The victim's identification and corroboration of the confession were sufficient to establish guilt, and the absence of Test Identification Parade did not vitiate the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions case No.218/2013(YPA), by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 and 201 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 326 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months under Section 201 IPC.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Shri Tana Tayo lodged an F.I.R. on 31.03.2013 at 1550 hours, which was to the effect that on 31.03.2013 at about 1;00 pm, his son Tana Martin''s right hand was chopped off by one unidentified person, who was riding a red coloured Pulsar bike bearing registration No. AR-01-D-9325. On the basis of the F.I.R., Doimukh P.S. Case No. 14/2013 under Section 326/307 IPC was registered. Prior to the submission of the written F.I.R., a telephonic information was also received by the Doimukh Police Station that on 31.03.2013, one unknown person in a red Pulsar bike fled away after chopping off the hand of a boy. Investigation was initiated and search was conducted and the said red Pulsar bike was recovered from the road side of the RGU Catholic Church on 31.03.2013.

3. Investigation revealed that the red Pulsar bike belonged to one Shri Hura Nyakum, who was the cousin of the appellant and that the bike had been used by the appellant. The investigation further revealed that the attack on the victim Tana Martin had been carried out by the appellant as a revenge act, due to Tana Martin and a group of friends having beaten the appellant in the previous year. The appellant thereafter, confessed to his crime before the Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class on 25.07.2013 and the Investigating Officer having found sufficient evidence against the appellant, filed the Charge-sheet under Section 307/326 IPC on 09.08.2013. Charge under Section 326/307 IPC was framed against the appellant on 13.05.2014, wherein, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the evidence of 9(nine) prosecution witnesses were adduced, along with one defence witness, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, convicted the appellant under Section 326/201 IPC and sentenced him as stated earlier.

4. The appellant being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal and challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that there were no eye witnesses to the crime committed upon Tana Martin. Secondly, evidence given by Tana Martin (PW-I), does not prove that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. Thirdly, the appellant having retracted his confessional statement while giving his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the confessional statement made by the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class on 25.07.2013, was not admissible as evidence. Fourthly, no Test Identification Parade (TIP), was conducted by the Police, prior to PW-1 giving his evidence, to prove that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. Fifthly, no legal aid counsel was provided to the appellant, prior to the confession being made by the appellant, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Magistrate recording the confessional statement of the appellant had given only half an hour time for reflection, which was not sufficient. Accordingly, the confessional statement could not be relied upon, for the purpose of convicting the appellant. In addition to the above grounds given for challenging the impugned judgement, the appellant''s counsel has in the alternative prayed for reducing the sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the event this Court upholds the findings of the Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that