JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant through the Central Jail authority, Aizawl against the Judgment and Order, dated 08.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl Tr. No. 271/2010 (corresponding to Saiha P.S. Case No. 95/2009, whereby he is convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 (five) months. 2. The prosecution case, at a nutshell, is that one Lalzikpuii, son of Biakkhuma, a resident of New Saiha West, lodged an F.I.R., on 02.12.2009, with the Officer-In-Charge, Saiha P.S. alleging that on that day at around 6:30 p.m., his paternal aunt's daughter, namely, Lalnunpari, aged about 48 years, was stabbed repeatedly to death by the accused/appellant. 3. Based on the above F.I.R., Saiha P.S. Case No. 95/2009 u/s. 302 IPC, dated 2.12.2009, was registered and the officer-in-charge endorsed the case to SI M.C. Zahmuaka for investigation. In course of investigation, SI M.C. Zahmuaka, the I.O., arrested the accused/appellant on his surrender at the Police Station along with the weapon of offence-one knife, prepared the inquest report on the dead body, seized the weapon of offence and other articles, examined witnesses, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence, sent the accused/appellant to get his confessional statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. recorded and on completion of investigation, SI Beihai Hlychho, based on the case diary prepared by the I.O., laid a charge-sheet u/s. 302 IPC against the accused/appellant. 4. After furnishing copy of documents as required u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused/appellant and consideration of the materials placed and further, hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, the learned trial court having found sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused/appellant framed charge u/s. 302 I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, while the defence cross-examined them. On closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused/appellant u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, while the defence cross-examined them. On closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused/appellant u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and declined to examine any witness in defence. Thereafter, the learned trial court on hearing the arguments of both the sides and appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated above. 5. The accused/appellant by his Memo of Appeal has assailed the above judgment and order of the learned trial court on the grounds, inter-alia, of his poor family condition, old age (stated to be aged about 81 years), various contradictions in evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thus, failed to appreciate the evidence from proper perspective. The accused/appellant has prayed to alter the offence u/s. 302 IPC to one 304 IPC so as to reduce the quantum of punishment awarded to him. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. I have gone through the entire evidence, oral and documentary, on record and the accused/appellant's explanations to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him, recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. 7. Section 299 IPC defines 'culpable homicide'. Section 300 IPC defines 'murder' and the exceptions to that Section illustrate the cases when the culpable homicide will not amount to 'murder'. "Intent" and 'knowledge" as the ingredients of Section 299 IPC postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. In other words, in the case of murder, the offender must have a positive intention or knowledge to cause death by way of inflicting injury, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. In the instant case, the F.I.R., dated 02.12.2009, vide Ext. P-II lodged by P.W. 3 Lalzikpuii revealed the allegation that on 02.12.2009 at around 6:30 p.m., the accused/appellant stabbed to death of his paternal aunt's daughter, namely, Lalnunpari, aged about 48 years by means of a knife. The circumstances responsible for the incident were, however, not disclosed. In her evidence, P.W. 3, the informant, supported the facts stated in the said F.I.R., as she was reported about the incident by the neighbours after sunset. The circumstances responsible for the incident were, however, not disclosed. In her evidence, P.W. 3, the informant, supported the facts stated in the said F.I.R., as she was reported about the incident by the neighbours after sunset. It may be mentioned that an F.I.R. filed u/s. 154 Cr.P.C., being not a substantive piece of evidence, need not contain the details of an incident as it is meant to set in motion the investigation by police into the reported cognizable offence. Considered thus, it is seen, Ext. P-II revealed commission of the alleged offence of murder by the accused/appellant filed by P.W. 3 Lalzikpuii, who did not witness the alleged occurrence, but acted on what was reported to her by the neighbours immediately after the occurrence, that took place after sunset in the winter month of December. Before the said F.I.R. was received, the evidence of P.W. 10 SI M.C. Zahmuaka, the I.O., shows that on 02.12.2009 at about 7:20 p.m., the accused/appellant accompanied by P. W-5 (his daughter) and P. W-4 appeared at Saiha P.S. and reported that he stabbed Lalnunpari. The accused/appellant also produced the knife, which he used in stabbing the victim. P.W. 4 J. David and P.W. 5 Lalkrosthangi thus corroborated this material piece of evidence of P.W. 10, the I.O. It is seen that on having received the information, P.W. 10, the I.O., launched investigation forthwith. The accused/appellant in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. admitted the fact of his surrender with the weapon of offence one knife at the Police Station and reporting of the incident to the police. Without going to the evidentiary value of the accused/appellant's surrender with weapon of offence at the police station, this relevant fact shows that the police swung into investigation forthwith, after the accused/appellant and P.Ws 4 and 5 reported the incident to the police immediately after the occurrence. 9. Turning to the evidence of the witnesses, who rushed to the place of occurrence immediately on having learnt about the occurrence, it is noticed that PW-2 Tharmawii, a neighboring shop-keeper, who heard the deceased nick-named 'Pari' shouting "he has stabbed me", although she was hesitant initially to go near her, when many neighboring people gathered at the spot, she went to the place and with the help of others shifted her to the Civil Hospital. However, Pari succumbed to her injuries, on her way to the hospital. 10. However, Pari succumbed to her injuries, on her way to the hospital. 10. The evidence of PW-8 Vanlalhrekima is similar to PW-2. According to him (PW-8), hearing commotion, he rushed to the place of occurrence and having found the victim Pari suffered injuries, he with the help of others, shifted the deceased to the Civil Hospital at Saiha and on the advice of the on duty nurses, he and other two verbally reported the incident at the Police Station and later on, came to know that she succumbed to her injuries. Thus, it is seen that the said two PWs (PW-2 and PW-8) did not witness the occurrence and they went to the place of occurrence hearing commotion/hue and cry at the place and shifted the injured turned deceased to the Civil Hospital at Saiha to save her life. 11. PW-1 F. Thangchhuaha and PW-3 Lalzikpuii, who, hearing about the incident and shifting of the victim Lalnunpari to the Civil Hospital, Saiha went there and found the victim already succumbed to her injuries. PW-1 recognized M. Ext-1 one shirt and one sweater which were worn by the victim at the time of her death being seized by the Police, by Ext. P-1, the seizure memo, and it is corroborated by PW-10 S.I. M.C. Zahmuaka, the I.O. On the other hand, PW-6 B. Vatu recognized M. Ext-III, the shirt of the accused/appellant being seized by PW-10, the I.O., on 03.12.2009, that is, on the following day of the occurrence at Saiha District Jail by Ext. P. III, the seizure memo. His (PW-6) evidence is corroborated by PW-7 Lalfakawma, who also recognized M. Ext. III as the seized shirt of the accused/appellant. Their (PW-6 and PW-7) evidence has been further corroborated by PW-10, the I.O. Therefore, it is seen that they (PWs 6, 7 and 10, the I.O) have proved the seizure memo vide Ext. P. III, aforementioned. 12. Coming to the seizure of the weapon of offence-one knife, admittedly on being produced by the accused/appellant at Saiha P.S., it appears from the evidence of PW-3 J. David that he has recognized the weapon so seized being M. Ext. II. PW-10 SI Zahmuaka, the I.O., corroborated this material fact and also recognized the relevant seizure memo vide Ext. P. IV. II. PW-10 SI Zahmuaka, the I.O., corroborated this material fact and also recognized the relevant seizure memo vide Ext. P. IV. Therefore, the seizure of the weapon of offence from the possession of the accused/appellant at Saiha Police Station is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to show that the said weapon was sent for chemical/serological test to ascertain its use in the commission of the alleged offence, but having regard to the other unimpeachable evidence tendered by the PWs, we find no reason to disbelieve the use of the seized knife in commission of the offence. 13. PW-11 SI Beihai Hlychho, submitted the charge-sheet based on the case diary prepared by the I.O., PW-10. 14. So far the extra-judicial confession of the accused/appellant is concerned, as stated above, immediately after commission of the offence, at about 7 pm, the accused appellant wielding the weapon of offence-one knife vide M. Ext. II appeared before PW-4, J. David whose elder brother married the daughter of him and PW-5, Lalkrosthangi, his daughter, and reported them that he stabbed the victim Pari, whereupon both of them accompanied him to the Police Station for his surrender. The accused-appellant in his statement, recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC has admitted this material fact. The principles regarding extra-judicial confession have been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403 thus: "Principles in respect of the evidentiary value and reliability of an extra-judicial confession are summarized as below: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, It should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 15. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, It should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 15. In the present case, the accused/appellant, within about 1/2 hour of commission of the offence of killing his concubine - the victim Lalnunpari alias Pari by means of a knife at her rented house, appeared at the house of PW-4, J. David and PW-5 Lalkrosthangi (his daughter), with the knife, which he used in the crime, and reported to them about the incident. Thereafter, all of them went to Saiha Police Station and caused surrender of the accused/appellant with the weapon before the police. This fact is corroborated by PW-10 SI M.C. Zahmuaka. Therefore, it is apparent that the aforesaid post-crime conduct of the accused/appellant was voluntary and without any discrepancy in evidence of PWs 4 and 5 and therefore, the extra-judicial confession of the accused/appellant can safely be relied on beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the instant case, however, the prosecution omitted to exhibit the relevant General Diary entries, the confessional statement of the accused/appellant recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and the sketch map of the place of occurrence. 17. PW-9, Dr. Lalnunsangi, the doctor, who held the post-mortem examination on the body of Lalnunpari on 03.12.2009, at Saiha Civil Hospital, deposed to have found 11 (eleven) lacerated injuries on chest, epigastrium, left lumbar, left elbow, left axilla, left palm and right palm. The doctor also found injuries on the chest penetrated into heart, which in his opinion caused massive internal bleeding and caused by sharp and pointed object. The doctor's further opinion is that the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest as a result of massive internal injury. The doctor recognized Ext. P.VI, the post-mortem examination report. The doctor, however, has not mentioned the age of the injuries. 18. It is noticed that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. The chain of events, however, has been proved by the prosecution as indicated above. On careful appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 10 (the I/O), as a whole, it is apparent that the accused/appellant stabbed to death of his concubine, the victim Lalnunpari alias Pari by using the knife ML. Ext. The chain of events, however, has been proved by the prosecution as indicated above. On careful appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 10 (the I/O), as a whole, it is apparent that the accused/appellant stabbed to death of his concubine, the victim Lalnunpari alias Pari by using the knife ML. Ext. 11, which the accused/appellant in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC admitted. Therefore, in our opinion there is consistency between their (PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 10) evidence and the findings of PW-9, the autopsy surgeon beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the post-mortem report can also safely be relied on. 19. In the above backdrop of facts and evidence or record, we are constrained to hold taking into consideration of the nature of the wounds, situs of the wounds, the nature of weapon used, that the cause of death of Lalnunpari was the direct result of multiple injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon knife and as such, the case is squarely covered by the ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to 'murder' defined in Section 300 IPC, which is punishable u/s. 302 IPC. The surrounding circumstances of the incident as delineated through evidence do not at all attract any of the Exceptions to Section 300 IPC to bring the offence to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. Section 304 IPC. 20. For the reasons, set forth above, we are of the opinion that no interference in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is warranted. 21. The appeal stands dismissed. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this Judgment & Order. In appreciation of the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. B. Lalramenga, the fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs. 9,000/-, which shall be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority as per the Notification No. J. 11013/1/2011-LJE dated 4.12.2014 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Law & Judicial Department and published in the Mizoram Gazette dated 5.12.2014. Appeal Dismissed