Judgment · High Court · 2012

d forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial there. 7. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable b y the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of sessions for disposal in accordance wit h law. On receipt of the case and after hearing the parties, the learned Sessio ns Court, Kokrajhar, framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused p erson and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused per son, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many a s seven witnesses including Medical Officer and the Police Officer who investig ated the case. Statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.PC was recor ded. In his statement U/s. 313 CrPC ,he set up the plea of total denial. He how ever, did not adduce any evidence. 9. After going through the materials on record and after hearing ar guments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Cour t came to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully established the charg e under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and accordingly, he convicted the accused of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to punishment as afo resaid. It is that judgment which has been impugned, here in this appeal. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for 10. the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be allowed to stand since it suffers from sev eral infirmities of extremely serious nature. In order to avoid repetition, inst ead of reproducing those arguments, here, we propose to discuss those infirmitie s at appropriate place at appropriate time. 11. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam contends that the learned Trial Court has recorded the verdict of guil t against the accused/ appellant on the basis of the materials on record and it did so, on proper marshaling of the evidence on record having regard to the law involved therein. Such a judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference and as such, he urges this Court to affirm the same instead.

#12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions , advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. However, before we could con sider the merit or otherwise of the arguments, so advanced by the learned counse l of the parties, we find it necessary to reproduce the evidence tendered from the side of prosecution and the evidence of Doctor is first taken up for consi deration. 13. The Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the dead body of Ka lpana Maitra, the deceased, was Dr. Nikunja Das and he was examined as PW 1 in the case aforesaid. His evidence is as follows: On 5th day of November/2005 he was at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar, as M & H.O .1. On that day, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kalpana Moitra, fe male, 35 yrs. in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. No. 208/05 U/s 302 IPC and foun d the following: A female dead body of about 35 yrs. wearing saree, petticoat, blouse, br a soaked with blood was sent for post mortem examination. Rigor mortise both upp er and lower limb present. Sharp cut injury over the neck front measuring 6 inch . X 2 inches x deep into the trachea and larynx where anterior wall is cut. Jugu lar artery and vein cut (severed), cut mark is transverse, non continuous, witho ut tentative cut marks. Other parts were healthy. In his opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage following sharp cut injury on neck which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Ext.1 is his r eport.

#14. Defence did not challenge the evidence, so rendered by the Docto r and therefore, his unchallenged evidence coupled with post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) clearly show that on or about the night of 3rd November, 2005, t he deceased died a homicidal death which was occasioned by huge cut wound on her neck and which also produced her instantaneous death.

#15. So situated, let us examine the evidence of remaining witnesses one by one and evidence of one Shri Jitendra Nath Barman is first taken up for discussion. Shri Barman was examined as PW 2. He deposes that on the fateful day , some villagers from the locality of the accused person told him that the accus ed had killed his wife. 16. On receipt of such information, he rushed to the house of the ac cused person and found the wife of the accused lying dead on her bed inside her house. He also noticed a cut wound on the neck of the deceased. He also found bl ood spilling all over the ground in the room where dead body was found. By the t ime, he arrived at the place of occurrence, a number of villagers too gathered t here. 17. Coming to know about the incident, he lodged an FIR with the police .Ext. 2 is the said FIR. In the meantime, the Police came to the pla ce of occurrence and it held inquest on the body of the person aforesaid and pre pared a report in that connection in presence of the witnesses as well. Ext.3 i s the said inquest report. Police seized a dao in presence of witnesses which includes PW 2 too. 18. The said seizure list was proved as Ext.4. In his cross examinat ion, he has stated that on the fateful night, a musical show was organized at Ga ubari Bazar and a large number of people attended the said function. He was al so among the audience who attended the aforesaid function. The accused was seen attending such function. However, he left such place well before function was ov er. But function continued till dawn. 19. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not know at wh at point of time the accused left the place where musical show was organized. He has also stated in his cross-examination that when he met the accused in his h ouse, he questioned the accused as to how his wife got killed to which he made no reply. He further admitted in his cross examination that he wrote the FIR in the Police Station and that he did so on the advice of Officer in charge of Gos saigaon P.S. 20. PW 3-Shri Ram Narayan Das, deposes that he came to know about th e incident aforesaid only in the morning of the day which followed night in ques tion. On getting the information about the wife of accused being murdered by som eone, he rushed to the house of the accused person and found the body of Kalpana , the deceased, inside her house. 21. At that time, accused person was also there but he was severely beaten by the villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. In the meantime, t he Police came to the place of occurrence and arrested the accused person. In h is cross-examination, he has stated that the accused maintained a good relations hip with his wife. 22. PW 4 Shri Dhiren Das is also a carpenter by profession. He is he ard saying that he resides in the same village where the accused resides. One d ay in the morning, he got information that Kalpana Moitra, wife of the accused, was murdered. On receipt of such information, he went to house of accused Parim ol Moitra. Thereafter he came to the police station and informed Police about th e incident in question. 23. Police also came to the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person, and took the accused in its custody and also sent the dead body to hosp ital for necessary post-mortem examination. He is also heard saying that on bein g interrogated by police, the accused admitted that he has murdered his wife. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused confessed his guilt i n presence of large number of villagers and that police seized a dao in his pres ence from the place of occurrence.

#24. PW 5, Shri Krishna Moitra, is a priest. He deposes that the accused is his related brother. The deceased is the wife of the accused and his house is situated at a place not far away from his house. One day at about 9 a.m. he saw the dead body of Kalpana lying on her bed inside her house. There was a hug e cut wound on her throat. 25. He has further stated that on the fateful night, he attended a m usical show at a place not far away from their house and returned home around 6 am. When he arrived at the house of the accused person, he saw accused being be aten by the villagers who gathered there. It is also in his evidence that police seized a dao which was lying near the dead body on the strength of seizure list Ext.4.

#26. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he heard some vil lagers enquiring the accused as to why he had gone to enjoy the musical function leaving his wife alone at home. In his cross examination, he has further state d that few days before the alleged d incident the accused collected Rs. 30,000/- which he obtained from selling two bighas of land and that such money had be en taken away by someone on the night in question.

#27. PW 6, Shri Jagadish Ch. Barman, a businessman by profession, disposes that on the fateful night, he had gone to Guabari Bazar to attend a musical func tion. He attended the function till the function was over but he did not notice who were the people who enjoyed such a show on the night aforesaid. PW 6 was d eclared hostile to prosecution. 28. PW 7, Shri Utpal Kr Nath, SI of Police, deposes that on 4.11.2005 , he was posted at Gossaigaon Police Station as SI of Police. On that day, Shri Jagadish Ch. Barman filed an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Gossaigaon Police Station. Having received the FIR, O/C, Gossaigaon P.S. registered a case and en trusted him to investigate the case. 29. On being so entrusted with the investigation of the case, he went t o the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying inside the house of the accused. He also noticed a cut wound on her throat. A blood stained knife was a lso found lying on the ground near the dead body. The accused was apprehended by villagers and was handed over to him.

#30. When he asked him as to how his wife got killed, the accused admi tted his guilt and told him that he killed his wife because he found her with an outsider in his house on the night in question. He also claims that having seen his wife with another person, he lost his control and killed his wife. He seize d a dao in presence of witnesses on the strength of Ext.4.

#31. He conducted an inquest on the dead body and prepared a report in this connection (Ext.3) and sent the dead body to hospital for post-mortem exami nation and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet aga inst the accused person alleging that the accused committed the murder of his wi fe.

#32. It is in his evidence that before he could complete the investigat ion, he was transferred for which the remaining part of the investigation was co mpleted by one Md. Sirajul Islam. On the basis of the materials on record, Ext. 5 charge-sheet was prepared and same was laid before the Magistrate in due cour se. 33. In cross-examination, he has stated that the accused made a co nfessional statement in presence of villagers, that he accompanied the accused t o the place of occurrence, that he visited the place of occurrence for the first time during the course of investigation, that he did not seize the blood staine d plank of the bed on which the deceased was found lying when he arrived at the place of occurrence during the course of investigation and that he did not arres t one Dhiren Das. 34. On perusal of evidence, so reproduced, it would appear clear tha t the prosecution has adopted a two pronged strategy to make out the charge, lev eled against the accused person. First, it relies on the extra judicial confessi on allegedly made by the accused person. Secondly, the prosecution relies on a n umber of circumstances which, according to the prosecution, when read together f orm a complete chain of events leading to only and sole conclusion that the accu sed and none else committed the crime under consideration. Above being the strategies, adopted by the prosecution to take i 35. ts case to the logical conclusion, we need to ascertain how far above strategy h elps the prosecution in reaching its goal and in that connection, at the very ou tset, we propose to consider if the prosecution case premised on extra judicial confession stands to reason. 36. In that connection, we have very carefully perused the testimoni es, rendered by the PWs touching such a claim. On perusal of such evidence, we h ave found that the accused seemed to have made a confession about his guilt to s ome of the prosecution witnesses. However, what have caught our eyes and that to o instantly is that such confession was made in presence of Police Officer. The evidence of PW 4 as well as the evidence of I.O. (PW 7) makes such a position vi vidly clear. 37. Law relating to confession made to Police Officer or the confess ion by the accused while in custody of Police is well settled. Such custody may not be alone post arrest custody. If an accused is within the ken of surveillanc e of the Police during which his movements are restricted, it can also be regard ed as custody within the meaning of custody as contemplated in Section 26 of the Evidence Act. 38. In this connection, we may profitably peruse the decision of Hon ’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of AP Vs Gangula Satya Muthy r eported in (1977) 1 SCC 272. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: (cid:28)It is true that in the deposition PW 6 and PW 7 have said that it was at 7 a.m. that the respondent made the confession to them. But the Sub-Inspector said th at the accused was produced in the police station at 7.30 p.m. We think that mu ch should not have been made out of that disparity as there could be a possibili ty of making an error in recording the time a.m. for p.m. We say this because b oth PW 6 and PW 7 uniformly said that they took the respondent to the police s tation situated about 3 kilometers away. As the police records show that they p roduced him at 7.30 p.m. It is only inferential that the respondent would have made the confession in the evening and not during morning hours. At any rate i t is not proper to jettison an otherwise sturdy piece of evidence of extra judic ial confession on the ground of such a rickety premise. (cid:28)The other reasoning based on Section 26 of the Evidence Act is also fallacious. It is true any confession made to a Police Officer is inadmissible under Sectio n 25 of the Act and that ban is further stretched through Section 26 to the conf ession made to any other person also if the confessor was then in Police custody . Such ’custody’ needs not necessarily be post-arrest custody. The word ’custod y’ used in Section 26 is to be understood in a pragmatic sense. If any accused is within the ken of surveillance of the Police during which his movements are r estricted then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance for the purpose of t he section. If he makes any confession during that period to any person be he n ot a Police Officer, such confession would also be hedged within the banned cont ours outlined in Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

#39. Above being the legal position with regard to confession made in pr esence of the Police, we have no hesitation in holding that confession which was relied on by the prosecution and which was accepted by learned Trial Court is n ot at all judicially acceptable confession and as such, learned Trial Court coul d not have accepted the same in recording a verdict of guilt against the accused person. Being so, one of the most important pillars on which prosecution erects its edifice never exists at any point of time.

#40. So situated, let us now consider some other alleged circumstance s which prosecution has pressed into action to make out the case against the acc used person. A careful perusal of the testimonies, rendered by the PWs, in the l ight of averments, made in the FIR, would make it clear that the prosecution qui te arduously contends that on the night in question the accused and none else ki lled his wife. The fact that the wife of the deceased died a violent death and that too in her own house, coupled with the fact that there was absolutely no ev idence on record to show that any person other than accused was there in his hou se on the night aforesaid make such a conclusion inevitable. 41. In that connection, the prosecution has also pointed out that th ere was evidence on record to show that accused was in his house on the night i n question or at least around the time when the deceased got killed, and these s peak quite clearly that the accused , and none else, is the author of the crime under consideration. Therefore, unless the accused explained as to how the dece ased met her death so violently on the night aforesaid and that too in her own h ouse, he cannot escape being found guilty of the offence ,he was charged with. Section 106 of the Evidence Act clearly enjoins such a duty on the accused pers on.

#42. Controverting the aforesaid argument, the defence claims that on t he night in question, the accused was not in his house as alleged by the prosecu tion but had been in a musical show instead throughout the night. Being so, it i s not possible, on his part, to comment/explain as to how his wife got killed on the night in question. Such a fact also establishes that the accused can, under no circumstances, be held liable for the death of his wife.

#43. In other words, the defense appears to have set up the plea of ali bi. Such a stance, taken by the accused person, emerges very clearly from the cross examination of PWs, from the statement of the accused person recorded unde r Section 313 CrPC as well as from the argument which the learned counsel for th e defence had advanced before the Court below during the trial. Thus, we need to know if such a stand taken by the accused finds favor from the materials on rec ord. 44. Here, it needs to be stated that a person who set up the plea of ali bi must prove such a plea beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing positive evide nce. In other words, standard, fixed for proving a plea of alibi and the standar d, fixed for prosecution to prove its claim, are one and same. In order to know how far the accused succeeds in discharging such a liability, we consider very c arefully the materials on record. 45. On carful perusal of evidence of record, we have found that the def ence did not adduce any evidence to make out such a plea. Rather, it relies on t he testimonies rendered by those PWs, more particularly, the testimonies tendere d by PW 2 & PW 5. In his cross examination, PW 2 states that on the night in que stion, a musical show was organized in their village and such a function was org anized at a place very close to the residence of the accused person , to be prec ise, one furlong only. 46. According to him, he too attended the said show and also found the a ccused there. It is also in his evidence that he remained there well beyond the midnight. PW 2 went on to say that, the accused remained there at the musical sh ow till 5 AM next day although he claimed that he was the first man to leave the function which was attended to by cross-section of people coming from a reasona bly big surrounding area. 47. But such a claim of PW 2 that the accused was in the venue of music al show till 5 a.m. on 4th of November’ 2005 sounds pretty unbelievable, for, PW 2, being one of the hundreds of the audience, cannot be expected to know at wha t time on the night aforesaid, the accused, who, again being one of the hundreds of the spectators, left the venue of the function, more so, when PW 2 himself a dmitted that he had left the venue of musical show even before any other persons including the accused left such a place.

#48. The claim of PW 2 that he was the first man to leave the v enue aforesaid is equally unbelievable for the reason that it is humanly impossi ble for anyone to monitor the movements of members of a reasonably large gatheri ng, more so, when such assembly took place at night. This is common human behavi or and the judicial Courts are well entitled to take notice of such fact. Being so, the claim of PW 2 that the accused was at the venue aforesaid on the night in question is found to have fallen flat on its face. 48(A). On the other hand, in his cross examination, PW 5 too is heard say ing that he learnt from the other people that the accused was apprehended from s uch function on the morning in question. On a perusal of evidence of PW 5, we ha ve found that the evidence of PW 5 is not admissible in law since the same is in the nature of hearsay evidence only. Being so, neither PW 2 nor PW 5 could even probabilize the claim of the defence that the accused was not in his house on t he night aforesaid-much less their proving such a claim beyond all reasonable do ubt as required under the law.

#49. Even if we assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the ac cused was there at the musical show on the night in question, yet such a fact al one would not absolve the accused of the charge, brought against him. This is m ainly for the reason that the place where such function was organized on the nig ht, stated above, was situated at a distance of only one furlong from the resi dence of the accused person. Such a distance no way makes it impossible for the accused to commit the crime under consideration on the night between 2nd and 4th November, 2005.

#50. In this connection, we may note the illustration (a) to Section 11 o f the Evidence Act. Such illustration runs as follows: (cid:28)(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when crime was committed A was at a distance from t he place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, it is relevant. (cid:29)

#51. When we consider the revelations, detailed hereinbefore, in the li ght of illustration aforesaid, it would appear more than clear that even if the accused was seen enjoying the musical show aforesaid on the night stated above, same alone would not have established that he did not commit the crime in quest ion. The defence, thus, could not at all establish its plea alibi.

#52. Quite contrary to it, on the materials on record, we are constrained to hold that on the night aforesaid, the accused was there at his house or at least around the time when the incident in question occurred. The ma terials on record also reveal that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any person other than the accused was there in his house on the night in question. 53. But then , the accused made another plea, very feeble of course, to s how that a burglary was committed in his house on the night in question when som e unknown miscreants had taken away an amount to the tune of Rs.30,000/- which h e earned on selling out some of his landed property and therefore , an attempt h as been made to show that the miscreants who committed the burglary might have k illed his wife while being resisted by her in the commission of the said offence . 54. However, such an effort is found to be a design to hoodwink the tru th since there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the accused had ever initiated any legal action against person(s) who allegedly trespassed into his house on the night in question. Even he did not assign any reason as to why he d id not initiate any legal action against such intruder (s) who reportedly exti nguished the life of her wife in a most tragic and horrible way. 55. Such a conduct on the part of the accused person is found to be t otally incongruous with natural and normal human behavior and it strongly raises serious doubts about the veracity of the claim of the accused that his house wa s burgled on the night in question. These are also testimonies to the fact that the accused had invented aforesaid plea just to screen himself from the punishme nt which was to fall upon him for the misdeed, he committed on the all eventful night. 56. The defence has referred us to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Mehendra Sing h Dahiya reported in (2000)3SSC 109 to bring home its claim that in the facts an d circumstances of the present case, the accused /appellant could not be held gu ilty of the offence of murder. However, the decision referred to above, has no a pplication in the case under consideration as the facts and circumstances in the case referred to above are completely different from one, we have been seized w ith. 57. Defence, has also assailed the prosecution case on other counts as well. They are : (i) it did not examine some very vital witnesses who could have thrown enormous light on the matter under consideration and (ii) the prosec ution also did not probe certain circumstances which have huge implications on t he out-come of prosecution case. Does such an argument, advanced from the side o f prosecution, hold any water? 58. To get an answer to this quarry, we scan the materials on record very carefully. Coming to the first charge, above, we have found that it is tru e that one Shri Haradhan Maitra, the son of the deceased was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence to find his mother being killed but he was no t examined. But we must not be oblivious to the fact that he appears to a young boy who had the misfortune of seeing his mother lying dead in their house on the morning of 4th November 2005.

#59. In such a scenario, non examination of the young son of the decea sed and the accused seems to be of no consequences, more so when he does not see m to be an eye witness to the incident in question and when he, being the son of the deceased and the accused person ,can hardly be expected to divulge the re al truth, particularly when he is found to be a boy of quite young age .

#60. The defence also contends that there is evidence on record in th e form of testimony of PW 5 to show that days before the alleged incident, the a ccused sold out some of his land for which he earned Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand). But such money and some other documents had gone missing from his ho use on or around the night when incident in question occurred.

#61. We have discussed such circumstances in great detailed in our foregoi ng deliberation and same needs no further discussion here. Suffice it to say tha t such an allegation had never been brought to the notice of the Police Authorit y, leave alone it being probed by such an authority. Non probing of those allege d circumstances has, therefore, no bearing whatsoever on the prosecution case. T hus, none of the allegations aforementioned could cause any harm to the prosecut ion case.

#62. By now we have found that on the night in question, wife of the accused was killed in her own house and that too in a most barbaric way. The accused/ ap pellant offered an explanation that some miscreants who had burgled his house mi ght have killed his wife on the night aforesaid. However, such plea remains far from being probabilised.

#63. The defence also raised the plea of alibi. Such a plea too could no t be proved by the defence. Our foregoing discussion makes such position very cl ear and it needs no further discussion. 64. On perusing the materials on record more and more, we have again foun d that the prosecution has successfully established some other circumstances as well .They are : (i) The wife of the accused died on the intervening night between 2rd and 4th o f November, 2005. (ii) There was a huge wound on her throat. (iii) The wound was caused by sharp edged weapon (iv) The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (v) The accused was apprehended by the people in the wee hours of the morning a forementioned. (vi) The accused was mercilessly beaten by the public who gathered at the place of occurrence. (vi) A dao was recovered from the place where the dead body was found lying. (vii) The body of the deceased was found inside her house. (viii) The accused did not at all respond to the quarries made by some witnesses who gathered in his house on the morning in question.as to how his wife got kil led on the night in question. ix) There was no evidence to show that any person other than the accused was the re in his house on the night aforesaid.

#65. The above well established extremely incriminating circumstance s when read alongside the fact that on the night aforesaid the accused was in hi s house or at least around the time when his wife was brutally killed as well as his inability to prove the plea of alibi and so also the plea that on the nig ht in question, his house was burgled by some miscreants, there cannot be an es cape from the conclusion that the circumstances which prosecution has establishe d unmistakably form a chain of events, without any break anywhere.

#66. Such a chain of events unerringly leads one to the sole and lone concl usion that the accused and none else killed his wife on the night intervening 2n d and 4th January 2005. Such revelations also demonstrate that theory of innocen ce of the accused is wholly incompatible with the conclusion which one could arr ived at from the circumstances which are so firmly established by the prosecutio n side in the case under consideration. 67. In this connection, we may note the decision of Hon’ble Court of India rendered in the case of Padala Verra Reddy Vs State of AP and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 79. In the case of Padala Verra Reddy (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Co urt of India opined that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (a) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (b) Those circumstances should be of de finite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused, (c) The circu mstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no esc aped from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed b y the accused and non else and (d) The circumstantial evidence in order to susta in conviction must be completed and incapable of explanation of any other hypoth esis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be cons istent with the guilt of accused but should be in consistent with his innocence.

#68. The tests so enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stand fu lly satisfied in our instant case as has been demonstrated by our foregoing disc ussion. 69. Above being the position, we are of clear opinion that prosecution ha s established the charge brought against the accused person beyond all reasonabl e doubt and as such, the judgment, impugned, invites no interference from this C ourt of Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on affirming the judgmen t and order of the learned Trial Court. 70. Return the LCR. 71. In view of the provision prescribed by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. the vic tim or his/her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our d iscussions, made in Criminal Appeal No.93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation as provided by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C., we mak e the following directions:- (a). As an interim measure an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited by the St ate Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Kokrajhar District within a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Author ity, on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whet her, there is dependent(s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and if such dependant(s) or legal representative(s) need any rehab ilitation. (b). Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent(s), if any, need rehab ilitation, then the District Legal Service Authority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be prescribed by the scheme to be prepared by the State Government. (c). It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due e nquiry, arrives at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the depend ant(s) of the deceased/victim does not required any rehabilitation, then the Dis trict Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.50,000/- with out delay, in favour of the State Government.

#72. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, for doi ng the needful.