Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. This appeal is from jail and is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei, in Crl. T.R. No. 8/2011 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. P.W. 1 had lodged the Ejahar at about 7-45 P.M., on 12.09.2008, before the Vasei Police Station whereupon Vasei Police Station Case No. 6/2008 was registered. In the Ejahar, Ext. P-1, it was stated that at about 4-00 A.M., his Sequent guest, Baichiau, who was from Myanmar and a timber trader by profession, was stabbed to death by the accused/appellant, who is his fellowman, and that the accused fled away from the scene. P.W. 2 had started investigation and, at around 11-30 A.M., the accused had appeared in the police station and stated that he had stabbed the deceased. The knife (Material Ext.-1) was recovered at the instance of the accused and as the earlier Investigating Officer was transferred, on conclusion of investigation, P.W. 4 submitted the charge-sheet vide Ext.-5.

3. Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses and the defence examined no witness. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the learned trial Court, as noted earlier, convicted the accused/appellant vide the judgment under appeal.

4. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 is wholly not reliable. The evidence of the two Investigating Officers, P.W. 4 and P.W. 2, are also contradictory in material aspect of the case relating to seizure of the knife alleged to have been used by the accused. No seizure witnesses have been examined and, apart from P.W. 1, even though the materials on record disclose that statements of many other witnesses were recorded, but the same were withheld by the prosecution. Though in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement the accused/appellant had stated that he had stabbed the deceased, such statement cannot form the basis of conviction in absence of any credible evidence led by the prosecution. With regard to his contention that the evidence of P.W. 1, being the sole witness apart from official witnesses, has to be considered with great care and caution, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722.

5. Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. It is submitted by him that minor contradictions should not sway the Court to hold that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 is clinching and, therefore, reliance on the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration for the purpose of lending credence to the prosecution case and, in that view of the matter, the learned trial Court committed no illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant. In the aforesaid background of the evidence, when the accused had owned up the commission of the crime, no interference is called for with regard to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant, he submits.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.

7. P.W. 3, the doctor conducting postmortem examination, on the basis of the postmortem report exhibited as Ext.-P3, had opined that death was due to damage of lung and bleeding at right chest following sharp, pointed and penetrating wound at right chest There was no other external injury.

8. There is an agreement between the learned counsel for the parties that the word "fellowman", appearing