Point of Law : Although, the statement made by an accused person under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the basis for his conviction but the fact remains that his admission for having attempted to commit suicide by consuming (Glycel) is also what he had stated in his confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC and further corroborated by the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 27.9.2018 filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and also the order of Sentence dated 10.10.2018, by which the appellant was convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, imprisonment for a period of three months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.09.2016, an FIR was received from Zosangvela (PW1) to the effect that in the morning of the same day, his sister Lalrinzovi who is the wife of the appellant was found dead in her residence. She sustained burn injuries all over her body and it was later learned that she was intentionally burnt by the appellant using kerosene oil on the night of 16.9.2016. Accordingly, Kawnpui PS Case No. 36/2016 dated 18.09.2016 under Section 302 IPC was registered and the case investigated into. During the course of investigation, the place of occurrence was visited and the statement of the complainant recorded. Certain materials for examination in a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) were also collected and sent. Consequently, the Investigating Officer having found a prima facie case against the appellant filed the chargesheet before the Court below and thereafter the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC by reading over and explaining to him the charge in a language known to him. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and accordingly, trial against the appellant commenced.

4. During the trial proceedings, the prosecution examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant while the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After the closure of the evidence of the parties, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC and thereafter, upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, the Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order against the appellant convicting and sentencing him in the manner as already stated herein above.

5. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the Investigating Agency conducted the investigation in a most perfunctory manner. Referring to the FIR filed by the complainant dated 18.09.2016, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the time of receiving the information is given as 4.30 pm whereas in the inquest report, the place and time given was Serkhan 1.30 am. He submits that this goes to show that even before the FIR was filed, the investigating agency already completed the inquest over the dead body of the victim. For this reason, Mr. Vanlalnghaka, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the version of the prosecution implicating the appellant to the alleged crime is rendered to be most unreliable. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the person who registered the FIR also turned out to be the Investigating Officer and therefore, even for this reason alone, the entire investigation is vitiated and the impugned Judgment and Order liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae by referring to the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer submits that as many as 10 different samples were drawn from the scene of the alleged crime and sent for FSL examination. But however, the FSL report prepared and sent on 28.09.2016 only contained reports on two biological exhibits. The result of the two biological exhibits only shows that semen was not detected from the stain marked as Exhibit-A and that Exhibit-B was found to be of blood group 'A'. He submits that this by itself is hardly sufficient to even implicate the appellant on the alleged crime let alone to convict him on the charge framed.

7. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, the learned Amicus Curiae by referring to the confessional state-ment m