JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. A.K Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. 2. The present appeal is against Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No. 146/2009, wherein, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and another 2 years under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default S.I for a period of 1 month. The sentences are to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.05.2004, Smt. Paddha Sashi Chakma, W/o Nutan Kumar Chakma of Kamalanagar-II submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Chawngte Police Station to the effect that on 05.05.2004, at 2:30, am her husband Sh. Nutan Kumar Chakma, Vice Chairman, Planning & Development Committee, CADC was shot at their residential house with a gun for which he was immediately taken to Chawngte Civil Hospital and expired shortly thereafter. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge, Chawngte Police Station registered a criminal case vide Chawngte P.S. Case No. 4/2004 dated 05.05.2004 under Section 302/120(B) IPC read with 25(IB)(a)/27 Arms Act and duly investigated into. Investigation of the case was initially taken up by Inspector M.C. Dothuama O/C, Chawngte Police Station but subsequently the same was entrusted to S.K. Singh, SDPO, Chawngte vide S.P. Lawngtlai order No. SR-3/04/CWTE-PS(Murder)/33 dated 11.05.2004. During the course of investigation, the place of occurrence was visited and a sketch map was drawn. Many incriminating articles like pellets/bullets, gun powder, percussion caps, gun smoke stained cotton wads were recovered and seized. As many as 18 witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. The weapon of offence i.e. one local made SBML gun was also recovered and seized on being led by the two accused Sangkaraj Chakma and Surjya Kumar Chakma and pointed out by the accused Sangkaraj Chakma. The investigation found that the three accused persons entered into a secret agreement/conspiracy to kill Shri Nutan Kumar Chakma for wrongful political/material gains. The accused Miran Kumar Chakma motivated the appellant and co-accused Sankaraj Chakma with a promise to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and a job in the CADC if they killed the said Nutan Kumar Chakma, who was his arch political rival. The accused Miran Kumar Chakma motivated the appellant and co-accused Sankaraj Chakma with a promise to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and a job in the CADC if they killed the said Nutan Kumar Chakma, who was his arch political rival. Accused Sangkaraj Chakma and Surjya Kumar Chakma agreed to do the job and in furtherance of their common intention, accused Sangkaraj and Surjya Kumar Chakma shot Nutan Kumar Chakma with an unlicensed local made SEML gun at his residence on 5.5.04 at about 2:30 Am, as a result of which Nutan Kumar Chakma sustained serious gun-shot injuries for which he was immediately evacuated to CHC Chawngte, where he succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter. Hence, prima facie case u/s 302/120(B)/34 IPC was found against the accused persons. Charge under Section 302/120B IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act was framed against the appellant on 25.02.2005. 4. The Amicus Curiae submits that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident. He also submits that a perusal of the evidence adduced does not point towards the guilt of the appellant and that the evidence points to the fact that the present case is a fabricated case. The Amicus Curiae also submits that the prosecution witness No. 3, who is the seizure witness has given his evidence twice i.e. on 12.05.2005 and 15.07.2007. He submits that the evidence of P.W-3 in his deposition dated 13.07.2012 is an improvement to the earlier deposition made and the same cannot be allowed. 5. The appellant was arrested on 09.05.2004 while the co-convict Sangkaraj Chakma was arrested on 08.05.2004. However, the Crime Detail Form dated 05.05.2004 only reflects the name of the co-convict Sangkaraj Chakma as the person who fired the gun. The Amicus Curiae also submits that the evidence adduced shows that there was suspicion cast upon the appellant and co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma as they were seen leaving Kamalanagar, on the morning of 05.05.2004. The evidence adduced shows that the appellant and Sangkaraj were apparently full of fear while leaving Kamalanagar. 6. Mr. The Amicus Curiae also submits that the evidence adduced shows that there was suspicion cast upon the appellant and co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma as they were seen leaving Kamalanagar, on the morning of 05.05.2004. The evidence adduced shows that the appellant and Sangkaraj were apparently full of fear while leaving Kamalanagar. 6. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram submits that the appellant and co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma had earlier tried to kill the deceased on 04.05.2004 inasmuch, the appellant has answered "It is true", when asked the following question under 313 CrPC examination "That on the night of 04.05.2004 you and your co-accused tried to kill Nutan Kumar and shot at his house but you failed to kill. What do you say". The Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the witness shows that the appellant and the co-accused were seen hurriedly living Chawngte in the early morning of the fateful day and looked abnormally fearful. He also submits on the disclosure of the appellant, the local made gun used for killing the deceased was recovered from the jungle after being led by the accused persons. The Public Prosecutor thus submits that the above 2 points are sufficient to conclude that the appellant and the co-accused were guilty of the crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 7. We have heard the learned counsels. 8. There is no eyewitness to the killing of Nutan Kumar. The entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court has held that the recovered gun was hidden by the 2 (two) accused persons which included the appellant, due to the fact that the same was recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant. A perusal of the seizure memo dated 10.05.2004 shows that Indro Lal Chakma P.W-3 and Purno Kumar Chakma were seizure witnesses to the seizure of the locally made gun. The evidence of P.W-10 (seizure witness) is to the effect that he had signed the seizure memo in the Police Station and he did not know from which place the gun was recovered. The evidence of P.W-3 in his examination dated 12.05.2005 is to the effect that he had signed the seizure list in the Police Station. The evidence of P.W-10 (seizure witness) is to the effect that he had signed the seizure memo in the Police Station and he did not know from which place the gun was recovered. The evidence of P.W-3 in his examination dated 12.05.2005 is to the effect that he had signed the seizure list in the Police Station. However, on being recalled by the Trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C vide Order dated 04.05.2012, the P.W-3 was again examined by the Trial Court on 13.07.2012 in which he has stated that the accused had admitted to hiding the gun and on being led by the accused Sangkaraj Chakma, the Police recovered the local made gun from south western direction of the Power House. In the latter re-examination of the PW- 3, he has stated that the appellant and co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma had admitted that they were contacted by Hiran Kumar Chakma and were promised money if they could kill the deceased. 9. The evidence regarding the recovery of the gun does not show that the recovery of the gun was due to the disclosure of the appellant Surjya Kumar Chakma. PW-3 in his statement given to the Police at the time of investigation has stated the following: "On 5-5-04 around 8AM while I was at the residence of deceased Nutan Kumar Chakma of Kamalanagar-II O/C, Chawngte Police Station come to the residence of deceased Nutan Kumar and seized 3 pieces of cotton used to gun recovered infront of the house and 4 number of bullets inside the room of that house. The O/C, Chawngte P.S seized the same (noted above) on which I gave my signature on the body of seizure memo for witness. On examination he stated that, while the Police party left P.S. for Chawngte (L) where the offensive weapon has been concealed/hidden by the accused he along with Pu. P.K. Chakma accompany with Police party and in presence of there the offensive weapon local made arm recovered and seized by O/C, Chawngte Police Station and he gave his signature on the body of seizure memo for witness." From the above, it is seen that PW-3 has gone beyond his statement given to the Police at the time of giving evidence. PW-3 in his statement given to the Police has nowhere stated that the accused persons had disclosed where the gun was hidden and neither has he stated before the Police that the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma had led the Police to the hidden gun. In the case of State of Haryana v. Gurdial Singh reported in 1974 4 SCC 494 , the Apex Court has held that the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful when the version given by the witness in the Court is different from the statement made before the Police. In the present case, PW-3 did not make any mention in his evidence given on 12.05.2005 that the gun was recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant. However, in his latter evidence given on 13.07.2012, PW-3 has stated that the gun was recovered on being led by the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma. Though the prosecution case has improved due to the evidence given by PW-3 on 13.07.2012, the evidence given by the seizure witness P.W- 10 does not support the case of the prosecution as he did not see the recovery of the gun being made. 10. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty on the evidence of PW- 3 and PW-19. PW-19 is the S.I of Police. PW-19 gave evidence on 03.02.2011 and was also cross-examined. However, he was recalled by the Trial Court for re-examination and gave evidence again on 17.07.2012. In his evidence, PW- 19 has stated that the appellant and co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma led the Police party to the place where the gun was hidden. However, the evidence of the seizure witness PW-3 is to the effect that only co-accused Sangkaraj had led the Police party to the place where the gun had been hidden. The other seizure witness PW-10 had however stated that he did not know from where the gun was recovered. The contradictions in the evidence given by PW-3, PW-10 and PW-19, whose names are reflected in the seizure memo, in the recovery of the gun cast a long shadow on the veracity of the prosecution case as to whether the gun was recovered on the disclosure made by the appellant. In fact, the evidence of the seizure witnesses does not support the evidence of PW-19 that the gun was recovered at the instance of the appellant. In fact, the evidence of the seizure witnesses does not support the evidence of PW-19 that the gun was recovered at the instance of the appellant. In the case of Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal & Another reported in 2003 11 SCC 527, the Apex Court has held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 11. The Confessional statement of the appellant is not a confession as per Section 164 Cr.PC as the appellant has stated as follows : "Pu. Nutan Kumar Chakma (L), MDC was our relative. At the time of the death of Pu. Nutan Kumar Chakma I was at Jamersury. Moreover, Pu. Nutan Kumar Chakma, MDC was known to me. I am known to Pu. Hiran Kumar, MDC and we used to meet in the marketing day at Chawngte. I am not sure of the date but it was Sunday, at about 3:00 PM, I was interrogated by the Police and YCA at Jamusuri. I was interrogated by the Police and YCA. I was beaten a lot by the Police and YCA. I was then taken to Chawngte Police Station. On the way to Chawngte, YCA President Indralal told me to say that I did it according to the direction of Pu. Hiran Kumar, MDC. In Chawngte Police Station also I was severely beaten and Pu Indralal asked me say that Pu Hiran Kumar M.D.C hired me to murder Pu N.K. Chakma and Pu Hiran promised to pay me Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only. Since I could not withstand the pain because of the beating, I confessed that I murder Pu N.K. Chakma, according to the direction/instruction of Pu Hiran Kumar and further said that Pu Hiran Kumar promised me to pay me Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only. Thereafter, the Police stopped beating me. Since I could not withstand the pain because of the beating, I confessed that I murder Pu N.K. Chakma, according to the direction/instruction of Pu Hiran Kumar and further said that Pu Hiran Kumar promised me to pay me Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only. Thereafter, the Police stopped beating me. However, the truth is I did not murder Pu N.K. Chakma (L) M.D.C. nor Pu Hiran Kumar, M.D.C. instructed me to murder him." 12. The Crime Details Form made by the I/O on 05.05.2004 shows the sketch map of the place of occurrence. In the sketch map made on 05.05.2004, the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma is shown to be standing near the house of Sushil Bikhash Chakma while firing the gun. However, the arrest memo shows that the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma was arrested on 08.05.2004, while the appellant was arrested on 09.05.2004. As there was no eyewitness to the crime and as the gun was recovered only on 10.05.2004, as per the seizure memo (Ext. 4(5)), it does not stand to reason as to how the name of the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma could have been mentioned in the sketch map of the Crime Details Form made on 05.05.2004. 13. The FSL report with regard to the bullet (lead balls) and the gun etc. shows that test firing was done from the gun. The FSL report dated 24.06.2004 concludes as follows: "It is not possible to opined whether the lead ball is fired from this weapon or not. Furthermore, the origin of the lead ball cannot be found out." 14. In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2010 6 SCC 1 , the Apex Court has held that a vague opinion of an expert can neither be relied upon nor can be any basis to come to a conclusion. In the present case, the opinion of the expert in the FSL report is not conclusive and accordingly, no finding could have been arrived at to the effect that lead ball (bullet) that killed the deceased was fired from the gun recovered by the Police 15. In the present case, the opinion of the expert in the FSL report is not conclusive and accordingly, no finding could have been arrived at to the effect that lead ball (bullet) that killed the deceased was fired from the gun recovered by the Police 15. In respect of the statement made by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C examination wherein, he admitted that on the night of 04.05.2004, he and the co-accused had tried to kill the deceased by shooting him at his house but failed to kill him, the law is clear that no person can be convicted solely on the basis of a statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In any event, the event to which the appellant is said to have admitted, is with regard to an incident dated 04.05.2004, while the incident in the present case is with regard to the killing of the deceased on 05.05.2004. In the case of Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura reported in 2014 4 SCC 747 , the Apex Court has held that statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C, solely by themselves are not enough for conviction. Section 313 Cr.P.C statement can be used for corroboration along with other evidence for conviction. In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the appellant had committed the crime. 16. The prosecution case is to the effect that one Hiran Kumar Chakma had motivated the appellant and the co-accused Sangkaraj to kill the deceased with a promise to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only for the contract killing. However, the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Trial Court shows that Hiran Kumar Chakma was discharged by the Trial Court on 15.11.2007. With the discharge of Hiran Kumar Chakma, the very basis/motive for committing the crime by the appellant is lost. 17. In the present case, there is no evidence linking the appellant to the recovery of the gun. The confessional statement made by the appellant shows that the alleged confession was not voluntary but was made due to being tortured by the Police. There is no evidence to show that the Police had any knowledge or had suspected that the appellant had committed the crime prior to the arrest of the co-accused or the appellant. The confessional statement made by the appellant shows that the alleged confession was not voluntary but was made due to being tortured by the Police. There is no evidence to show that the Police had any knowledge or had suspected that the appellant had committed the crime prior to the arrest of the co-accused or the appellant. The appearance of the name of the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma in the sketch map of the Crime Details Form made by the I/O on 05.05.2004 seems to suggest that the case is fabricated as the co-accused Sangkaraj Chakma was arrested by the Police only on 08.05.2004, while the appellant was arrested on 09.05.2004. The FSL report also does not prove that the bullet that killed the deceased was fired from the gun recovered by the Police. We also do not find any connection linking the appellant with the recovered gun and as such, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is not proved. 18. The present case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. In the case of Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal reported in 2015 11SCC 178, the Apex Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court must adopt a very cautious approach and should record conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete and pointing to the guilt of the accused. All the links forming a complete chain must be firmly established by the prosecution. Each link taken separately may just suggest suspicion but such suspicion itself may not take the place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused. All the circumstances must be firmly established and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. But that is not to say that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused, however far fetched it may be. 19. In the present case, all the links do not form a complete chain due to the reasons stated above. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. The chain of events has not been established, clearly and completely to rule out reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the appellant. In view of the above, the circumstantial evidence sought to be established against the appellant does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had committed murder of the deceased. 20. The chain of events has not been established, clearly and completely to rule out reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the appellant. In view of the above, the circumstantial evidence sought to be established against the appellant does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had committed murder of the deceased. 20. In view of the reasons stated above, we find that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27, Arms Act, 1959 not having been proved, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the Sessions Court, Lunglei in Crl.Tr No. 146/2009 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 is set aside. The appellant should be released from jail forthwith. Send back the LCR.