Sh. Isak Lalrinmawia vs The State Of Mizoram

Nelson Sailo, J

Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P for the State.

[2.] This is an appeal filed by the appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019, passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act Lunglei, district Lunglei by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and a default clause vide Sentence Order dated 25.02.2019.

[3.] The case of the prosecution in brief is that a telephonic information was received at Lunglei Police Station from Mr. H. Lalduhawma, Village Council President of Khawlek Village on 12.09.2016 at 08:30 am stating that two persons namely, Smt. Suii and her son Muanpuia were found dead in their house at Khawlek and the appellant who is the suspect was apprehended. Therefore, Sub-Inspector, Lalnuntluanga of Lunglei Police Station was directed to enquire into the matter. He on reaching the place of occurrence (PO) drew the sketch map of the PO, conducted inquest over the dead body of the two persons and forwarded the bodies to the Public Health Centre (PHC) Buarpui for Post Mortem Examination (PME) to ascertain the actual cause of death. From the PO, the wearing apparels of the deceased persons were seized in presence of reliable witnesses. The dead bodies were given back to their relative after PME for disposal as per the customary rites. The appellant was apprehended and he admitted his guilt and he stated that he kept the involved weapon i.e., knife near the house of Laisiama of New Khawlek along with his jeans which he had worn at the time of commission of the crime. The same were seized in presence of reliable witnesses. All available witnesses were examined and their statements recorded. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer having found the prima-facie case well established against the appellant under Section 302/376(2) (k) IPC submitted the charge-sheet. Charge was then framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial against the appellant commenced.

[4.] The prosecution during the trial examined 12 prosecution witnesses out of the 14 cited prosecution witnesses while the defense examined two defense witnesses. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and thereafter, he examined the two defense witnesses. After the defense evidence was over, the learned Trial Court heard the rival parties and consequently passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the order of sentence against the appellant in the manner as already stated earlier. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court through the instant appeal.

[5.] Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on extra-judicial confession and on circumstantial evidence. He submits that there were no eye witnesses to the alleged crime said to have been committed by the appellant and that his conviction is mainly based on the evidence led by PW-8 and PW-12. The learned counsel submits that PW Nos.2 and 3 are seizure witnesses who witnessed the seizure of the clothes of the victim. PW Nos. 4 and 5 are seizure witnesses of the jeans and knife allegedly belonging to the appellant. PW Nos. 6 and 7 are seizure witnesses of the under garments of the accused person/appellant. Referring to the deposition of PW-8, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that according to him the appellant at about 11:00 pm came to his house requesting him to lend him the motor-cycle. However, in his statements before the Police, PW-8 stated that the appellant had come to his house at about 01:15 am. In view of the inconsistency, the confession said to have been made by the appellant to PW-8 as stated by him in his evidence is not reliable and therefore cannot be the basis for his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

[6.] The learned Amicus Curiae submits that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which should undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. This apart, in a case based on circumstantial evidence where the prosecution also relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the Court has to examine the same with greater degree of care and caution. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the Court. However, the confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. In the case at hand, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are variations in the statements made by the PW-8 before and during the trial and therefore, it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the basis of the extra-judicial confession that he made before the PW-8. To support his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the case of Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) 3 SCC 565. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proving the case or establishing the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted from the charge.

[7.] Per-contra, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime by murdering two persons i.e., the wife and the minor son of the complainant. She submits that the complainant was away in the jungle to cut timber and in his absence, the appellant had taken advantage of the situation. She submits that the appellant was attracted to the wife of the complainant and on that fateful day he followed her to her house and when he could not succeed in his attempt to have sexual intercourse with her, he not only murdered her with the foldable knife that he was carrying but also her minor son who was only aged about 5 years. This fact has been clearly established from the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant himself before the PW-8 and PW-9. PW-9 is the doctor who had examined the appellant after he was arrested. That during his medical examination, the appellant told PW-9 that he had raped and assaulted the victim Suii. He said that he stabbed her and her son aged about 5 years on the night before the medical examination at around 12:00 midnight. PW-9 also found that there was laceration about 3 inches on the right hand of the appellant and he reported that the same was self-inflicted injury.

[8.] Similarly, PW-8 in his evidence stated that the appellant came to his house at about 11:00 pm requesting him to lend him the motor-cycle. PW-8 told him not to take too long and asked him to return the motor-cycle soon. After midnight, the appellant returned with the motor-cycle, and he was shivering and could not control himself. He stated that he had committed murder and PW-8 then woke up his father and they both enquired as to what had happened. The appellant had blood stains on his face and had a cut mark on the palm of his hand and stated that he had committed murder on Suii and her son but he did not inform the reason as to why he committed the murder.

[9.]The learned Addl. P.P submits that the examination-in-chief of the PW-8 and PW-9 has not been rebutted or falsified by the defense during the cross-examination and therefore, there is no reason as to why the same cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to establish their case. It is no doubt true that due care and caution has to be taken in a case based on extra-judicial confession or circumstantial evidence but in the present case there is consistency and corroboration in the evidence led by PW-8 and PW-9 and therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is sustainable and may not be interfered with by this Court. The learned Addl. P.P in support of her submission has relied upon the following authorities:

Anees Vs. State Government of NCT (2024) 15 SCC 48 and

Surender Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2750.

[10.] We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record including the TCR. In order to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and order and the order of sentence can be sustained or not, let us examine the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defense.

[11.] PW-1 is the complainant but it appears that his presence could not be secured and therefore, he was not examined. As was submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, PW Nos. 2 to 7 are basically seizure witnesses who witnessed the seizure of clothes of the victim, the jeans and knife and the under garments of the accused/appellant. As for PW-8 in his examination-in-chief he deposed that he resides at New Khawlek. On 11.09.2016, there was death in Buarpui Village due to drowning and he intended to go for night vigil. However, he was slightly intoxicated, he did not go and at about 11:00 pm, the appellant came to him requesting him to use his motor-cycle. He informed him not to take long time and to return the motor-cycle early. After midnight on 12.09.2016, the appellant returned with the motor-cycle and entered his house shivering, and he could not control himself. He stated that he committed murder and PW-8 therefore woke up his father and they both enquired as to what had happened. The appellant had blood stains on his face and cut mark on his palm. On the same night PW-8 stated that they informed their relatives and they stayed awake as they were afraid of the appellant. The appellant stated that he murdered Suii and her son but did not inform the reason for commission of the murder. On the next morning, they informed local YMA who restrained the appellant at NREGS hall. Thereafter they informed the family members of the appellant to summon and they tried to call the victim Suii by going to their house but there was no response. Therefore, they returned back to New Khawlek. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether the appellant had any ill intention against the victim or whether there was any altercation between them. He also stated that the character of the appellant was not in question in the village and he did not believe that he was capable of committing such offence.

[12.] PW-9 Dr. C. Lalhlimpuii, in her examination-in-chief deposed that on 12.09.2016 at around 11:05 PM she examined the appellant on the requisition made by the police. Before she examined him, the appellant stated that he had raped and assaulted the victim Suii. He stated that he stabbed Suii and her son who was 5 years of age on the previous night at around 12 midnight. According to him, he was under the influence of alcohol and stabbed the victim several times. PW-9 examined his external body and found no visible stain or injury. There was however laceration about 3 inches on the right hand of the appellant and he stated that it was a self inflicted injury. On examination of his genital parts, he found no signs of injury. The blood group of the appellant was examined and it was found to be A+. PW-9 exhibited the medical examination report and her signature as exhibit PV and PV (a) respectively. During cross-examination, PW-9 stated that she does not have direct knowledge about the incident except what the appellant had told her. She did not find blood stains on the clothes of the appellant since the incident happened on the previous night and the appellant had already changed his clothes. She did not find any incriminating material on his body except injury on his right hand.

[13.] PW-10 in his examination-in-chief stated that on 12.09.2016 he was posted at Buarpui PHC as Medical Officer and he received requisition for conducting PME on the deceased minor child and mother. He and the Police already went to South Khawlek where the bodies of the deceased persons were kept. He also saw the appellant at North Khawlek where he was detained by the public at the VC Court House. After he witnessed the appellant at the VC Court House, he left the premises. Thereafter, the police had entered and interrogated him and he allegedly revealed the place where he had kept his wearing apparels and also weapon allegedly used for committing the offence. Since the place was on the way to the residence of the deceased persons, he accompanied the police party where they recovered the wearing apparels and weapon from the house where the appellant had allegedly stayed. They thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence where the dead bodies of the deceased persons were kept and guarded by the local voluntary bodies from tampering. The house where the incident had happened was slightly isolated and below the main road. On entering the PO, he found the dead body of the deceased mother on the floor of the kitchen and that of the child on the floor of the bedroom. He proceeded to first conduct PME of the deceased mother where he found dried blood stains on the floor where she was lying. On examination of the deceased he found the following:

Cut incision wound on the neck at anterior position below the larynx measuring about 5x2 cm wide.

Incision wound on the chest anterior right position measuring about (10x7cm) above right breast (7x1cm) above left breast.

Incision wound on the forehead measuring about (8x1cm)

Incision wound measuring about (6x1cm) in the left armpit (axilla). After examination of the various wounds sustained by the deceased mother, in his opinion the cause of death was due to the incision injury on the throat which had cut the trachea and aortic artery causing excessive hemorrhage (bleeding). He also found mild abrasion on the labia majora of the deceased.

After conducting PME on the deceased child, his findings were:-

Incision injury on the neck.

Incision injury on the chest.

Incision injury on the back of the neck.

On examination of the deceased child in his opinion the cause of death was due to the cut injury on the neck which had severed the trachea and aortic artery.

[14.] PW-10 exhibited the medical examination report of deceased mother, his signature, the medical examination report of deceased child and his signature as Ext. P-VIII, P-VIII(a), P-IX and P-IX(a) respectively. PW-10 in his cross-examination stated that upon examination of the injuries he presumed that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp implement. He had conducted PME at the PO. He denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by the deceased persons were self inflicted.

[15.] PW-12 S.I. Lalnuntluanga in his examination-chief stated that he knows the accused who is present in the court. At the time when the incident happened, he was posted at Lunglei P/S. On 12.09.2016 in the morning they received information over mobile phone from H. Lalduhawma, VCP, Khawlek reporting that Suii and her son were found dead in their house. It was further reported that the suspect Isak Lalrinmawia had been detained inside the NREGS building by members of YMA. O/C, Lunglei P/S then directed him to conduct an enquiry. After having their morning meal, police party headed by him proceeded to Khawlek. At Buarpui they informed Dr. R. Lalsanglura about the incident and he accompanied them to Khawlek. The accused was kept inside NREGS building and on interrogation, he admitted his guilt and narrated how he had killed the victims. He recorded his statements and arrested him. On that fateful night it was raining and the accused was completely wet on his return to New Khawlek. His clothes was taken off and put outside the house and he worn the clothes of Lahmingsanga. He seized the clothes of the accused hanging outside the house of Pu Laisiama. There was a knife inside the pocket of the pant which was about palm length and he seized the same. Thereafter they proceeded to the P.O i.e., the house of Liancheuva, husband of the victim Vaitinsuii. The door and windows were locked and one point of the wall was dilapidated and by making a human hole, they entered into the house. Both the victims lay dead on the floor but in different room and they were covered with a lot of blood. The victim Suii was completely naked. There was cut injury on the throat of the victim Suii and also on her left arm, right shoulder and just above the left breast. There were cut injuries on the throat and back side of the victim boy. In the meantime Lancheuva husband of the victim Suii came home from the jungle where he went for sawing timbers. PW-12 seized the clothes of both the victims and PME was conducted on the dead bodies of the victims. PW-12 examined available witnesses and recorded their statements. On the night of the incident, the accused used the bike of Lalhmingsanga for going to S.Khawlek. After some time he came back trembling and shivering. He confessed before Lalhmingsanga that he had killed Suii and her son. Lalhmingsanga then informed the matter to their relative and they kept the accused in their house till the dawn. Thereafter, he was handed over to members of YMA. PW-12 in his investigation learnt that the accused had since long before a sexual desire of the victim Suii and he tried to find the opportunity to have sexual intercourse with her. On that fateful night he used the bike of Lalhmingsanga and went to the house of Suii. However, her son was present in the house which disturbed him. He was under the influence of liquor and was unable to control himself and committed the offence. PW-12 asked Liancheuva to file a FIR in his name. He was so shocked by the incident and could not speak properly and was weeping all the time. He thereafter submitted the FIR on 13.09.2016. PW-12 sent the wearing apparel of the appellant and the knife for examination. He also drew the sketch map of the P.O. Since the incident happened within the jurisdiction of Bunghmun P.S., the case record was transferred to Bunghmun Police Station for final investigation. PW-12 exhibited the wearing apparel of the victim Suii and the boy, the jeans pant of the appellant, his folding knife, seizure memo and signature, under pant of the appellant, seizure memos and signatures, Inquest Report and sketch map of P.O with signatures.

[16.] PW-12 in his cross-examination stated that the FSL examination result did not have a positive result against the appellant due to insufficiency of data. That when they reached New Khawlek the wearing apparels of the appellant was kept outside the house and that he did not seized the same from the appellant while he was wearing them. He denied the suggestion that the house of the victim was not isolated from the main road and that her husband had not gone to the jungle at the time of the incident. He stated that it was a fact that the door and window of the house of the victim were locked from inside and they entered into the house by making a hole at one point of the wall. The dead bodies were in a state of rigor mortis when they entered the house and saw them. Death seemed to have occurred about 8 hours before he reached the PO.

[17.] PW-13 in his examination-in-chief stated that although he was posted at Bunghmun Police Station and endorsed to take the investigation, he was sent for training and therefore, the case was endorsed to SI Rodingliana. He otherwise had received the PME report. In his cross-examination he stated that he was not acquainted with the appellant before the incident and to his knowledge, the appellant did not have previous criminal record.

[18.] PW-14 stated that he took charge of the case I/O from the earlier case I/O i.e. ASI R. Lalremliana. All investigation process have been carried out by his predecessor and he only submitted the final report and after finding a prima-facie case under Section 302/376 (2)(k) IPC, he submitted the charge-sheet. PW-14 exhibited the charge-sheet and his signature as Exhibit- P-IX and P-IX (a) respectively.

[19.] The appellant in his defense examined two defense witnesses. DW-1 Mr. K. Lalfakawma in his examination-in-chief deposed that the appellant was his cousin brother as he was the son of his aunt. He was residing at South Khawlek in a separate house and he knew the appellant since his childhood. He has no knowledge as to whether the appellant had any criminal case earlier. On the day of the alleged incident, it was raining heavily in the evening and he was informed by the friends of the appellant that the appellant had proceeded to New Khawlek on a motor cycle with Lalhmingsanga. He was not certain whether the appellant had returned on the same day and that he did not visit his residence. He did not believe that the appellant would be capable of committing the offence charged against him. In his cross-examination he stated that the appellant is habituated to drinking liquor occasionally.

[20.] DW-2 K. Lalchamrenga in his examination-in-chief stated that the appellant was his nephew since he was the son of his sister. He resided at South Khawlek in a separate house and he knows the appellant since his childhood. He did not have any knowledge as to whether he had any earlier criminal record or not. On the day of the alleged incident, he was informed by the friends of the appellant that the appellant had proceeded to New Khawlek on a motor cycle with another friend. He was not certain whether the appellant had returned on the same day and he did not visit his residence. He recalled the date of alleged incident since there was an Evangelical Crusade at South Khawlek. He did not believe that the appellant would be capable of committing the offence that he was charged with. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that he did not recollect whether it was raining on the day of the incident. The appellant occasionally was habituated to drinking liquor. He had heard from other people that the appellant had left New Khawlek on the date of the incident.

[21.] From a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, as well as the defense, it can be seen that there were no eye witnesses to the crime and the conviction is based on extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The Apex Court in a catena of decision has laid down the underline principles to be considered and fulfilled to have a conviction based on extra-judicial confession. The Apex Court in Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1995) Suppl 4 SCC 259 held that an extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstance, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. In Pakkirisamy Vs. State of T.N (1997) 8 SCC 158, the Apex Court held that it is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. Again in Kavita Vs. State of T.N.(1998) 6 SCC 108, the Apex Court held that there is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact that the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made.

[22.] The Apex Court in Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403 after referring to various earlier judgments and upon an in-depth analysis of judicial precedents, summed up the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. The same may be abstracted below for ready perusal:

[23.] Coming back to the present case, it may be seen that the appellant had made extra-judicial confession before PW-8. PW-8 stated that at about 11:00 PM the appellant came to him requesting him to use his motor-cycle and he allowed him to use the same after asking him to return the motor-cycle as soon as possible. The appellant thereafter returned with the motor-cycle and entered the house of PW-8 shivering and that he could not control himself. He stated that he committed murder and PW-8 then woke up his father and they both enquired as to what had happened. The appellant had blood stains on his face and cut mark on his palm. According to PW-8 the appellant stated that he murdered Suii and her son but did not inform the reason as to why he had murdered them. Similarly, the appellant on being examined by PW-9 on 12.09.2016 told her that he had raped and assaulted the victim Suii. He stated that he stabbed Suii and her son who was 5 years of age on the previous night at around 12:00 midnight. According to him, he was under influence of alcohol and he stabbed the victim several times. PW-9 then examined the external body of the appellant and found no visible stains or injury except for a laceration of about 3 inches on his right hand which the appellant said that it was self inflicted injury. On examination of his genital parts, he found no signs of injury. It may be seen that during the investigation, the following samples were collected:-

Liquid blood sample of the appellant.

Vaginal swab of the victim, Vaitinsuii.

Knife (blade-8cms, handle-9cms) with suspected bloodstains.

Liquid blood sample of the victim, Vaitinsuii.

Liquid blood sample of the victim, Vanlalmuanpuia.

Dried blood sample of the victim, Vaitinsuii.

Dried blood sample of the victim, Vanlalmuanpuia.

Jeans (blue color) of the accused with suspected blood stains.

Underwear (light blue color) of the accused with suspected blood stains.

Sweater (black color) of the victim, Vanlalmuanpuia with suspected blood stains.

T-Shirt (red color) of the victim, Vanlalmuanpuia with suspected blood stains.

Long pant(striped) of the victim, Vanlalmuanpuia of with suspected blood stains.

Long pant (black color) of the victim, Vaitinsuii with suspected blood stains.

Brazier (black color) of the victim, Vaitinsuii with suspected blood stains.

T-Shirt (striped) of the victim, Vaitinsuii with suspected blood stains.

Underwear (striped) of the victim, Vaitinsuii with suspected blood stains.

Slipper (blue color) of the victim, Vaitinsuii with suspected blood stains.

[24.] All the above samples/exhibits were received by the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory on 22.09.2016 and upon examination, no semen was detected in the undergarments of the victim Vaitinsuii and the blood samples of the victim Vaitinsuii were completely decomposed, traces of blood detected in the knife was insufficient for DNA profiling. Due to decomposition of the blood sample of the victim, non-detection of semen in the vaginal swab and underwear and insufficiency of blood sample in the knife, DNA profiling could not be generated and compared with the forwarded exhibits.

[25.] It may be noted that the incident was said to have happened on the night of 11.09.2016 and the samples for forensic examination had only been forwarded on 20.09.2016 and received by the Forensic Laboratory on 22.09.2016. Therefore, there could not be any findings that the deceased Vaitinsuii had been raped and that it was the appellant who had committed the murder with the knife and committed the crime of rape.

[26.] It may further be seen that according to PW-12 who was the case I/O, the door and windows of the house where the victim stayed were locked and that one point of the wall was dilapidated and by making a human hole and they entered the house from there. In his cross-examination, he also stated that it was a fact that the door and window of the victim were locked from inside and they entered the house from one point of wall by making a hole. It may therefore be seen that if the appellant had entered the house and committed rape and murder there is no explanation as to how the door and windows were locked from inside and how he went out of the house. However, during the time of interrogation, the appellant told the police that he went out of the house from the broken floor of the bathroom. The fact remains that such a statement was a statement made before the police and therefore not admissible in evidence.

[27.] Another aspect of the matter which may be noticed is that the appellant told PW-8 and his father that he had committed murder of Suii and her son but did not reveal as to how he had murdered them. The PW-9 in her deposition before the Trial Court stated that before she examined the appellant, he stated that he had raped and assaulted the victim Suii and that he had stabbed her and her son. It therefore would appear that there is some difference in the narration made by the appellant before PW-8 and PW-9. Again PW-10 who had conducted PME on the dead bodies of Suii and her son in his examination-in-chief stated that the appellant on interrogation allegedly revealed the place where he kept his wearing apparels and weapon used for committing the offence. When the weapon was recovered, some of his medical staffs were made seizure witnesses. However, PW-12, the case I.O. who claimed to have interrogated the appellant simply stated in his evidence that on interrogation, the appellant admitted his guilt and narrated how he had killed the victim.

[28.] PW-2 and PW-3 were the seizure witnesses who witnessed the seizure of several articles allegedly belonging to the victims. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated that he resides in South Khawlek and on 12.09.2016, the police came to South Khawlek in connection with the death of the victims. The police made seizure of several articles allegedly belonging to the victims and he was requested to stand as seizure witness for the articles. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he did not know from where the police had collected the seized articles. He was not informed as to whom the seized articles belongs to. Similarly PW-3 who is also the seizure witness of the articles and wearing apparels of the deceased persons in his cross-examination stated that he did not closely examine the wearing apparels of the victims and he did not know whether there was blood stains or not. Further, he did not know whether there was tearing in the clothes of the victims or not. As already noticed in the preceding paragraphs, apart from the statements of PW-8 and PW-9, there are no cogent materials to support the extra-judicial confession of the appellant. Even the forensic laboratory report has not revealed anything to implicate the appellant.

[29.] The Apex Court in Sahadevan (Supra) has held that the extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and it attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. It should also not suffer from material discrepancies and inherent probabilities. Importantly, such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. Such being the test required to secure a conviction on the basis of extra-judicial confession, the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 alone in our considered view are not sufficient. Suspicion no matter how strong cannot take the place of proof. The burden upon the prosecution is to establish and prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The same under the facts and circumstance of the case in our considered opinion has not been achieved by the prosecution. The impugned judgment and order therefore is found to be not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The appellant is directed to be released unless wanted in connection with any other case.

[30.] For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, the learned Amicus Curiae, he shall be paid the fee as prescribed by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. Registry shall return back the TCR to the Trial Court concerned.