Conviction cannot be based on suspicion alone, and circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J.

Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Singngaihsuta in Crl.A. No. 4/2023(J) and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Pausawmthanga in Crl.A. No. 5/2023(J) along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Both the criminal appeals are for setting aside the Judgment and order dated 16.06.2020 and the sentence order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Champhai in Sessions case No. 88 of 2016 A/o Crl. TR No. 818 of 2016 wherein the appellant Singngaihsuta in Crl.A No. 4/2022(J) was convicted under sections 302/354A/436/506IPC and the appellant Pausawmthanga in Crl.A No.5/2022(J) was convicted under sections 302/436/34 IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 800/-each, in default S.I for a period of 7 months. Since both the criminal appeals are arising out of the same Judgment and order they are considered together.

2. Brief facts of the case is that on 30.11.2015 at around 6:00 AM, Mrs. Haulamchingi, resident of Vengthar, Champhai, lodged a written First Information Report (FIR in short) with Champhai Police Station, to the effect that on Dt.29.11.2015at around 1:11 AM, while herself and her family members were asleep, their house was set on fire and engulfed in flames. Her daughter, namely Cindy Lunmuanzovi, aged 2 years, her son Alex Ngozazuan, aged 5 years of and her mother Mrs. Ngongaihluni, aged 65 years were burned to death instantaneously. The house and all their properties were also burnt to ashes. On the submission of the FIR, the Champhai Police registered a case vide CPI-PS Case No.188/2015 dated 30.11.2015 under Sections 302/436 IPC against Mr. Singngaihsuta (57) and his son Mr. Pausawmthanga (28), both residents of Vengthar, Champhai, Champhai District, Mizoram.

3. The Case I.O on investigation, found prima-facie case and submitted the charge sheet against both the accused appellants under Sections 302/436/34 IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed formal charge under Section 302/436/34 IPC against both the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to them in Mizo language they both well understood to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution cited as many as 14 witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses were examined, except PW No. 12, the medical doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of one of the victims/deceased, due his demise before deposing in the court. The case of the accused persons on examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C is of total denial. Thereafter, two defense witnesses were examined. The learned trial court after considering the evidence adduced and after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant, Mr. Singngaihsuta in Crl.A No. 4/2022(J) under Section 302/354A/436/506/34 IPC and convicted the appellant Mr. Pausawmthanga in Crl.A No. 5/2022(J) under Section 302/436/34 IPC sentencing both of them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.8000/-each, in default S.I. for 7 months. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this court for setting aside the Judgment and order of the learned trail court.

5. Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant Singngaihsuta in Crl. Appl. No.4/2023 (J), submits that at the time of consideration of charge on 26.06.2016, no charge under Section 354A/506 IPC was framed and he was not asked whether or not he pleaded guilty of the above charges and therefore, the learned Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant under Section 354A/506 IPC when no charge was framed under the said sections of law and there was no such evidence adduced against the appellant.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that when the appellant Singngaihsuta was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had denied his involvement in burning the house