IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that circumstantial evidence, when unbroken and corroborated by confession, can lead to a conviction for murder, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 28.08.2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District in Crl. Tr. No. 426/2017 (arising out of Darlawn PS Case No. 24/2016). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) u/s 302 of IPC, in default, R.I. for another 3(three) months.

2. The case involves the death of one Zobela (Kanchha) which has been alleged to be caused by the appellant, who is his son.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR on 02.11.2016 by the PW.1, who is the grandfather of the appellant and father of the deceased. It has been stated that on the night of 01.11.2016, between 10:00 to 11:00 PM, the appellant had beaten / tortured the deceased to death. It was further stated that the appellant was an extremely bad person and tends to create problem in the family as well as in the society. Based on the aforesaid information, the case was registered and investigation was made leading to filing of the Charge Sheet. The charges were accordingly framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, which he had pleaded not guilty and accordingly the trial had begun. The prosecution had adduced evidence through six nos. of witnesses and there was also a Court witness, who is the mother of the appellant.

4. PW.1, who is the informant, had stated that on 02.11.2016, at about 1:00 AM, he had received telephonic information regarding the incident, which had occurred on 01.11.2016, between 10-11 PM. He had accordingly come to the residence of the deceased in the next morning after sunrise and thereafter had lodged the FIR. In the cross-examination, he had candidly admitted that he was not an eye-witness and that, there was no confession made in his presence by the appellant.

5. PW.2 is a person who stays in the same locality. He had stated that on 01.11.2016, at about 10:00 PM, while he was sleeping, the mother of the appellant had knocked their door and had informed that the deceased was lying on the floor motionless and the appellant was watching television without bothering his father. He had accordingly rushed to the house of the appellant and on opening the main door, he saw the appellant watching television and the deceased on the floor. He had also deposed that on entering the house, he saw blood scattered around and utensils were also scattered. He also deposed that he saw 20 pieces of broken firewood and when he had touched the body of the victim, it was cold and not breathing and he had realized that the deceased had already died. He had also deposed that on being asked, the appellant had held the deceased by his neck, lifted and dropped and the deceased did not move at all. He also deposed that the appellant had tried to run away but he had grabbed him by his arm. He also states that the appellant had told him that he had ended the life of his father. PW2 was also an inquest report. In his cross-examination, however, he had deposed that the appellant was well known to him and prior to the aforesaid incident, he never knew of any abnormal or barbaric behavior shown by the appellant to anybody with the intention to cause injury.

6. PW.3 is the Doctor who had not only done the post mortem on the body of the deceased but had also examined the appellant so far as his condition to be kept in custody after his arrest was concerned. In the Post Mortem report which has been proved as Exhibit P5, the opinion has been given that the cause of death is due to vertebral (cervical : atlanto-axial) and spinal cord injury caused by sudden hyperextension of the neck leading to sudden death.

7. PW.4 is the ASI of Police who had conducted the inquest. The said Inquest Report was proved as Exhibit P3. In his cross-examination, however, he had brought in the aspect of sudden provocation which may lead to the incident. He had also admit