JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. The appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in terms of the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Session Case No. 54/2014 (Crl. Trial No. 878/2014), arising out of Ngopa P.S. Case No.08/2014 dated 11.05.2014 under section 302 IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was received by the Ngopa Police Station on 11.05.2014 at around 8:05 a.m stating that on the morning of 11.05.2014 at around 6:00 a.m., John Horo, the Caretaker of a Coffee garden located near village Hliappui was found with his throat sliced open, which was believed to be done by the accused Remsiama (respondent). John Horo thereafter succumbed to his injury on the way to PHC Kawlkulh. On the basis of the FIR filed, Ngopa P.S. Case No. 8/2014, under section 302 IPC, was registered and investigated into.

4. During the course of investigation, the alleged weapon (dao) which was allegedly used to slice the throat of the deceased John Horo was recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the respondent. As the deceased, prior to his death, and while being taking to the PHC Kawlkulh in the car of PW No.7 had apparently pointed to the house of the respondent, when asked who had sliced his throat, the respondent was arrested as he was suspected to be the perpetrator of the crime. After examining 12 prosecution witnesses and having a post mortem examination done on the body of the deceased, charge sheet was filed against the respondent. Thereafter, charge was framed against the respondent under section 302 IPC on 19.09.2014, wherein the respondent claimed that he was not guilty and claimed trial.

5. After 12 prosecution witnesses were examined and the respondent was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 03.03.2016, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent from the charge of section 302 IPC, vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2016, passed in Session Case No. 54/2014 (Crl. Trial No.878/2014).

6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent, the State has filed the present appeal.

7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that a perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses No. 7,8 & 9 clearly shows that the respondent had sliced the throat of the deceased with a dao, as the deceased had pointed to the house of the respondent when asked as to who had committed the said offence. The deceased had pointed to the house of the respondent at the time he was being taken to the Kawlkulh PHC, just prior to his death. Further the alleged weapon used in the crime was recovered from the house of the respondents elder brother, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the respondent on 11.05.2014 itself.

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the weapon (dao) had been borrowed by the respondent from PW-4, i,e., one Mr. F. Aitluanga, at around 11:00 P.M on 10.05.2014. The crime was committed at around 5:00 A.M on 11.05.2014 as per the sign language given by the deceased, wherein he showed 5 (five) fingers as the time when the offence took place, when he was found by PW-7, 8 & 9. The respondent was arrested on 11.05.2014 at around 2:20 P.M and it was on the basis of his Disclosure Statement made on 11.05.2014 that the weapon had been recovered from the house of the respondents elder brother. The Addl. Public Prosecutor accordingly submits that the recovery of the weapon on the basis of the information given by respondent was admissible as evidence and the respondent should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. In this regard, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raja Alias Rajinder vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 43 . The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor thus prays tha