JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2023 passed in Pasighat Sessions Case No. 06/2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and 2 (two) months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only. 3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2014 at about 1900 hours, a written complaint was lodged by one Kaling Saroh alleging that on 19.08.2014, at around 1900 hours, one Shri Tajom Saroh, a resident of Berung Village, assaulted late Tabong Saroh, a 75-year-old man and the stepfather of the accused, at their residence following an altercation between them arising out of the deceased urinating inside a room of the house. It is alleged that as a result of the assault, the deceased became unconscious and was immediately taken to the General Hospital Pasighat, where he was declared brought dead. It is further alleged that late Tabong Saroh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the assault by the accused. 4. Pursuant thereto, Pasighat Police Station Case No. 94/2014 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered. The appellant was thereafter arrested and his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded. 5. Since the deceased was already buried, as per the order of the District Magistrate, the dead body of late Tabong Saroh was exhumed. Thereafter, following the relevant provisions, the inquest and other examinations, including Post-Mortem Examination (PME), were conducted, and the dead body was thereafter buried again. 6. On completion of investigation, the Police submitted Charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly, charge was framed against the appellant. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses. However, the appellant did not adduce any defence witness. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses. However, the appellant did not adduce any defence witness. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. On 12.09.2014, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Magistrate, wherein the appellant stated that on 19.08.2014, at around 7:00 p.m., his uncle (Pai-father’s youngest brother), late Tabong Saroh, returned home and started urinating on the verandah (Hungu). On seeing this, he scolded him and asked him not to urinate on the verandah as it would stink and also because during summer people usually sit there. Thereafter, late Tabong Saroh allegedly punched him hard on his chest, which made him angry and in response, he slapped him twice. Thereafter, he left the house and did not return for a day. He further stated that he was not aware of any incident that occurred after he had left. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial and after consideration of the evidences, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and 2 (two) months, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat. 10. It is brought on record that during the pendency of the present criminal appeal, the appellant was released from jail at Tezu on 04.04.2026 upon completion of the sentence. The appellant has also paid the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only. 11. Mr. P. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased had lost his life as a result of an accident upon falling on the ground. The appellant never admitted that he had pushed his uncle (deceased), due to which he fell down and died. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearly indicates that upon being punched hard by the deceased, the appellant had only slapped the deceased twice on the face. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the act of the appellant. 12. Mr. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearly indicates that upon being punched hard by the deceased, the appellant had only slapped the deceased twice on the face. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the act of the appellant. 12. Mr. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel, submits that the only eye- witness is PW-6, who is the daughter of the appellant and had deposed that she saw her deceased grandfather in a drunken condition urinating on the verandah of the appellant’s house, for which her father (the appellant) scolded him. On being scolded, the deceased pushed her father (the appellant) and in the process, the deceased lost his balance and fell down, thereby sustaining a head injury, as a result of which he became unconscious and later succumbed to his injuries. He submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and as such, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the appellant. 13. Mr. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel, submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded that it is on record that during the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused admitted to have killed the deceased, though without any malafide intention to kill him, which is contrary to the records, as nowhere the appellant admitted to have killed the deceased. The findings of the learned Trial Court are not only contrary to the records but are purely based on conjectures and surmises. 14. In support of his submission, Mr. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities: (i). Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626 (ii). Randeep Singh @ Rana vs. The State of Haryana , decided on 22.11.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3383 15. On the other hand, Ms. In support of his submission, Mr. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities: (i). Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626 (ii). Randeep Singh @ Rana vs. The State of Haryana , decided on 22.11.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3383 15. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while referring to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9, submits that the appellant had made a confessional statement that he had slapped the deceased twice, which stands corroborated by the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9, which establishes that the deceased died due to cerebral hemorrhage following blunt injuries on the side of the maxillary bone and that the injury was sufficient to cause the death of a person in the normal course. 16. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that during the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on being questioned, the appellant, while admitting the guilt, stated that it was correct that he had no intention to kill the deceased, but the act was committed on sudden provocation. Therefore, on the basis of such admission, which stands corroborated by the other evidence on record, the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, though initially the case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and as such, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, may be dismissed. 17. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of her submission has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i). Litta Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2015) 15 SCC 327 (ii). Mahiram Bora vs. State of Assam, reported in 1993 2 GLR 79. 18. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the records. 19. It transpires that the case was initially registered for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, upon completion of investigation and on appreciation of the materials collected during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 19. It transpires that the case was initially registered for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, upon completion of investigation and on appreciation of the materials collected during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, charge was framed against the appellant on 12.11.2018 by the learned Trial Court. 20. Section 304 Part II, IPC, 1860, provides that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both if the act is done, with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such, bodily injury as is likely to cause death. To make out an offence, under Section 304 Part II, the prosecution has to prove the death of person in question and such death was caused by the act of accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. Before an accused is held guilty and punished under Part I or Part II of Section 304, death must have been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in the exceptions to Section 300. 21. To appreciate, it would be apposite to examine the evidence adduced by the PWs and are accordingly considered. 22. PW-1, Shri Kaling Saroh, is the son of the deceased and the accused is his paternal uncle. He had deposed that on the night of the incident, the accused had been with his father at their house and had thereafter returned to his own house. While he was at his own house along with some of his friends, he heard hue and cry coming from the house of the accused, which was situated at a distance of about 40 metres from his house. On hearing the same, he along with his friends rushed to the house of the accused and found his father lying unconscious. The accused had informed him that there had been an altercation between him and the deceased and during a push and pull, the deceased had sustained injuries and had become unconscious. On hearing the same, he along with his friends rushed to the house of the accused and found his father lying unconscious. The accused had informed him that there had been an altercation between him and the deceased and during a push and pull, the deceased had sustained injuries and had become unconscious. He immediately arranged an auto-rickshaw and took his unconscious father to the General Hospital at Pasighat, where the Medical Officer declared him brought dead. He had deposed that he had not witnessed the occurrence himself. After about 3 to 4 days, the Officer-in- Charge of Pasighat Police Station came to the village and made enquiries and informed them that the incident ought to have been reported to the police. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged by him. In his cross-examination, PW-1 had stated that he had not witnessed the incident and the dead body was exhumed after 2 to 3 days and the examination thereof was conducted at the burial place itself. 23. PW-2, Shri Abuk Saroh, is the elder brother of the accused and the deceased was his paternal uncle. He had deposed that he had not witnessed the occurrence with his own eyes but had heard that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, on account of which the deceased had to be taken to the hospital. He deposed that the deceased was residing in the house of the accused. He later came to know that the deceased had died at the hospital. The villagers, in accordance with the custom prevailing in their community, buried the dead body on the same night. After about 2 to 3 days from the date of the incident, the police authorities came to the village and the dead body was exhumed for examination. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that as per the information gathered by him, the dead body was examined at the burial place itself. 24. PW-3, Shri Belem Dai, in relation, is the father-in-law of the accused. He had deposed that he had not been asked anything by the police regarding the case and that he did not know anything about the occurrence. 24. PW-3, Shri Belem Dai, in relation, is the father-in-law of the accused. He had deposed that he had not been asked anything by the police regarding the case and that he did not know anything about the occurrence. PW-3 was declared hostile.During his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW-3 had stated that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence as he was away at Mikong Village at the relevant point of time and was staying there with his son. He stated that he had heard about the death of the deceased but did not know the manner how he had died. He deposed that his daughter-in-law, namely, Portima Dai, who was taking care of him, had informed him about the occurrence. He admitted that he was told by his daughter-in-law that there had been a scuffle between the accused and the deceased for which the deceased died. 25. PW-4, Shri Kamin Darang, had deposed that he did not know anything about the case. Thus, not relevant. 26. PW-5, Shri Obyak Dai, had deposed that he had heard that the accused had a quarrel with his paternal uncle, the deceased. However, he had not witnessed the occurrence himself and heard that the occurrence had taken place at the house of the accused. He deposed that he had heard that the deceased had pushed the accused and while doing so, had fallen near the door and sustained injuries on his head. He deposed that he could not recollect from whom amongst the villagers he had heard about the occurrence. He deposed that the deceased had died and according to him, the death might have occurred due to the fall near the door. This witness was also declared hostile. During his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW-5 had stated that it was a fact that after the occurrence, the deceased had become unconscious and was thereafter taken to the hospital, where he died. It was also a fact that the dead body was brought back to the village and buried in accordance with their customary practices. He had stated that the accused had informed him that the deceased had first assaulted him and while attempting to assault him again, had lost balance and fallen on the wooden door lying near the verandah, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. 27. PW-6, Ms. He had stated that the accused had informed him that the deceased had first assaulted him and while attempting to assault him again, had lost balance and fallen on the wooden door lying near the verandah, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. 27. PW-6, Ms. Osi Saroh, who is the daughter of the accused, had deposed that at the relevant point of time, she was having her meal and had witnessed the occurrence with her own eyes. She deposed that her grandfather, the deceased, was under the influence of alcohol and had urinated on the verandah of the house, for which her father had scolded him. Upon being scolded, the deceased had pushed her father and while attempting to push him for the second time, had lost his balance and fell down. As a result he sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious. She had deposed that she poured water on him in an attempt to get him regain, but he did not regain consciousness. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital, but was brought back home dead.PW-6 further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police personnel, however, at that time she had stated that she did not know anything about the case. Upon being questioned by the Court as to why she had not disclosed the truth before the police, she deposed that she was frightened as her father had been taken into police custody after the occurrence. 28. PW-7, Shri John Modi, the Magistrate, had deposed that on 22.08.2014, upon requisition by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, he was directed to proceed to Berung Village along with SI Dingu for the purpose of exhumation of the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, he proceeded to Berung Village and reached the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried. At the spot, he found Dr. T. Riso and other persons present there. In their presence, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the burial place with the assistance of sanitation workers. He deposed that the dead body had already started decomposing and was emitting foul smell, although the body could still be moved. The police conducted the inquest and the doctor conducted the post-mortem examination over the exhumed dead body at the spot itself. He deposed that the dead body had already started decomposing and was emitting foul smell, although the body could still be moved. The police conducted the inquest and the doctor conducted the post-mortem examination over the exhumed dead body at the spot itself. Thereafter, upon completion of the post-mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to Shri Kaling Saroh in the presence of Tarin Saroh and Bolen Dai (Gaon Burah). 29. PW-8, Dr. T. Riso, the Medical Officer, had deposed that he conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Upon examination, he found that the body was of average build and was semi- decomposed, emitting foul smell at the time of exhumation and during the conduct of the post-mortem examination. He deposed that there was a bruise present on the right side of the maxillary bone area and bleeding was present through the nose. There was no mark of ligature on the neck. Upon examination of the cranium and spinal canal, he found presence of extra-dural and sub-duralhemorrhage (hematoma). The detailed description of injury revealed sub-dural hemorrhage. PW-8 opined that the cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage following blunt injury on the right side of the maxillary bone and that the said injury was sufficient to cause death of a person in a normal course. 30. PW-9, Shri Bisor Boje, the Investigating Officer, narrated the incident as disclosed in the FIR and investigating had deposed that the FIR disclosed that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries sustained due to the assault by the accused and that due to lack of awareness of the law, the matter was not immediately reported to the law-enforcing agency as the family had considered it to be a domestic matter.During interrogation, the accused disclosed that on 19.08.2014 at about 1900 hours, his step-father, namely Late Tabong Saroh, had returned home and had started urinating on the verandah. Upon seeing the same, he had scolded the deceased and asked him not to do so, as the verandahwould stink as people usually sit there during summer.The accused stated that thereafter, the deceased punched him on the chest, upon which he became angry and slapped the deceased on both cheeks, as a result of which the deceased became unconscious and fell down on the verandah. He deposed that the accused had stated that there was no mala fide intention to kill or harm the deceased and that the occurrence had taken place due to sudden provocation. PW-9 deposed that the accused admitted his guilt and accordingly, a requisition was made before the learned JMFC, Pasighat for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.PW-9 had deposed that the post-mortem report disclosed that the deceased had died due to cerebral hemorrhage caused by blunt injury to the head. Upon receipt of the confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and upon considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it appeared that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased and that the occurrence had taken place on sudden provocation. Accordingly, he found that an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was made out instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted charge-sheet accordingly. 31. PW-10, Mrs. Rosalind Pertin, is the Magistrate, who recorded the statement under section 164 Cr.PC. She had deposed that on 12.09.2014, she had recorded the confessional statement of the accused and in the said confessional statement, the accused had stated that on 19.08.2014 at about 7:00 p.m., his uncle (Pai), Tabong Saroh, had returned home and started urinating on the verandah (Tungu). Upon seeing the same, he had scolded him and asked him not to urinate on the veranda as it would stink and as during the summer season, people usually sit there. He further stated that thereafter, the deceased had punched him hard on his chest, upon which he became angry and slapped him twice. Thereafter, he had left the house and did not return home for a day and was not aware of the incidents that had taken place thereafter. 32. On a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, it is established that the accused/appellant slapped the deceased after being pushed by the deceased following a scolding for urinating on the verandah. The testimony of PW-6 corroborates the statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Sections 164 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 32. On a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, it is established that the accused/appellant slapped the deceased after being pushed by the deceased following a scolding for urinating on the verandah. The testimony of PW-6 corroborates the statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Sections 164 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The medical opinion of PW-8 and his evidence reflects that the deceased died due to cerebral haemorrhage resulting from a blunt injury on the right side of the maxillary bone, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. The testimonies of the PWs-1, 2, 3 and 5 are all hearsay. The testimony of PW- 4 is not relevant. The evidence of PWs- 7, 8, 9 and 10, who are Magistrates, IO and Medical Officer pertains to normal course of statutory actions including recording of statements, investigation culminating in chargesheet as well as medical opinion. The evidence of PW-8 establishesthat the cause of death was cerebral haemorrhage following blunt injury on the right side of the maxillary bone and that the said injury was sufficient to cause death of a person in a normal course. 33. There is no other evidence on record to establish that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused/appellant, as a mere act of slapping cannot be said to imply that the accused/appellant had knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death; further, the cause of death, namely cerebral haemorrhage resulting from a blunt injury to the maxillary bone, cannot, in the absence of other additional evidence, be attributed to the act of slapping alone. 34. The statement of the accused under Section 313, to the effect that he had no intention to kill the deceased and that the act occurred due to sudden provocation, cannot be construed as an admission of having caused the death of the deceased so as to attract the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, particularly in the absence of any corroborative evidence to establish that he committed an act which resulted in the death of the deceased. As noted hereinabove, the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses are hearsay in nature, as they have deposed only on the basis of what they had heard or were informed either by the accused/appellant or villagers. 35. As noted hereinabove, the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses are hearsay in nature, as they have deposed only on the basis of what they had heard or were informed either by the accused/appellant or villagers. 35. On perusal of the judgement impugned, it is seen that the learned Trial Court, surprisingly, recorded a finding that it would not be agreeable to accept the contention of the accused that the slap was of a very low degreeon the basis of medical evidence, observing that when a person is angry, it is not expected that he would deliver a low-degree slap; and on that premise, proceeded to presume that the degree of slap, coupled with the alleged push and pull, was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. It appears that the learned Trial Court failed to remind itself of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that, in a criminal proceeding, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted by extending the benefit of doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence reflects that the learned Trial Court has arrived at its findings on presumptions, conjectures and surmises, totally ignoring the evidence on record and has also failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, which would warrant punishment under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 36. On careful examination of the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is found that the appellant had denied that the deceased had died due to any assault committed by him upon the deceased. It also reflects that the appellant had stated that he had no intention to kill the deceased and that whatever had occurred was on account of sudden provocation. However, the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the said statement and contrary to the record, arrived at a finding that during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant had admitted to have caused the death of the deceased, albeit without any mala fide intention to kill him. 37. Now this Court would refer and consider some of the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. 38. 37. Now this Court would refer and consider some of the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. 38. In the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, the relevant paragraphs which are reproduced herein under: 32. It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra):- “163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 , this Court made the following observations : [SCC para 25, p. 820 : SCC (Cri) p. 1060] “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.”” 33. This Court, recently, in the case of Devi Lal (supra) observed thus:- “19. That apart, in the case of circumstantial evidence, two views are possible on the case of record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. All the judicially laid parameters, defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence, bring home the guilt of the accused on a criminal charge, we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution, in the case in hand, has failed to meet the same.” 39. In Litta Singh’s case (supra), there was no direct evidence and the prosecution relied upon a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., extra-judicial confession and other circumstances. The defence was that the act was done in self-defence. In Litta Singh’s case (supra), there was no direct evidence and the prosecution relied upon a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., extra-judicial confession and other circumstances. The defence was that the act was done in self-defence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied any criminal intent but admitted to the circumstances in which the occurrence took place. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence, though they may be taken into consideration while assessing guilt or innocence. It was further held that the crucial test is whether there was intention to cause death or knowledge that death was likely to occur. On appreciation of evidence, the Court found that the occurrence was sudden and without premeditation; though injuries sufficient to cause death were caused, there was no intention to kill, but knowledge could be attributed, bringing the case under Section 304 Part II IPC. Therefore, the said decision, relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the opinion of this Court, does not come to the aid of the prosecution in the facts of the present case. 40. In the present case, this Court is of the considered view that let alone establishing a chain of events which are so interwoven to each other leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has failed even to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW-6, the eye-witness, establishes that the deceased had pushed the accused, which is also consistent with the statements under Sections 164 and 313 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence to show that the accused had pushed the deceased, resulting in his falling down on the ground. 41. From the analysis of the evidence on record as scrutinized hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, acquitted of the charges. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2023 passed in Pasighat Sessions Case No. 06/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District is hereby set aside. 42. In the result, the criminal appeal stands allowed. However, no order for release is required to be passed as the appellant has already been released upon completion of the sentence. 43. 42. In the result, the criminal appeal stands allowed. However, no order for release is required to be passed as the appellant has already been released upon completion of the sentence. 43. This Court records its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the learned Legal Aid Counsel as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 44. Send down the TCR.