ORDER B.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents vide the impugned judgment & order dated 9th August, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 2581/2009 (State of Mizoram v. Vanlalfela & 10 Ors.). 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13th November, 2009 at about 9:30 AM, the son of the first informant was shot dead by some unknown persons while he had gone to collect pig-fed. On receipt of the FIR, Kanhmun Police Station Case No. 23/2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 25(1-B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act. 3. In due course, investigation was carried out through the Special Investigation Team (SIT). During investigation, the following items were seized from the place of occurrence:- "(i) Leaflet suspected to be left behind at the scene of crime by the miscreants who committed this brutal crime calling themselves as members of Bru Revolutionary Union (BRU) and signed at the bottom by s/s W/O Mayaram, Hachhek Range Commander BNA. (ii) One red coloured T-Shirt of the deceased containing blood stain. (iii) One live ammunition. (iv) Piece of cotton cloth slightly burnt. (v) Small lead pellet." 4. According to the prosecution, the SIT finally succeeded in effecting arrest of the accused persons, who were suspected to be involved in the case. The respondents are the said suspected persons. One of the suspects, namely, Lalrinawma @ Robenjoy was discharged from the liability of the charge, as his involvement could not be ascertained. After submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court framed charge under the above Sections against the following accused persons:- "(1) Lalthankima s/o Krishno Reang of Khakchangpara, a notorious criminal who had escaped from Central Jail, Aizawl on 1.7.2009. (2) Panchay @ Washinapa of Khakchangpara. (3) Daju @ Khumpuipa of Khakchangpara. (4) Jitonjoy @ Tela of Asapara. (5) Thuiarai of Asapara. (6) Chibumohan @ Chibu of Khakchangpara. (7) Oiyah Rai also a local Bru inhabitants of Shantipur, Tripura located opposite to Bungthuam village and neighbouring village of Khakchangpra. (8) Vanlalfela, former SS/Lt., BNLF. (9) Chusorai, SS/Cpl.DHD. (10) Lalthazuala, former information Secy., BLFM. (11) Laldawngliana, Vice President, MBDPF. (12) Birsilia Reang (25) s/o Talmoni Reang. (13) Tamonjoy @ Kirpapa (29) s/o Gunorai. (14) Kaku Reang (22) s/o Birkundo of Kaisaku, North Tripura. (8) Vanlalfela, former SS/Lt., BNLF. (9) Chusorai, SS/Cpl.DHD. (10) Lalthazuala, former information Secy., BLFM. (11) Laldawngliana, Vice President, MBDPF. (12) Birsilia Reang (25) s/o Talmoni Reang. (13) Tamonjoy @ Kirpapa (29) s/o Gunorai. (14) Kaku Reang (22) s/o Birkundo of Kaisaku, North Tripura. (15) Malsawma @ Henry (35) @ Katihori of Adibasi North Tripura and (16) Debchoron (45) s/o Ranguna of Kaiskau North Tripura." Charges having been explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Trial started. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined 13(thirteen) witnesses and the defence examined none. The learned Trial Court in consideration of the evidence on record having acquitted the accused/respondents, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Mizoram. None has appeared on behalf of the accused persons. 7. Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, referring to the grounds urged in the appeal submits that it being a case of circumstantial evidence, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the said aspect of the matter towards convicting the accused/respondents instead of acquitting them. He submits that the accused/respondents being members of some unlawful organisation, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the circumstantial evidence appearing against them instead of holding it to be a case of no evidence. According to him, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the confessional statement allegedly made by some of the accused. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and have also perused the entire materials available on record. 9. So far as the purported confessional statements are concerned suffice is to say that the said statements are not in accordance with the procedure to be followed and laid down in Section 164 Cr.PC. The makers of the statements were never apprised of that they were not bound to make such confessional statements and that such statements might be used against them. The certificates which were required to be affixed at the food of the confessional statements as per the requirement of Section 164 Cr.PC was also not affixed and signed by the Magistrate recording the confessional statements. In such circumstances, no evidentiary value can be attached to the said purported confessional statements. 10. The certificates which were required to be affixed at the food of the confessional statements as per the requirement of Section 164 Cr.PC was also not affixed and signed by the Magistrate recording the confessional statements. In such circumstances, no evidentiary value can be attached to the said purported confessional statements. 10. So far as the prosecution witnesses are concerned, none of them could point out anything as to how the accused/respondents were involved in the crime. The learned Trial Court has discussed in detail the entire evidence including the oral testimonies of the PWs. 11. PW-1 is the father of the victim, who had lodged the FIR (Exhibit-P-1). He in his deposition admitted that he did not know who had killed his son. PW-2, who had gone to the place of occurrence, stated in his deposition about the seizure of the documents. This witness is only a seizure witness and did not say anything about the incident. PW-3 also had visited the place of occurrence. This witness is also a seizure witness. PW-4 in his deposition although said about hearing the gun shot but could not say as to who had fired at the victim. PWs-5 and 6 are the CID personnel, who in their deposition generally stated about the investigation that was carried out. PW-7 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination. PW-8 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who had submitted his report relating to the handwriting of the accused Thazuala. Although this witness in his deposition stated that the handwriting when compared with the 2(two) exhibits (leaflets), it was found to be the handwriting of the said accused but the prosecution did not examine the Magistrate in whose presence the handwriting of the said accused was allegedly obtained. PW-9 is the Inspector, who had arrested the accused Chusarai and Vanlalfela. P W-10 had arrested the accused Lalthazuala on the other hand, PW-11 had arrested another accused, namely, Birsila Reang. PW-12 is the witness in whose presence the accused Lalthazuala was arrested. Pw-13 is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who had filed the charge-sheet. 12. It was alleged that Lalthazuala had written the Exhibit-A (leaflet), which was recovered on the body of the victim. Exhibit-B is the handwriting of the said accused. These 2(two) exhibits were sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Pw-13 is the Additional Superintendent of Police, who had filed the charge-sheet. 12. It was alleged that Lalthazuala had written the Exhibit-A (leaflet), which was recovered on the body of the victim. Exhibit-B is the handwriting of the said accused. These 2(two) exhibits were sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-8 in his deposition referring to the report stated that the handwritings were similar. However, from the charge-sheet the learned Trial Court found that the note written in Bru dialect was translated into English by accused Lalthazuala and handed over to Late Lalthankima in the first week of November, 2009. It was rightly held by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge that even if the allegation is accepted to be correct, then also accused Lalthazuala could not be the person, who had put the Exhibit-A on the body of the victim because it was handed over to Late Lalthankima before the incident. 13. The learned Trial Court referring to the principles relating to conviction of the accused persons, requiring the prosecution to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, found that there is no direct evidence to implicate the accused/respondents warranting their conviction. 14. We have also considered the entire evidence on record. There is nothing to show that the death of the victim was caused by the accused persons; that there was an agreement among the accused to do the act of causing death of the victim and that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/27(1)AA of the Arms Act. Although Mr. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram has submitted that there is circumstantial evidence and the chain of reference is established towards convicting the accused/respondents, but from the materials on record, it is found that there is absolutely no manner of doubt that the prosecution failed to link the chain of circumstantial evidence so as to connect the accused persons with the offence allegedly committed by them. 15. Above being the position, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 9th August, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No.2581/2009. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed. 16. The Registry shall transmit the case records to the learned Courts below along with a copy of this judgment & order.