JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. A criminal action was set in motion by lodging first information by Smt. Lalthlamuani (P.W. 1) alleging that on 10.12.95 while she and her husband namely Zarzoliana was burning charcoal in their garden at Zawngsih area, the appellant came to the place between 9 am to 10 am with a gun and without any provocation shot at her husband at the back of his head and thereafter shot her also on the face and in the arm. It has also further been alleged that when she told her husband to escape, the Appellant again shot at her husband in around his face and again on his back, as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter the first informant fled away from the scene. The police on receipt of the said information registered BKN Police Station case No. 528/95 under Section 397 / 302 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the Appellant and thereafter on being committed charge under Section 302 / 307 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act was framed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Aizawl. 2. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused Appellant examined as many 17(seventeen) witnesses including the first informant namely Smt. Lalthlamuani, the wife of the deceased, who saw the incident and who was also injured by the gunshot fired by the accused Appellant as well as the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the husband of the informant and also the doctor who treated the informant for the injury suffered by her. The learned trial court has also recorded a 'confessional statement' of the accused Appellant which was exhibited as exhibit P-9 during the course of trial and thereafter examined the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Aizawl vide judgment and Order dated 22.1.2004 recorded the finding of guilt against the Appellant under Section302 IPC and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to under go rigorous imprisonment for further one month. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant. 3. 2000/-, in default, to under go rigorous imprisonment for further one month. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant. 3. Under the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules for the Regulation of the Procedure of Officers Appointed to Administer Judice in the Lushai Hills 1937, (for short 1937 Rules) a sentence of imprisonment of seven years and upwards is subject to confirmation by the High Court for which the learned trial court is required to make a reference. Since no reference case has been placed before this Court, for confirmation of the sentence of imprisonment for life passed in the instant case, at the time of hearing of this appeal, this Court vide order dated 16.5.2005 directed the Registry to ascertain as to whether any reference for the confirmation of the judgment of conviction and sentence has been made to this Court as provided under the said provision of law. It appears from the office note dated 16.9.2005 that no such reference for confirmation of judgment of conviction and sentence has been made by the trial court. Therefore, this Court has proceeded to hear the criminal appeal filed by the convict, from the jail, against the aforesaid judgment and conviction. 4. We have heard Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel appointed as defence counsel by this Court and also Miss Diriari T. Azyu, learned public prosecutor, State of Mizoram. 5. Mr. Raju, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence alleged to have been committed by the Appellant except the P.W. 1 namely Smt. Lalthamuani, wife of the deceased and she being related and most interested witness, no conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the said witness, without there being any corroboration from other witnesses. According to the learned Counsel, the so called 'confessional statement' alleged to have been made by the Appellant cannot also be the basis for conviction as the same was not recorded as required under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and also as the same was not voluntary, in view of the fact that the Appellant was compelled to make such statement by the police. The learned Amicus Curiae has therefore, submitted that the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court needs to be interfered with and accused may be set at liberty by setting aside the said judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court. 6. Miss Dinari T. Azyu, learned public prosecutor, on the other hand, supporting the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court has submitted that the informant P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased who saw the occurrence has given vivid description of the occurrence and how the accused Appellant fired at her husband as well as at her, causing death of her husband. The further submission of the learned public prosecutor is that, as because the informant P.W. 1 is related to the deceased, her testimony cannot be brushed aside solely on the ground that she is an interested and related witness, as she was the only person present at time of occurrence and she was also injured because of the gunshot fired at her by the accused Appellant. Therefore, the conviction can be based on the solely testimony of such eyewitness. 7. Countering the argument put forward by the learned Amicus Curiae challenging the confessional statement, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the confessional statement was duly recorded as required under the law and the same being voluntary and truthful, the conviction can be based on such confessional statement made by the Appellant. Miss Dinari T. Azyu, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the testimony of informant P.W. 1 regarding injury cased on the person of the deceased by the Appellant has been corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. the postmortem report. Further, the injury report submitted by the doctor, who treated informant P.W. 1 has also supported the version of the said witness regarding the injury caused to her. The learned public prosecutor has also, placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 8, 9 and 10 namely, Zamlova, Lalrinpuia and Lalngura, submitted that the informant P.W. 1 on being inquired by the P.W. 9 has narrated the occurrence and P.W. 10 has categorically deposed that gun belonging to him was borrowed by the father of the accused Appellant, which was seized from the possession of the accused. The Learned public prosecutor therefore submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court may not be interfered with by this Court and the same may be confirmed as required under Rule 9 of 1937 Rules. 8. We have considered the submissions of Mr. George Raju, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Miss Dinari T. Azyu, learned public prosecutor and also perused the evidences on record, both oral and documentary. 9. P.W. 1, Smt. Lalthlamuani, the wife of the deceased, in categorical term has stated that on 10.12.95 while she went with her husband to Zawngsih, which is about 3 Kms. away from Seling to make a Charcoal, the accused appeared from behind and without any provocation shot at her husband with SBBL gun carried by him on the back side of the head and when asked why he shot at her husband the accused did not give any reply. The said witness has further deposed that out of fear she took out 'Dao', (sharp cutting weapon) approached towards the accused and then accused again fired a shot at her hitting on the left hand and also on face and thereafter the accused fired another shot to her husband on his face and thought she tried to carry her husband to a safe place, the accused again appeared and shot on his waist. Her husband, thereafter, told her to flee away from the scene and hence she ran away towards the village. Though the said witness was cross examined by the defence counsel on behalf of the accused, she has during cross examination reiterated that the accused shot at her husband from behind on the back of the head and thereafter shot at her and then again on her husband from the front by double barrel shot gun carried by him. During cross-examination no contradiction could be brought out by the defence rather, the witness has confirmed "her statement made during examination-in-chief. The accused Appellant could not also discredit the witness. The P.W. 8 Sri Zamlova and P.W. 9 Sri Lalrinpuia in their deposition have stated that they met the informant P.W. 1, while she was coming out from the jungle running and saw injury in her hand and upon inquiry she narrated the incident. The accused Appellant could not also discredit the witness. The P.W. 8 Sri Zamlova and P.W. 9 Sri Lalrinpuia in their deposition have stated that they met the informant P.W. 1, while she was coming out from the jungle running and saw injury in her hand and upon inquiry she narrated the incident. The defence except putting a suggestion that the said witnesses did not see any injury on the body of the P.W. 1 did not put any other question to the said witnesses. 10. The injured P.W. 1 was treated by Dr. K.K. Chetri, who was examined as P.W. 13. The doctor has testified before the court that on 19.12.95 he operated P.W. 1 for the bullet wounds received by her and the pellets were removed from her left wrist as well as from her arm. He has further stated that another bullet wound was there on her left cheek but the bullet could not be removed as same was located in very sensitive part, for which sufficient equipments were not available in the Civil Hospital. The injury report submitted by the doctor found the injuries on the person of P.W. 1 and it was opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. Therefore, the ocular version of the P.W. 1 in so far as it relates to the injury caused to her has been duly corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 13 i.e. the doctor who treated the P.W. 1 as well as by the injury report submitted by him. 11. Dr. C. Zirliani conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: Sixteen small bullet injury mark found on the face. Out of which two reached the brain; six other on the rt. shoulder; a large bullet entrance wound of size 1 inch diameter found at the back of left loin which cause laceration of left kidney and spleen causing a great Haemorrhage. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to gunshot injury. The said doctor was examined as P.W. 14 who in his deposition has described the injury found on the body of the deceased. The defence during cross examination could not bring out any material contradiction so as to disbelieve the said witness. 12. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to gunshot injury. The said doctor was examined as P.W. 14 who in his deposition has described the injury found on the body of the deceased. The defence during cross examination could not bring out any material contradiction so as to disbelieve the said witness. 12. From the narration of the aforesaid facts and upon critical examination of the deposition of the abovesaid witnesses, it is therefore, evident that the version of P.W. 1 regarding the injury caused on the person of the deceased as well as on her by means of the SBBL gun has been corroborated by the medical evidences as well as by the evidences of P.W. 8 and 9. The death of the husband of the P.W. 1 because of the gunshot injury has not been disputed by the Appellant. Therefore, the fact of murder of the husband of the informant was proved. 13. The investigating officer was examined as P.W. 16. The evidence of other witness being hearsay, are not relevant, except the deposition of P.W. 11 and 12, who were the witness to the seizure memo and PW16, the case I.O. The defence could not bring out any contradiction in the statements of witnesses made before the police and before the Court. 14. The question now is whether the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the sole eyewitness to the occurrence namely P.W. 1 though, she is related witness but received injuries because of the gunshot fired at by the accused. 15. As discussed above, P.W. 1 has made categorical statement regarding the gunshot fired at by the accused Appellant on her husband as well as on her. P.W. 1 has also stated in her evidence that without any provocation, the accused Appellant fired at on the back side of the head of her husband coming from behind and thereafter twice shot at him. Naturally the informant who is wife of the deceased will try to resist the accused with a view to save her husband, for which she took out the 'Dao' and proceeded towards the accused Appellant, when he again fired at her. Naturally the informant who is wife of the deceased will try to resist the accused with a view to save her husband, for which she took out the 'Dao' and proceeded towards the accused Appellant, when he again fired at her. The said action of the Appellant cannot be treated to be an action in exercise of his right of self defence, as the said benefit will not be available to him in view of the categorical statement of P.W. 1 that the accused Appellant fired at her husband on the back side of his head without any provocation and from behind and it was not the deceased who tried to resist with 'Dao'. It is evident from the cross examination of P.W. 1, the informant, that the defence wanted to take the plea of insanity. The defence also examined two defence witnesses namely Sri Rinmawia and Sri V.L. Nunmawia as D.W. 1 and 2 in support of his plea of insanity. D.W. 1, in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused is his bosom friend and at times he find him very peculiar in his mental position. During cross-examination, said witness has deposed that on the date of occurrence he did not see any peculiarity in his mental disposition and he was not abnormal but very normal. D.W. 2, who is also a friend of the accused Appellant, has deposed before the court that he heard from the other persons that the accused used to go out in the jungle in the night having nothing to do in particular and from this he could gather that he was mentally abnormal at times. During cross examination this witness has stated that he never saw the accused to go into the jungle in night and admitted that he never told the accused's parent that the accused was abnormal and also never suggested them to take him to the doctor for medical examination for such abnormality. The witnesses examined by the accused Appellant in support of the plea of insanity did not support such plea. Moreover, the accused has failed to examine any doctor in support of his plea or also failed to produce medical certificate. Therefore, the plea of insanity taken by the accused could not at all be proved. The witnesses examined by the accused Appellant in support of the plea of insanity did not support such plea. Moreover, the accused has failed to examine any doctor in support of his plea or also failed to produce medical certificate. Therefore, the plea of insanity taken by the accused could not at all be proved. There is no evidence at all, even to suggest that the accused was insane at the time of commission of offence and even prior to or after the occurrence. 16. To establish that the acts done are not offences under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved clearly that, at the time of the commission of the acts, the Appellant, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of either knowing the nature of the act or that the acts were either morally wrong or contrary to law. The state of mind before and after the commission of offence is relevant, for establishing whether accused was labouring any incapacity. The general burden of proof that an accused is in a sound mind is upon the prosecution, which has duly been discharged by the prosecution in this case. On the other hand the accused has failed to prove the plea of insanity. 17. It is by now more or less well settled that the conviction under Section 302 can be based on the basis of the testimony of the sole eyewitness, even if, such eyewitness is a related and injured witness. As because an eyewitness is a related and injured witness his/her testimony cannot be discredited in the absence of strong reasons. In the instant case, as discussed above, P.W. 1, who was related and injured witness was the only person present at the place of Occurrence. The defence could not dislodge the said witness during cross-examination and also could not bring out any material contradiction. Her testimony was well supported by the testimony of the doctor as well as the injury report and the report of postmortem examination, apart from the testimony of P.W. 8 and 9. Therefore, there is no reason, not to speak of any strong reason, to discard the testimony of such witness, hence the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused Appellant on the testimony of P.W. 1 namely Smt. Lalthlamuani. Therefore, there is no reason, not to speak of any strong reason, to discard the testimony of such witness, hence the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused Appellant on the testimony of P.W. 1 namely Smt. Lalthlamuani. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused Appellant under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Coming to the question whether the confessional statement of the accused Appellant can be treated as voluntary so as to base the conviction, it is evident from the said statement recorded by the Magistrate that no time for reflection was given to the accused. Accused was not informed that in the event of not making any confessional statement he will not be remanded to the police custody, he was not informed that he is not bound to make a confession and in the event of making the same, it may be used as evidence against him. It also appears from the said 'confessional statement' that nothing has been mentioned when and at what time and from whose custody the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate for recording such statement. The learned Magistrate in a most perfunctory manner has recorded the said statement by giving a go-bye to the requirement of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without adhering to the requirement for recording confession under the said provision of law. Moreover, the accused in his statement under Section313 Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that as the police asked him to make confession, failing which he will be bitten up squarely, he made such statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that such statement was voluntary and hence the same cannot be treated as confessional statement for the purpose of basing conviction. However, as discussed above, the conviction under Section 302 IPC of the accused Appellant can be based on the testimony of the P.W. 1, even though the so called confessional statement cannot be treated as voluntary. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the accused Appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the accused Appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Hence the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed; the same being without any merit and the judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed. 20. Before parting we would like to observe that though we have upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence and confirmed the same, we are greatly disturbed by the age of the Appellant, who was just above 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, the appropriate Government, keeping in view the age of the Appellant and the purpose of convicting a person, may consider exercising its power under Section 433 Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. The fee for the learned Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs. 2,500/- 22. The Registry is directed to send down the records including a copy of the judgment to the learned trial court forthwith. Appeal dismissed