Amitava Roy, J.- Being aggrieved by the judgment and or­der dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei Ju­dicial District, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No. 139/2009 convicting him under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as the IPC) and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder as well as im­prisonment for two years as well as fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for another ten months for the offence under Sec­tion 201 IPC. 2. We have heard Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the respondent-State. 3. The records reveal that on a verbal in­formation made by one Shri Khuchauha with the Lawangthai Police Station on 18.10.99 alleging that one Shri Moturi and Shri Asazoma who had gone to Bangladesh for selling ani­mal hide had not returned as they had been assaulted to death by BNLF led by the ac­cused-appellant in the jungle near Dunzan-thang village, the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station Shri Lalramtana made prelimi­nary investigations and lodged a formal FIR on 03.11.99. On this, Lawangthai Police Sta­tion Case No.31/99 U/s.302/201/506/34 IPC, R/w Section 25(l-B)(a)/27A of the Arms Act was registered. On the completion of investigation, on 15.09.2000 a charge-sheet was laid against the accused-appellant U/s.201 IPC. This document revealed that in all eight witnesses had been interrogated in­cluding one Shri Puno Chandro @ Khuchauha and Dr. F. Vanlalthlamuana who had performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Moturi. 4. In course of the investigation, accord­ing to the prosecution, the confessional state­ment of the accused-appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded. 5. At the trial, charge was framed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC and the same being explained to him, he denied the correctness thereof. The prosecution thereafter, examined 5 witnesses. After the recording of the evidence of the wit­nesses for the prosecution, the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, in course of which he totally denied the charge levelled against him and also his alleged complicity in the offence. The learned trial Court however on a consid­eration of the materials on record, by the im­pugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as herein-above. 6. The learned trial Court however on a consid­eration of the materials on record, by the im­pugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as herein-above. 6. Before analysing the arguments ad­vanced on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to make a brief survey of the evi­dence on record. Admittedly Shri Puno Chandro @ Khuchuha on whose verbal in­formation the investigation was initiated has not been examined by the prosecution at the trial. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also not proved. 7. PW-2 Shri Deshoha, in his examina-tion-in-chief expressed ignorance about the identity of the person who allegedly had mur­dered Moturi and Asazoma. This witness stated on oath that he had been assaulted by the police to elicit what he had stated before it. The prosecution declared this witness to be hostile. In cross-examination, thereafter this witness deposed that Moturi was present at the time when one B. Sangtawna was mur­dered and that the accused-appellant was the assailant. According to him, as Moturi had the knowledge of this incident he was subse­quently murdered by BNLF. In cross-exami­nation this witness reiterated his ignorance about the involvement of the accused-appel­lant in the murder of Moturi and Asazoma. 8. PW Mr. T.H. Vanlalhruaia, who in the month of October, 1999 was the 2nd Officer-in-Charge of Lawngtlai Police Station had deposed that one Khuchuha on 18.10.99 had visited the police station and reported that Moturi and Asazoma, who had gone to Bangladesh to deal in animal skins had not returned and in fact had been beaten to death by BNLF led by the accused-appellant in the jungle near Dumzautlang village. This witness endorsed a preliminary enquiry and whereaf­ter a police case was registered on 03.11.99. In course of further investigation that followed, according to this witness, he arrested the ac­cused-appellant on 28.04.2000 who admit­ted before him of having committed the of­fence of murder of Moturi and Asazoma by beating them with bamboo sticks. This wit­ness also stated that on this disclosure made by the accused-appellant, in course of the in­vestigation he visited the place of occurrence and exhumed the dead bodies of the aforenamed two deceased persons in the presence of a Magistrate following which post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. F. Vanlalthlamuana on 20.05.2000. This witness also exhibited the inquest reports, Ext-2(a)(b) and Ext-2(c)(d) vis-a-vis the two dead bodies. F. Vanlalthlamuana on 20.05.2000. This witness also exhibited the inquest reports, Ext-2(a)(b) and Ext-2(c)(d) vis-a-vis the two dead bodies. According to him, he could not complete the investigation, as meanwhile he had been transferred to Champhai District. 9. PW Shri Lalramtana, S.I. of Police stated about the steps taken by him at the first instance on receiving the formal informa­tion about two dead bodies discovered at Dum/autlang village. He stated that though he took preliminary steps he did not conduct the investigation in full which was done by S.I. Vanlalhruaia. This witness stated that he was thereafter transferred from the said police sta­tion. In cross-examination this witness dis­closed that during his term of investigation, he did not come across any eye witness to the incident. 10. Dr. F. Vanlalthlamuana, who performed the post-mortem examination on Moturi, stated on oath that at the time of autopsy, this dead body was in decomposed state and skeletons only were in existence. This wit­ness opined that no obvious reason of death could be ascertained from the skeletons. He however mentioned about a fracture of the left temporal bone. According to him, the frac­ture might have been the cause of the death, as no other injury was ascertainable. In course of cross-examination this witness conceded that he could not ascertain as to whether the fracture in the left temporal bone was ante-mortem or post-mortem. 11. PW Ram Prakash, S.I. Lawngthlai Police Station completed the investigation otherwise conducted by S.I. Mr. ST. Vanlalhruaia and stated that on the basis of the materials collected, a charge-sheet was laid under Section 201IPC against the ac­cused-appellant. He proved the charge-sheet, Ext-P-VI. As referred to hereinabove, the records contained as well a confessional statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 12. Mr. Lalrinthanga has argued that in absence of any evidence worth the name es­tablishing a nexus between the accused-ap­pellant and the offence of which he had been charged, the impugned judgment and order is patently illegal and is liable to be interfered with. He asserted that the prosecution has totally failed even to establish the identity of the dead bodies and in absence of any sei­zure proving the complicity of the accused-appellant in the offence, the learned trial Court had erred in law and on facts in convicting and sentencing him. He asserted that the prosecution has totally failed even to establish the identity of the dead bodies and in absence of any sei­zure proving the complicity of the accused-appellant in the offence, the learned trial Court had erred in law and on facts in convicting and sentencing him. The learned counsel has also questioned the probative value of the so-called confessional statement of the accused-appellant in absence of any inculpatory state­ment involving him. According to him, the prosecution case is wholly unworthy of any credit and therefore the impugned judgment and order ought to be set aside. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor, in re­ply has submitted that a bare perusal of the statement of Puno Chandro @ Khuchauha recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C would prove the charge framed against accused-appellant to the hilt and thus the impugned judgment and order cannot be faulted with. While admitting that the prosecution had failed to examine this eye witness, the learned Pub­lic Prosecutor has contended that it is a fit case for remand the examination of this wit­ness in the interest of justice. She further ar­gued that a conjoint consideration of other materials on record even otherwise establish the charge against the accused-appellant and thus no interference with the impugned judg­ment and order is warranted. 14. We have carefully analysed the argu­ments advanced. To start with, the statement of the accused-appellant, whereby accord­ing to the prosecution he had confessed his guilt can by no means be considered to be a confessional statement contemplated in law. There is no averment therein whereby the accused-appellant had admitted either his guilt or his association with the offence with which he had been charged. This statement is thus of no utility for the prosecution case in sup­port of the charge. Admittedly, neither Shri Puno Chandro @ Khuchauha claimed to be an eye witness had been examined by the prosecution nor his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved in accordance with law. However, considering the insistence on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor, we have perused the said statement and are of the view that even if the same is accepted on its face value, it does not prove the charge framed against the accused-appellant by any conceivable standard. The prayer for remand, therefore is untenable. 15. However, considering the insistence on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor, we have perused the said statement and are of the view that even if the same is accepted on its face value, it does not prove the charge framed against the accused-appellant by any conceivable standard. The prayer for remand, therefore is untenable. 15. In the above factual premise it is per­missible to proceed on the basis that there is no eye witness to the incident. The evidence of PW-2 is of no relevance for the prosecu­tion vis-a-vis the charge. The testimony of the investigating officers though indicate amongst others of the factum discovery of the bodies, exhumation thereof and the conduct of post­mortem thereon, the same per se does not prove the culpability of the accused-appel­lant. The evidence of Dr. F. Vanlalthlamuana noticeably is confined to only the deceased Moturl and does not extend to Asazoma. The inquest reports though indicate the bodily state of the deceased persons, the same as well do not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Admittedly, no seizure has also been made by the investigating officer to establish an unmistakable link between the offence and the accused-appellant. 16. On a totality of the revelations as above from the evidence on record, we are con­strained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court in our opinion had fallen in error in the analysis of the evi­dence on record to return a finding to the contrary. There is no evidence cognizable in law to hold the accused-appellant guilty of the charge either under Section 3 02 or 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order is therefore set aside. The accused appellant is set at liberty forthwith. Since the accused-appellant is in custody, as on date, the Registry would take immediate steps for his release in terms of this decision. The appeal is thus allowed. No costs.