The judgment emphasizes the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the need for corroboration of evidence, and the importance of following proper procedures in recording confessional statements and the sentencing process.

Judgment

1. These four criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2012 passed by Smti. I. Mawlong, MCS, learned Additional District Magistrate, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh in GR Case No. 128/2000 for convicting the appellants/accused for the offence under Sections 364/302/34IPC and sentence order dated 15.12.2011 for sentencing the appellants/accused maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

2. Heard Mr. N.M. Masuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. PP assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned PP for the State respondents.

3. Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial, in nutshell, is recapitulated hereunder. On 11.09.2000, a report was lodged by Smti. Leria Sancley (PW No. 3), wife of the deceased Elias Mawthoh to the Sordar Shnong, Umiong Jirang that on 11.09.2000, some persons whose identity were not known to her, came to her house while she was sleeping with her husband Elias Mawthoh and assaulted her husband and dragged him away to the unknown place. Though, she made an attempt to trace out the whereabouts of her husband Elias Mawthoh, she could not trace out her husband Elias Mawthoh and the assailants. On receipt of the said report, the Secretary and the Sordar of Umiong Jirang lodged an Ehajar on 12.09.2000 to the Officer-in-Charge, Police Outpost Patharkhmah and the Officer-in-Charge, Nongpoh Police Station registered an FIR being Nongpoh PS Case No. 86 (9) 2000 under Sections 364/302/34 IPC against the unknown persons on 15.09.2000. In the course of the investigation, the dead body of Elias Mawthoh (deceased) with multiple injuries was found lying in Umiong River near the place called Shlangblei. According to PW 6 Shri. W. Sumer, Investigating Officer, he came to know that the appellants/accused are the authors of the crime of committing the murder of (L) Mr. Elias Mawthoh only when the appellants/accused confessed to him that they jointly murdered Elias Mawthoh and thereafter, 13 accused persons including the appellants/accused were arrested. PW 6 Shri. W. Sumer also stated that the confessional statements of the accused persons were also recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge sheet had been filed against the 13 accused persons including the appellants/accused and they appeared for the trial of GR Case No. 128 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 364/302/34 IPC in the Court of Smti. I Mawlong, MCS, Additional District Magistrate, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence had come to the finding that the prosecution had proved the case of the prosecution only against the 11 accused persons i.e. the present appellants/accused of (i) Crl. Appeal No. 1/2012, (ii) Crl. Appeal No. 2/2012, (iii) Crl. Appeal No. 3/2012 and (iv) Crl. Appeal No. 4/2012 and another accused person, that the appellants/accused and another accused person had murdered the deceased Elias Mawthoh after kidnapping him vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012.

4. We have carefully analyzed and re-appreciated the statements of PWs and the exhibited documents vis-a-vis the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2012. We are not oblivious that this Court being the First Appellate Court has to discuss and re-appreciate the statement of PWs and exhibited documents, more particularly, in case we cannot persuade ourselves to concur the finding of the trial. Regarding this point, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramakanta Rai v. Madan Rai & Ors (2003) 12 SCC 395 wherein the Apex Court held that "when the appellate court concurs with the views of the trial court necessity for elaborately dealing with the various aspects may not always be necessary. But when a view contrary to that of the lower court is expressed, it is imperative that reasons therefor should be clearly indicated. There is no scope for any departure from these basic req