JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 6th February, 2012 of the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Aizawl passed in Criminal Trial No. 227/2009 (Reference Bairabi P.S. Case No. 13/2009 under Sections 392/302/34 IPC) (S.R. No.8/2010) (State of Mizoram v. Milan Riang & Ors.). By the said judgment, the 3 (three) appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/392/34 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and in default, they are to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 10(ten) years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for further 6(six) months under Section 392 IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 2nd July, 2009 between 5:00 to 7:00 PM, the deceased persons, namely, Lalzuala @ Roben and his wife, Iialrammawii were brutally murdered by the accused/appellants in the particular place. In the FIR that was lodged on 3rd July, 2009 by the father of the deceased Lalzuala, it was stated that the deceased couple had proceeded towards Zodin after taking an amount of Rs. 92,700/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred) from Kolasib for their residence. The money was snatched away by the culprits, i.e. the accused/appellants, and they also killed them. 3. Based on the aforesaid FIR, Bairabi Police Station Case No. 13/2009 dated 10.7.2009 was registered under Sections 302/392/34 IPC. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants under Sections 302/392/34 IPC. Charges having been framed under the said Sections, trial started. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 13(thirteen) witnesses. The accused/appellants were also examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. Based on the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court having convicted the accused/appellants, as aforesaid, they have preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae along with Mrs. K. Lalramnghaki, learned counsel representing the accused/appellants. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record. 6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court towards disposal of the case was opposed to the principles underlying Criminal Trials. K. Lalramnghaki, learned counsel representing the accused/appellants. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record. 6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court towards disposal of the case was opposed to the principles underlying Criminal Trials. He submits that the confessional statements based on which the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed, cannot be said to be the confessional statements being opposed to the principles underlying confessional statements. In this connection, he has referred to the provisions of Section 164 Cr.PC and also the decisions in Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 21 ; S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 8 SCC 233; and Rabindra Kumar Pal v. Republic of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 490 . 7. As regards the purported examination of the accused/appellants under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., Mr. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the relevant questions were not put to the accused/appellants jeopardising their defence and virtually there was no examination of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In this connection also, he has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 15 SCC 216. 8. Referring to the provisions of Section 233 Cr.P.C., Mr. Malhotra further submits that since the accused/appellants were not acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., it was incumbent on the part of the learned Trial Court to call upon them to enter on the defence and adduced evidence in support of their defence. However, the learned Trial Court failed comply with the said mandatory provisions as a result of which, the defence of the accused/appellants got seriously jeopardized. In this connection, he has referred to 2(two) decisions of this Court in Lal Behari Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura reported in 1998 (4) GLT 220 and N. Pisak Singh v. State of Manipur reported in 2005 (4) GLT 720. 9. Referring to the records of the learned Trial Court, Mr. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the accused/appellants were not provided with adequate opportunity to advance their defence. He submits that by the time, accused Milan Riang was arrested, 6(six) prosecution witnesses were already examined. 10. On the other hand, Mr. 9. Referring to the records of the learned Trial Court, Mr. Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the accused/appellants were not provided with adequate opportunity to advance their defence. He submits that by the time, accused Milan Riang was arrested, 6(six) prosecution witnesses were already examined. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, countering the above argument submits that irrespective of minor discrepancies here and there in the procedural aspects of the matter in conducting the Trial by the learned Trial Court, there being overwhelming evidence including the confessional statements of the accused/appellants, the impugned judgment of conviction is required to be sustained. He submits that the accused/appellants themselves having confessed about commission of the crime coupled with the fact that they did not advance any explanation while recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., would go to show that the accused/appellants had committed the crime and accordingly, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants. 11. We have very carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the entire records. As will be evident from the materials on record and also indicated in the impugned judgment, there is no eye witness and the conviction of the accused/appellants is primarily on the basis of their confessional statements. In paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has extracted the purported confessional statements of all the three accused/appellants. 12. While convicting the accused/appellants, the learned Trial Court has also recorded the fact that out of 3 (three) accused/appellants, two, namely, Baireh Riang and Burdi Joy Riang had retracted from their purported confessional statements. However, the main accused, namely, Milan Riang, who is the accused/appellant No. 1, did not retract from his confessional statement. The learned Trial Court has also referred to the testimony of PW-3, who, in his deposition, stated about receiving the telephonic information from another person, who allegedly saw 3(three) persons chasing one person towards the jungle. Significantly this person was not cited by the prosecution as witness. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3, it is found that he in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see the accused persons robbing and murdering Lalzuala and his wife. He also stated that other two appellants, namely, accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3, were not known to him. 13. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3, it is found that he in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see the accused persons robbing and murdering Lalzuala and his wife. He also stated that other two appellants, namely, accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3, were not known to him. 13. As regards the other witnesses, their testimonies are not required to be discussed as none of them could point out anything against the accused/appellants. Since the entire conviction is based on the purported confessional statements of the accused/appellants, it will be appropriate to refer to the procedure that was adopted towards recording their confessional statements. The following 3 (three) questions were put to each one of the accusal/appellants towards recording the confessional statements:- "Q. Do you know that I am a magistrate? Ans:- Yes Q. Do you know that this C/S is a continuation of your case? Ans:- Yes Q. Do you know that this C/S must be of your own statement and must be answered truthfully? Ans:- Yes" 14. It is on the basis of the aforesaid questionnaires, the purported confessional statements of the accused/appellants were recorded. Significantly in the examination of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, they were put with similar kind of questions, which are reproduced below:- "Q. 1. From the evidence it is shown that on 6.9.2010 you were produced before the Magistrate, Kolasib and that you gave your confession willingly, is this true? Ans:- No. "Q.2. If so why did you confess? Ans:-1 was afraid that the police would beat me." 15. Above 2(two) questions were put to the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3. So far as the appellant No. 1 is concerned, he was put with the following questions:- "Q.l. From the evidence it is shown that on 6.9.2010 you were produced before the Magistrate, Kolasib and that you gave your confession willingly, is this true? Ans:- Yes. "Q.2. Did you confess voluntarily? Ans:- yes. "Q.3. In that case, is it true what you have said in your confessional statement? Ans:- Yes, it is true." It is on the basis of the above procedure, the confessional statements of the accused/appellants as well as their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 16. The aforesaid purported confessional statements of the accused/appellants were sought to be confirmed through the Magistrates who had recorded the confessional statements. Ans:- Yes, it is true." It is on the basis of the above procedure, the confessional statements of the accused/appellants as well as their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 16. The aforesaid purported confessional statements of the accused/appellants were sought to be confirmed through the Magistrates who had recorded the confessional statements. The said Magistrates were examined as PW-12 and PW-13. During their depositions, while referring to the confessionals statements they simply stated that the accused were produced before them and before recording their statements they were given three hours time for reflection and thereafter their statements were recorded after observing all formalities. It is to be seen as to whether the procedure required to be followed was complied with or not. 17. Section 164 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for recording confessional statements. Sub-Section (4) provides for recording of confessional statement in the manner provided in Section 281 and also affixing a certificate at the foot of the statement as follows:- "I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over-to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him." In the instant case, the above requirement was not followed inasmuch as no certificate was furnished by the recording Magistrates as will be evident from the record. 18. In Bhagwan Singh (supra), the Apex Court having found that the confession was not recorded in questions-and-answers form as prescribed in the criminal court rules held that the proper procedure was not followed. As in the instant case in the said case also, the accused had retracted from his confessional statement. 19. In Rabindra Kumar Pal (supra), the Apex Court laying down the principles, noted below, to be followed in recording the confessional statement found that the confessional statement tested in the touchstone of the said principles, was not recorded following the due procedure. "(i) The provisions of Section 164 CrPC must be complied with not only in form, but in essence. In Rabindra Kumar Pal (supra), the Apex Court laying down the principles, noted below, to be followed in recording the confessional statement found that the confessional statement tested in the touchstone of the said principles, was not recorded following the due procedure. "(i) The provisions of Section 164 CrPC must be complied with not only in form, but in essence. (ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution. (iii) A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he wants to make a statement which surely shall go against his interest in the trial. (iv) The maker should be granted sufficient time for reflection. (v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or pressure from the police in case he declines to make a confessional statement. (vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial confession." (vii) Non-compliance with Section 164 CrPC goes to the root of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence. (viii) During the time of reflection, the accused should be completely out of police influence. The judicial officer, who is entrusted with the duty of recording confession, must apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his conscience that the statement of the accused is not on account of any extraneous influence on him. (ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused, no police or police official shall be present in the open court. (x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence. (xi) Usually the court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement." 20. In S. Arul Raja (supra) also, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that a statement that does not prescribed to the procedure laid down under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not admissible as a confessional statements. 21. (xi) Usually the court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement." 20. In S. Arul Raja (supra) also, the Apex Court under similar circumstances held that a statement that does not prescribed to the procedure laid down under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not admissible as a confessional statements. 21. In Lal Behari Das (supra), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that non compliance of the provisions of Sections 232 and 233 Cr.P.C. had caused prejudice to the accused and accordingly, conviction and sentence was set aside. 22. In N. Pisak Singh (supra), also a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground of non compliance of the procedure laid down in Section 232 and 233 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that the procedure laid down in Section 233 in regard to entering upon defence was not followed. In fact, the accused/appellants were not appraised of their right to adduce defence on conclusion of the prosecution of evidence. 23. In Man Singh (supra), the Apex Court referring to the questions that were put to the accused/appellant while examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C. held that such recording of the statement was completely perfunctory and did not satisfy the tests laid down by the Apex Court. In the said case, the Apex Court was concerned with recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the necessity of providing of opportunity of explaining the incriminating circumstances. In the instant case also, we have noticed that the questions that were put to the accused/appellants in the form of examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the said questions, the appellants were not made known the circumstances appearing against them. They were not apprised of that they were not bound to make confessional statements and that such statement might be used against them. 24. Above being the position, the conviction of the accused/appellants solely on the basis of the confessional statements cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 6th February, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 227/2009 is liable to be interfered with, which we accordingly do. Consequently, the accused/appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 25. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 6th February, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 227/2009 is liable to be interfered with, which we accordingly do. Consequently, the accused/appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 25. While appreciating the services rendered by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned Amicus Curiae, it is hereby provided that he will be entitled to a hearing fee of Rs. 7,500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred), which shall be paid to him by the Legal Services Authority, State of Mizoram, upon production of a copy of this order, which the Registry shall furnish to him free of cost.