustworthy. 55. Further, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that PWs here in have falsely implicated the accused/appellant in order to shield the actual culprit from punishment. In the aforesaid scenario, the evidence rendered by PW 1 and PW 6 cannot be discarded only for their being related to the deceased and only for there being a dispute between the deceased and the accused person. 56. It has also been contended that PW 3 and PW 2 did not implicate the accu sed appellant herein with the crime under scrutiny. But despite the above, the T rial Court considered their evidence in recording a verdict of guilt against the accused person. This is not permissible in law - argues the learned counsel for the accused / appellant.

57. Such an argument has already been answered by us in our foregoing discus sion and it needs no further reiteration here. Suffice it to say that such an al legation is found to be without any substance whatsoever and as such, we have fo und no difficulty in rejecting the same. 58. It has also been argued that the Trial Court did not properly examine th e accused under Section 313 CrPC, However, the learned counsel for the appellant fails to show how and why the examination of the accused under the aforesaid se ction is defective and flawed. Therefore, such an allegation too is held to be w ithout any basis. It is worth-noting here that all the incriminating circumstanc es were put to the notice of the accused person while he was examined U/s 313 Cr PC providing him an opportunity to explain those circumstances. 59. But he did not make any attempt to explain those circumstances which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, one more tell tale testimony of the accused being one of the perpetrators who took active part in killing of th e deceased in a most diabolic way at the place of occurrence on the morning afor esaid. Thus, the allegation that the accused was not given enough opportunity to explain the circumstances which stared at him instead of damaging the prosecuti on case makes it more and more believable. 60. Our foregoing discussion has now very clearly established that on the mo rning in question, the accused Md Rohit Mia along with six to seven other person s brutally assaulted the deceased at Borchala Ghat on the bank of river Brahmapu tra which extinguished his life instantly. Not being satisfied with the brutal killing of the deceased, they even beheaded him and threw his body parts into th e aforesaid river. 61. Those revelations are very forceful testimony to the fact that the accus ed Rohit Mia along with other persons named herein before formed an unlawful ass embly at the place of occurrence with the common object of killing the deceased at such a place and in executing their common object, the accused along with oth ers, brutally killed the aforesaid man. All these speak loud and clear that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 148/302/149 IPC and as such, we hav e no difficulty in holding that prosecution has proved his case against the accu sed beyond all reasonable doubt. 62. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the judgment im pugned warrant no interference and therefore we unhesitatingly uphold the judgme nt rendered by Trail Court. 63. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.

64. We have been told that the accused/appellant herein is an old an d sick man of about 80 years of age and no useful purpose would be served even i f he is sent to jail at this fag end of his life. Therefore, it has been submit ted that in the event of accused being found guilty of offences, he was charged with, he may be exonerated from the offence considering his old age and ailments . 65. We have perused the materials on record and as per materials, avai lable, he was about 68 years of age as on 10.11.2006 when his statement under Se ction 313 Cr.PC was recorded. In any case, he is, now, above 70 years of age. T he accused is said to be suffering from several old age ailments as well and all hose come together to make him a lump of flesh only at the moment.

66. In view of above revelations, and also considering the fact that inciden t in question occurred as back as 1991, we are of the view that it is a case whi ch may call for consideration by the appropriate authority under Article 161 of the Constitution whether rest of the sentence, imposed upon accused Md Rohit Mia may be remitted. Such consideration may preferably be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

68. 69. LCR be returned immediately. In view of the provision prescribed by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. the victim or his/her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in ap propriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our disc ussions, made in Criminal Appeal No.93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with re gard to the victim compensation as provided by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C., we make t he following directions:- 1. As an interim measure an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by the Stat e Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Morigaon District wit hin a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Authority , on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether , there is dependent(s), who suffered loss as a result of death of the deceased and if such dependant(s) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation. 2. Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent(s), if any, need rehabil itation, then the District Legal Service Authority shall initially release the s aid interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as ma y be prescribed by the scheme to the prepared by the State Government. 3. It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enq uiry, arrives at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependan t(s) of the deceased/victim does not required any rehabilitation, then the Distr ict Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/- withou t delay, in favour of the State Government. 4. For the purpose of providing financial assistance towards rehabilitation of t he victim of his/her dependant(s), in appropriate case, and for proper implement ation of such scheme, as provided by Section 357-A Cr.P.C., it is necessary to a scertain the dependency factor and the financial status of such victim, his/her dependents, and of the accused person(s) as the case may be. Therefore, we direc t that the Judicial Officers, working under, jurisdiction of this Court, during the course of trial, shall ascertain (i) the financial status of the victim or h is/her dependent(s), if any, (ii) whether such persons need rehabilitation, as t he case may be and also the financial status of the accused person(s). The said findings of the enquiry shall be reflected in the judgment. 70. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr Z Kamar, learne d Public Prosecutor and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, for doing the needful.