Judgment · High Court · 2012

The learned Trial Court also gave a finding that Apurba Mahanta was a person having social status and commanded respect in the locality. He was associated with various social issues and sports and enjoyed good reputation in the society. Based on the depositions of PW No. 2 (Dhruba Hazarika), PW No.3 (Rajkiran Barpatra Gohain), PW No.5 (Mina Das) and PW No.6 (Bipul Das), who are all independent witnesses, the learned Trial Court held that the deceased Apurba Mahanta was beaten up by the accused persons with a cricket bat. The deceased A purba Mahanta had told those witnesses that he was falsely blamed by both the ac cused persons by involving a girl, which was unbearable for him. The said deceas ed Apurba Mahanta narrated all those incidents to the said witnesses and he was weeping and he also showed them bruise mark on his back. The learned Trial Court also held that on the basis of the stat ement of the appellant, Shashankar Roy made before the Investigating Officer t hat he used a cricket bat for beating Apurba Mahanta and led to the recovery of the cricket bat from the house of Smt. Mina Das. The learned Trial Court also held that the post crime conduct of the two appellants in absconding from their houses after the incident is indica tive of their culpability which is admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act. The learned Trial Court also held that there was evidence on rec ord based on the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, to show that on 29.11.9 9 at about 3 pm, the two appellants had dragged the deceased Apurba Mahanta fr om his house to an open field and blamed the deceased Apurba Mahanta of involvem ent with the said girl, Mompi Dey and beat him with a cricket bat openly. The le arned Trial Court also held that the intent of the both the appellants was sam e and their intention was to put false blame on the deceased. The learned Trial Court also held that there was evidence on record to show that the appellants had taken the said girl to the house of Apurba Mahanta to fulfill their sexual l ust by taking advantage of the open door of the house of the deceased. When the deceased objected to their nefarious activities, the appellants put the blame on the deceased by involving the deceased with said girl which was unbearable fo r the deceased who had a social status in the society. Since the deceased could not tolerate the false accusation, he committed suicide. The learned Trial Court held that if the accused persons had not falsely accused the deceased and put t he blame on the deceased, the said Apurba Mahanta would not have committed suici de. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court held that the said deceased Apurba Maha nta committed suicide because of the false accusation by the appellants and the prosecution has been able to establish that both the appellants in furtherance o f their common intention abetted Apurba Mahanta to commit suicide . [7] Miss Rita Das Mazumder, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants have forcefully argued that no case has been made out to convict t he two appellants u/s 306/34 IPC. On the other hand, the learned PP appearing f or the State has equally strongly argued that there are sufficient evidences to convict the said two appellants and no case has been made out for interfering by this Court. Before we go into the rival contentions of the parties and also [8] the finding of the trial court, whereby the appellants were charged and convicte d for abetment of suicide of Apurba Mahanta under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC, it may be appropriate to refresh ourselves with the law and judicial pronouncements in this regard. Section 306 IPC reads as follows:- (cid:28)306. of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission o f such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (cid:29) The crux of the charge against the appellants is that they had abetted the commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta. Therefore, it has to be established firstly, that Apurba Mahanta had com mitted suicide. Secondly, it has to be established that the appellants had abetted the c ommission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta. [9] We will therefore, examine firstly, on the basis of the records, whether Apurba Mahnta had committed suicide. In the present case, though there was no eye witness to the act of commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta, there is evidence on record that whe n the news spread about his suicide many including PW 4, PW 6, the local witness es and PW 8, the police witness went to his place and saw the deceased hanging f rom the ceiling fan. ASI Khagen Nath, PW-8, held the inquest while the deceased was s till hanging. The dead body was taken down in presence of witnesses by PW-8. In the Inquest Report, it is mentioned that the deceased was frothing at the mouth. The body was found hanging about 2 ft. above the ground. Excreta was seen in the anus and in the urinary opening. The left side of the neck bore mar ks of knots. PW-1, the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceas ed was examined and he gave the opinion that the cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of hanging. The said PW 1 was not cross-examined by the defence. In absence of any other evidence to the contrary, in view of the above e vidences on record, which have not been also contradicted or questioned by the d efence, this Court would also hold that the said Apurba Mahanta died of hanging by himself. In other words, the commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta stands p roved. In view of that the first ingredient for the crime as defined under Sect ion 306 of the IPC is established. [10] e commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta. We now deal with the issue whether the appellants had abetted th [11] e in Section 107 of the IPC. Section 107 of IPC reads as follows. (cid:28)107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- As to what is abetment has been defined by the Indian Penal Cod First.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. (cid:29) Explanation 1.-A person who, by misrepresentation, or by concealment of a mate rial fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or atte mpts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is y by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B rief facts of the case, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here Brief facts of the case abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an a ct, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. (cid:29) Therefore, in order to uphold the conviction of the appellants under sec tion 306 of IPC, the abetment of suicide by Apurba Mahanta, of which the appella nts are accused of, must also satisfy the requirements of Section 107 of IPC. Therefore, as required under section 107 of IPC, one of the following re quirements has to be satisfied. First - The appellants had instigated Apurba Mahanta to commit suicide; or Secondly - The appellants have engaged with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta, if an act or ille gal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to commit ting of suicide by Apurba Mahanta; or Thirdly.-The appellants have intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission , the commission of suicide by Apuba Mahanta. As regards the Explanation 1, it seems the same is not relevant for our purpose. As regards Explanation 2, it has to be shown that the appellants either prior to or at the time of the commission of suicide by Apurba Mahanta had done anything to facilitate the suicide by Apurba Mahanta. If any of the above conditions stands satisfied, the case of the appella nts could be brought within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. [12] We may also note that the scope of the aforesaid sections of 107 and 306 of IPC had been dealt with by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. W e may refer to a few of the notable cases. [13] Referring to the meaning of abetment so as to mean instigation, the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has examined different shades of the meaning of (cid:28)instigation (cid:29). (cid:28)20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ’a n act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary tha t actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The pres ent one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a cont inued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left wi th no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may hav e been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (cid:29) Since, there is no eyewitness account of what the appellants had actually did or said to the said deceased, it has be shown from the available e vidence that there was reasonable certainty that the appellants had incited or i nstigated the deceased to commit suicide or that the appellant had by their acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which ca se an instigation may have been inferred. [14] Further, mens rea for abetment or instigation has to be establis hed. Referring to the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court observed i n para no. 19 in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (20 09)16 SCC 605, as follows:- (cid:28)19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar4, where the accused by his acts or by a continu ed course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an (cid:28)instigation (cid:29) may be inferred. In o ther words, in order to prove that the accused commission of suicide by a perso n, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or w ilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction ; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceas ed to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presen ce of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 4 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 In the aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), it was f [15] urther observed that, (cid:28)20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand . The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. D ifferent individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual’s suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual’s vu lnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protect ion or an escapism from intolerable self. [16] Referring to the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswa, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Supreme Court in M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 also caution ed and held that, (cid:28)42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal4 this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 9 0, para 17) the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and cir cumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim com mitting suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

#43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)5 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of . The Court dealt with the dictionary mean ing of the word (cid:28)instigation (cid:29) and (cid:28)goading (cid:29). The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person ha s his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to l ay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

#44. involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused t o instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there ha s to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act o r direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/sh e committed suicide. (cid:29) 4 : (1994) 1 SCC 73 5 : (2009) 16 SCC 605 [17] In the light of the contours of law as discussed above, we will examine whether the facts as available on record would fit into it, so as to fas ten the guilt of abetment of suicide of deceased Apurba Mahanta to the appellan ts and uphold the conviction of the appellants u/s 306/34 of IPC. [18] We will now examine whether the appellants had done anything by which it can be said that they had instigated the deceased Apurba Mahanta to com mit suicide in terms of the first provision to Section 107 of IPC. Therefore, it is important to see what exactly the appellants had done before the commission of the act so as to amount to instigation. The stand of the prosecution is that the two appellants had brou ght a girl to the house of the deceased Apurba Mahanta without his permission to indulge in certain immoral activities and when discovered and the deceased obje cted to their plan, it resulted in the said two appellants to falsely accuse the deceased of involving with the girl. The appellants not only falsely accused th e deceased of involving with the girl but also beat him up with a cricket bat in the open. The deceased unable to bear such humiliation of being falsely accused by the appellants and being beaten in public took the extreme steps of endin g his own life. ve been established or not before we draw any inference of abetment. Therefore, it is important to see whether the aforesaid facts ha [19] It has been vehemently argued by Miss Rita Das Mazumder, the lea rned Amicus Curiae that there is no evidence at all about the aforesaid alleged incident except for the hearsay evidence of PW No.2, PW No. 3, PW No. 5 and PW N o.6. The learned Trial Court had heavily relied on the evidences of PW No.2, PW No. 3, PW No. 5 and PW No.6 for his finding of proof for the aforesaid incident. However, a close examination of the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses would reveal that none of the aforesaid witnesses had seen the deceased Apurba Mahant a being assaulted by the two appellants. None of the aforesaid witnesses also witnessed the incident of two appellants bringing the said girl, Mompi Dey in th e house of the deceased. None of the witnesses also heard the false accusation m ade by the appellants against the deceased. No witness had been examined regardi ng the alleged beating of the deceased by the two appellants, even though as per the prosecution, the deceased was beaten in the open field near his house. It c an be seen from the evidence that there were many houses/ neighbours near the ho use of the deceased. Yet none was examined. Therefore, because of lack of any ey e witness to the aforesaid alleged assault of the deceased by the appellants wit h a cricket bat, the said fact cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasona ble doubt. It is also not explained as to why the said girl, Mompi Dey, who was the source of the entire incident culminating in the unfortunate suicide of the deceased Apurba Mahanta was not examined. Nothing prevented the prosecution to produce and examine her. She could have been the best evidence as what actua lly transpired at the house of the deceased and also what happened thereafter wh en the deceased was stated to have been beaten up by the appellants. Therefore, lack of any direct evidence as regard the aforesaid incident has thrown serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The prosecution heavily relied on the statements of the aforesai d witnesses and which were also believed by the learned Trial Court as regard th e aforesaid incident. The aforesaid witnesses stated that after hearing about th e incident which occurred in the house of the deceased, the said witnesses had g one to visit the deceased whereupon the deceased had apparently narrated the inc ident involving a girl and the appellants and also about the incident of the al leged beating by the appellants and the false accusation made by the appellant s against the deceased. The only evidence available on record about the inciden t involving the girl in the house of the deceased and the subsequent false accus ation made by the appellants on the deceased is based on the statements made b y the said aforesaid witnesses, who were not eye witnesses but as told by the de ceased. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that to hold that the fact of br inging the girl in the house of Apurba Mahanta by the appellants, the objectio ns raised by Apurba Mahanta to their alleged immoral activities and false accusa tion made by the appellants to the deceased involving a girl, cannot be said t o have been proved merely on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid PWs wi thout any corroborating evidence. This is because of the fact that even if what transpired inside the house of the deceased may not have been witnessed, but as regards the contention that deceased was falsely accused by the appellants of be ing involved with the girl and also that the deceased was beaten up in the open field by the appellants, without being seen or heard by any neighbour or person in the locality, this Court finds it hard to believe. The fact that PWs had stated that Apurba Mahanta had showed the injury on his back and he was very depressed and he was also weeping and also th e fact that post mortem report showed bruises on his back does not necessarily p rove the earlier incident involving the girl at the house of the deceased as dis cussed above. [20] Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of t he prosecution that the two appellants had brought the girl to the house of the deceased who were planning to indulge in certain immoral activities in the house of the deceased and also that on being objected to by the deceased, the two app ellants had falsely accused the deceased of having involved with the girl, canno t be said to have been proved. As regards the contention of the prosecution that the appellan [21] ts had beaten the deceased with a cricket bat in the open also cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the fact that no one includ ing the aforesaid witnesses had seen the assault of the deceased by the two ap pellants even though the said incident had apparently taken place in the open fi eld during day time. It is quite surprising as to why nobody had witnessed the a foresaid incident including any of the children who were playing cricket in the field. Therefore, merely on the alleged discovery of the cricket bat from the ho use of the PW No.5 and existence of bruise marks on the back of the deceased and on the statement made by the PWs after being told by the deceased as stated abo ve, the aforesaid assault also cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable dou bt. [22] We may briefly refer to the statement of PW No.3 who stated that he came to know from his neighbour that Apurba Mahanta had been assaulted and t hereafter, he went to his quarter to enquire about him, whereupon, the deceased Apurba Mahanta told him that the two accused had assaulted him. However, none of the aforesaid neighbours, who had informed the PW No.3 about the assault of Apu rba Mahanta by the two appellants, had been examined. PW No.6 also in his deposition stated that at noon on the day of incident, when he was sleeping, Rajani Hazarika raised hue and cry. At this sta ge, he along with his mother went towards the deceased’s house and he found th e deceased looking very sad and told him that the two appellants had assaulted him with cricket bats and made false accusation against him. Surprisingly, the said Rajani Hazarika was also not examined. Therefore, what emerges is that ther e was no eye witness in respect of the aforesaid alleged assault of the deceased by the appellants. Only those witnesses who did not witness the said incident w ere examined. Therefore, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine and produce the best evidence available would cast a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. [23] There is, of course, evidence to the fact that the deceased was very sad on that day. In fact some witnesses also found him weeping saying that he had been falsely accused by the appellants. However, apart from the stateme nt made by the deceased before the aforesaid PWs that he has been falsely accuse d by the appellants and that he was beaten up by the appellants with a cricket bat, there is no other evidence on record. Therefore, there is nothing on recor d to show as to how the appellants had instigated the deceased to commit suicide in terms of first, second and third parts of Section 107 of the IPC and also Ex planation-2 to the said section. [24] The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in order attract Section 107 of IPC, the mens rea i.e. intention to abet or instigate or to goad or to e ncourage to commit suicide is required to be established. However, as discussed above, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants had the intention to cause the deceased to commit suicide, nor it is clearly inferable from any of the established facts. Intention to humiliate the deceased cannot be equated with inten tion to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Even if we assume that the incident of false accusation by the a ppellants to the deceased of being involved with a girl and also the fact of bea ting the deceased by cricket bat as per the prosecution story is held to be prov ed, this does not itself show or prove that there was intention on the part of t he appellants to make him commit suicide. The aforesaid incident apparently was a one time incident and there is no evidence to the effect that the appellants h ad repeatedly abused or insulted or humiliated the deceased by way of words or d eeds so as to drive the deceased to despair and force him to commit suicide. Of course, this Court is not suggesting that a one time incident cannot give rise to situation to constitute ingredients for section 306 IPC, if the facts are otherwise very clear and there are unimpeachable evidence in that regard. However, where the evidence is not absolutely clear, where the f acts cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubts, it may be risky to fasten anyone with the liability under section 306 IPC, more so when t he mens rea has not been proved. [25] There is nothing on record to show that there was no option left for the deceased except to commit suicide because of the aforesaid alleged acts of the appellants so as to attract Section 107 IPC. It seems that after the aforesaid alleged incident of false accu sation and the assault by the appellants, some people of the locality had gone to the house of the deceased to share his grief and the unhappiness. PW No.2 in his deposition states that the deceased was thinking about lodging a complaint the next day with the police. PW No.6 in his evidence stated that he went to the house of the deceased along with his mother and pacified him and thereafter, re turned. Therefore, even if the deceased was totally devastated by the false accu sation by the appellants and also by assault by the appellants as stated above, it cannot be stated that he was driven to such a condition that he had no other option but to commit suicide to salvage his prestige and honour. [26] We may recollect what the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswa (supra) that there may be situation where the victim committing suicide can be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance and discord . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra) also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has h is own idea of self-esteem and self-respect and therefore, it is impossible to l ay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases of suicide. In the p resent case, the deceased seems to be a very sensitive person who was devastated by the false accusation, yet in absence of mens rea or intention on the part of the appellants to drive the deceased to such a condition leaving him no other alternative but to commit suicide, this Court is not willing to hold that the a ppellants had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased so as to attract the provisions of section 306 IPC against the appellants. Even if it is held to be proved that the appellants had falsely accused the deceased and had assaulted the deceased, it seems to be a case of ve ry irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour on the part of the appellants to in dulge, but in absence of further evidence in this regard, it will be difficult t o hold that they had the intention and mens rea to commit the offence of instig ating the deceased to commit suicide. [27] The prosecution has relied heavily on the discovery of the suici de note stated to have been written by the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants had forcefully argued that the said suicide note was not examined by any handwriting expert and accordingly, the same ought not have been accepted. However, in view of the fact that the aforesaid handwriting of the deceased was identified by PW No.4, who was his colleague and who was familiar with the handw riting of the deceased, the said objection may be ignored. However, even accepti ng the said note as written by the deceased prior to his death, the said note do es not mention the names of the appellants. The suicide note merely stated that (cid:28)committed suicide unable to bear the humiliation (cid:29). As to who had humiliated the deceased and how he was humiliated was not mentioned. As held by the Hon’ble Su preme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), the author of the aforesaid note is not alive and there is no one left in whose presence the said note was written and therefore, we cannot assume anything in the letter which i s not there and inference have to be drawn from there based on the expression im plied therein and in the light of other evidence adduced in the case. Since we h ave held that there is no adequate evidence available as to how the appellants h ad humiliated the deceased, except for the statement made by the PW No.2, PW No. 3, PW No.5 and PW No.6 as told to them by the deceased, it may not be appropriat e to come to a definite conclusion that the appellants had humiliated the deceas ed so as to instigate or compel the deceased to commit suicide. [28] Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the absence of a de finite evidence on record to show that the appellants had the intention to prov oke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide and also to show that the appellants because of their words and deeds, had pushed the deceased to such an extent that there was no alternative for the deceased but to commit suicide, it may not be appropriate to fasten the culpability and liability to the appellant s u/s 306 IPC. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the charges against t he appellants u/s 306/34 IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and co nsequently, the judgment and order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Jorhat in Sessions Case No.89(J-J)2002 convicting the app ellants for suicide by Apurba Mahanta u/s 306/34 IPC is liable to be interfered with and accordingly is set aside. However, before parting with the case, this Court would like to express its displeasure in the manner in which the investigation has been carrie d out by the Investigating Officer. This Court fails to understand the reasons a s why any of the persons who could have been witness to the abuse and assault of the deceased by the appellants, were not examined by the prosecution. This Cour t also fails to understand why the said girl, Mompi Dey, who was the reason for the appellants to behave in the manner ascribed, culminating in the unfortunate death of Apurba Mahanta, who was stated to have enjoyed a very good reputation i n the society, was not examined at all. The examination of the said Mompi Dey co uld have thrown more light on the issue involved and also could have made the ap pellants criminally liable, if she had corroborated the prosecution version. Thi s Court is also surprised that the Investigating authority did not make any ende avour to identify and examine such witnesses who could have testified about the assault of the deceased by the appellants. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the present appea [29] l stands allowed. Accordingly, the judgment dated 30.12.2003 passed by the lear ned Addl. Sessions Judge(Ad-hoc), Jorhat in Sessions Case No.89(J-J)2002 convict ing the appellants under section 306/34 IPC are set aside. The learned Amicus Curiae be paid the fees in terms of the rules .