JUDGEMENT Baharul Islam J.:- Vanlallawama alias Lallawma was convicted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mizoram at Aizawl, exercising the powers of the Sessions Judge, under S.304 of the Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. He then made this reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence. 2. At an earlier state this Court felt that prima facie the conviction under S.304 did not appear to be proper and that there was possibility of conviction of the accused under S.302 I. P. C. and as such a rule for enhancement was issued. 3. The material facts of the case briefly are that on October 16, 1965, the accused stabbed a girl, Miss Januari, deceased, with a knife, while the latter was returning home after drawing water from the water point at village, Ratu. As a result, Miss Januari succumbed to the injuries. After the occurrence the accused fled the place. Subsequently, he was apprehended and produced before the Officer-in-charge of the Kolasib Police Station on the 20th of October, 1965, by some Members of the Village Defence party of North Chaltlang Village. A first information report had been lodged at Aizawl Police Station, but as the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of the Kolasib Police Station, it was sent to the latter Police Station where a case under S.302 was registered against the accused on 23-10-1965. On completion of the investigation into the case, charge sheet under S.302 was submitted against the accused. 4. Eventually the accused was charged under S.302 and was tried by the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising powers of the Sessions Judge. The accused pleaded not guilty. After the trial he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 5. For the conviction of the accused the prosecution relies on the following evidence: (1) The confessional statement of the accused Vanlallawma, proved as Ext. 3. (2) Extra Judicial confessions of the accused made before P.W. 1 and P.W. 4; (3) The evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. (4) Other circumstantial evidence. 6. Mrs. Sushan Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, submits that the confessional statement is not admissible as, according to her, the accused was not given adequate time for reflection. This contention of hers need not be considered inasmuch as we find that the confession made by the accused person as per Ex.3 is not supported by the medical evidence. Mrs. Sushan Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, submits that the confessional statement is not admissible as, according to her, the accused was not given adequate time for reflection. This contention of hers need not be considered inasmuch as we find that the confession made by the accused person as per Ex.3 is not supported by the medical evidence. While in the confessional statement the accused sltated that he had stabbed the deceased in her belly, the injuries found by the medical officer (P.W. 9) were on the chest, and as such, the confessional statement does not appear to be true and has to be ruled out of consideration. 7. P.W. 1 Shri Laihluna is a cultivator of village North Chaltlang under the Kolasib Police Station. His material evidence is that the accused met him and confessed before him that he had killed Miss Januari. According to him, the confession was made before him 2 days after the occurrence. P.W. 4 who is also a cultivator has stated that he knew the accused from before. He says that on receipt of a signal from Ratu for the arrest of the accused for murder, he along with others arrested the accused. The accused confessed before him that he had stabbed Januari, as a result of which she expired. These two witnesses were cross-examined, but nothing was brought out so as to render their evidence unacceptable. We do not have any reason to disbelieve P. Ws. 1 and 4 who have proved extra judicial confessions. In addition to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4, there is the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. Ws. 2 and 3 were the girls who accompanied the deceased while returning after drawing water at the relevant time. They were with Januari at the time of occurrence. According to their evidence P.W. 2, P.W.3 and the deceased were returning home in a row, P.W. 2 being at the front, P.W. 3 at the rear and the deceased being in the middle. The evidence of P.W. 3 is that, when they were proceeding, the accused appeared before them and asked the deceased if she had washed clothes. On being replied in the affirmative, she heard some sound of something falling down, and when she turned back, she saw the deceased running chased by accused with a knife in hand. The evidence of P.W. 3 is that, when they were proceeding, the accused appeared before them and asked the deceased if she had washed clothes. On being replied in the affirmative, she heard some sound of something falling down, and when she turned back, she saw the deceased running chased by accused with a knife in hand. The evidence of P.W. 2 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 3, who further deposes that the accused stabbed Januari in the middle of the breast and fled away. We also do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 is an eye-witness. 8. In addition to the above evidence there is still. some circumstantial evidence. The knife and shoes found near the deceased have been proved by P.W. 8 to be of the accused. In our opinion there is absolutely no doubt in our mind that it was the accused who killed the deceased Januari. 9. Mrs. Choudhury submits that the Medical evidence does prove murder. The evidence of Dr. R. Doliana P.W. 9 who held the post mortem examination, found the following injuries on the dead body of Miss Januari. Puncture wounds (1) 1"X½" Medical right nipple line (2) 1"X½" One inch dedial to No.1 (3) 1'X½" One inch to medial No.2 (4) 1"x½" One inch to medial No.3 (5) 1"x½" Outside left eye (8) 1"X½" Right middle finger on the second phalanx 1"X½" In his deposition, P.W. 9 has stated that he could not give his opinion as to whether the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem. But he rejected the defence suggestion that the deceased died as a result of fall. In an appropriate case on a consideration of the nature of the injuries and other relevant evidence, the Court can come to its own conclusion, if the medical evidence is deficient. (See AIR 1957 SC 474 : (1957 Cri LJ 591)). In the instant case although the Medical Officer could not give his opinion whether the injuries were ante mortem or post mortem, after considering the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, we do not have any doubt in our mind that these injuries were ante mortem and the death of the girl was due to the above injuries given by the accused. 10. 2 and 3, we do not have any doubt in our mind that these injuries were ante mortem and the death of the girl was due to the above injuries given by the accused. 10. The only other question that remains for consideration is whether the offence is one under Ss.304 or 302 of the Penal Code. The accused caused the injuries with a knife on the vital part of the deceased. He, therefore, shall be presumed to know that the consequence of the injuries would be death. In our opinion, therefore the offence committed was one under S.302 I.P.C. 11. Now with regard to the sentence Mr. K.K. Bezbaruah learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram, states that the accused was about 23 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. In view of his tender age, we propose to award him the lesser sentence. The accused is accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life. 12. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Answer accordingly.