JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an appeal from jail filed by the accused convict through the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order imposing a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with a default clause. 3. The jail appeal is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 24/2018(J), as done in an appeal against conviction and sentence. It is however noticed that since the appellant pleaded guilty at the time of framing charge, the appeal is not maintainable, in view of Section 375 of the Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, since the appeal has been filed from jail, we are inclined to examine the case to see as to whether there is any merit. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.02.2015, ASI Sh. C. Lalremruata (PW-1) submitted an enquiry report to the Officer-in-charge of Kawnpui Police Station stating that on the night of 05.02.2015 between 7:00 to 8:00 PM, the appellant murdered two persons namely, Smt. Lalnghakliani and Sh. Rongura Sailo at the farm house of Sh. Lalzuitluanga located near Khankawn and in between Kawnpui and Zanlawn village. He therefore requested registration of a case for murder against the appellant. As a result, Kawnpui P.S. Case No. 5/2015 dated 06.02.2015 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and investigation conducted. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court vide CS No. 5/2015 dated 23.04.2015. Charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed by the Trial Court against the appellant on 29.06.2015 and to which, he pleaded guilty by admitting that he killed Smt. Lalnghakliani and Sh. Rongura Sailo. Despite the admission, the Trial Court proceeded to conduct trial against the appellant. During the trial proceeding, the prosecution examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses, while the defence examined one defence witness. Consequently, upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.08.2016 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and vide Order dated 22.08.2016 sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and with a fine of Rs. Consequently, upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.08.2016 convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and vide Order dated 22.08.2016 sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, with a default clause as already mentioned hereinabove. 5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that although the appellant admitted to the commission of the crime at the time of framing of the charge but he however, plainly denied his involvement in the crime in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the version of the appellant in the jail appeal is also contradictory to the statements he made on oath. The appellant in his appeal from jail admitted of having hit the deceased Sh. Rongura Sailo by a wooden stick but he did not mention anything about the wife of the deceased, who was also killed on the same day. Mr. Victor L. Ralte further submits that although the confessional statement of the appellant was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Kolasib but apparently, no reflection time was given to the appellant before he made his confession. He therefore submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, apart from the fact that the appellant admitted to the charge, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt to justify his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 6. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the appeal in fact is not maintainable since the appellant has pleaded guilty while framing of the charge and in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She further submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 clearly establishes that it was the appellant who committed the crime of murdering the two deceased persons and as such, the learned Trial Court was only justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. 7. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and we have perused the materials available on record including the LCR. 8. As already noticed, the prosecution examined 8 prosecution witnesses during the Trial. PW-1 in his deposition and examination-in-chief deposed that he was posted at Kawnpui Police Station during the relevant time. 7. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and we have perused the materials available on record including the LCR. 8. As already noticed, the prosecution examined 8 prosecution witnesses during the Trial. PW-1 in his deposition and examination-in-chief deposed that he was posted at Kawnpui Police Station during the relevant time. On 06.02.2015 while on duty, a telephonic message was received in the Police Station that one person had sustained injury at Khankawn forest in a jhum hut. He was then endorsed by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to make an enquiry about the incident. On reaching the place of occurrence, he found two dead bodies of a male and female lying inside the hut. The bodies were identified as Smt. Lalnghakliani of Kawnpui village and Sh. Rongura Sailo of Tlabung village. From their appearance, it could be seen that the two persons sustained serious injuries on their head and blood was coming out from their head and was spread on the floor. He drew a sketch map on the place of occurrence and searched for any clue about the person who was responsible for weapon used for murdering the two persons. However, he could not find any clue at that moment and he took inquest over the dead bodies. On the same day, the bodies were taken to Lungdai Primary Health Centre for Post Mortem Examination, whereafter the bodies were handed over to their families. PW-1 took the statement of two persons and on the same day, the Officer-incharge informed him through telephone that the two persons were murdered by the appellant since he came to Kolasib Police Station and surrendered himself while admitting his guilt. 9. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he was the Secretary of Kawnpui Vengthar Branch YMA. On the day of the incident, he was informed over telephone about the incident and he went to the place of occurrence. On reaching, he found many people including the Police already present. Thereafter, again on 10.02.2015 on being requested by the Police, he went to the place of occurrence along with other NGOs leaders to search for the wooden log used by the accused appellant to hit the victims. On searching for the same, he finally found one wooden log on a pineapple plant about 50 metres far from the hut. Thereafter, again on 10.02.2015 on being requested by the Police, he went to the place of occurrence along with other NGOs leaders to search for the wooden log used by the accused appellant to hit the victims. On searching for the same, he finally found one wooden log on a pineapple plant about 50 metres far from the hut. The wooden log was about 2½ feet in length and stained with blood. The Police then seized the wooden log and to which he subscribed his signature on the seizure memo. 10. PW-3, who was the Assistant Secretary of Kawnpui Vengthar Branch YMA at the relevant time made his deposition basically as similar to those made by the PW-2. 11. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 06.02.2015, an information was received at the Police Station from some unknown person stating that two seriously injured persons were found at the jhum hut at Khankawn ram. After receiving the information, he went to the place of occurrence with some police personnel and he found both the victims lying dead inside the jhum hut. Both the victims appeared to have sustained injuries on their head. While they were searching for the person who was responsible for the crime, the appellant came and surrender himself at Kolasib Police Station by stating that he had killed the two deceased persons in the jhum hut. During his interrogation, the appellant also said that he threw the wooden log within the premises of the jhum hut. When they looked for the same, they found it on the fourth day of the occurrence of the crime. The blood stained on the wooden log when it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory came back with a report that it was a human blood. Finding a prima facie case against the appellant, he submitted the charge sheet. In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that he did not collect the blood samples of the victims for examination by the expert and that blood samples was collected from the blood stain on the wooden log only to see as to whether it belonged to an animal or a human. 12. PW-5, Sh. Robert Laltlanchhuaha in his examination-in-chief deposed that at the relevant time he was staying at the jhum hut with the appellant and his wife. 12. PW-5, Sh. Robert Laltlanchhuaha in his examination-in-chief deposed that at the relevant time he was staying at the jhum hut with the appellant and his wife. The deceased persons who were husband and wife were also staying in a different jhum hut, which was not very far from where they were staying. He and Sh. Lallianthanga (PW-6) worked as daily wage laborers under the deceased Sh. Rongura Sailo. During the day time, wife of Sh. Rongura Sailo i.e., Smt. Lalnghakliani and one of her friend came to the said place to collect raw brooms. In the evening, after work he and PW-6 came back to the jhum hut of the appellant. The friend of the deceased Smt. Lalnghakliani had gone back to the village while she stayed back. The appellant was cooking food at that time when they reached the jhum hut and before having food, he, the appellant and Thangtea consumed liquor. After dinner, the accused went down towards the jhum hut of the deceased Rongura murmuring something with anger. It seemed that in the previous night, the accused appellant and the deceased Rongura had some misunderstanding and to which, the accused appellant appeared to be very angry. Thangtea and the wife of the appellant followed him fearing that something unpleasant might happen. As for him, he stayed back since he was highly intoxicated. However, no sooner Thangtea came running hurriedly and woke him up. He looked shocked and scared and he told him that the appellant hit Rongura with a log and it appeared that Rongura is dead. He further told him that the appellant also hit Nghaki with the same log inside the hut. The wife of the appellant also came back after Thangtea and all of them being frightened, locked the door of the jhum hut from the inside. After a long time, the appellant came and banged the door. Being frightened, he and his friend took a dao in their hand before opening the door. When they opened the door, the appellant entered quickly without saying anything and after eating food again, he went to sleep. Thereafter, they quietly left the hut in the late night and proceeded towards the village to inform the villagers including the father of Thangtea about the incident. When they opened the door, the appellant entered quickly without saying anything and after eating food again, he went to sleep. Thereafter, they quietly left the hut in the late night and proceeded towards the village to inform the villagers including the father of Thangtea about the incident. After some days, the police came asking for his help to locate the wooden log which was used to hit the deceased persons. The wooden log was ultimately found and seized by the police. In his cross examination, PW-5 reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. 13. PW-6, Sh. Lallianthanga @ Thangtea in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew the accused Hualliana, who was present in Court. He deposed that at the relevant time, he was staying in the jhum hut with the accused appellant and his wife. The deceased Rongura and Nghaki were also staying in different jhum hut, which was not very far away from where they were staying. He stated that he worked as a daily wage laborer under the seized Rongura. On the day of the incident, he and Robert (PW-5) helped the deceased Rongura in making a chicken coop. Later in the evening, Rongura gave them some liquor to drink. The deceased Nghaki and one of her friend came to collect raw brooms. In the evening, Nghaki’s friend went back to the village while she stayed back at the jhum hut of the deceased Rongura. When they reached home after work in the evening, the accused appellant was cooking food while the wife of the appellant had gone out somewhere, he, the appellant and Robert consumed liquor. After food, the appellant went down towards the jhum hut of the deceased Rongura murmuring something in anger. It appeared that the earlier night, the appellant and the deceased Rongura had some misunderstanding, which made the appellant very angry. Behind the appellant, he and the wife of the appellant followed him as they saw the appellant to be very angry and drunk and saying that the deceased Rongura had annoyed him. While Robert was at the jhum hut being highly intoxicated, he and the wife of the appellant followed the appellant, who was proceeding towards the house of the deceased quickly. When they reached the hut of the deceased persons, he heard the sound of someone hitting something. While Robert was at the jhum hut being highly intoxicated, he and the wife of the appellant followed the appellant, who was proceeding towards the house of the deceased quickly. When they reached the hut of the deceased persons, he heard the sound of someone hitting something. When he entered the house, he saw the accused appellant carrying a log and when he saw him, he even try to hit him as well but he moved away and escaped. In the meantime, the wife of the appellant also reached the house and in spite of there being no light, there was moonlight and he saw Rongura lying on the bed motionlessly and Nghaki lying on the floor covered with a cloth and making a horrible sound. He then ran towards his jhum hut and the wife of the appellant followed him. On reaching the jhum hut, he informed Robert (PW-5) about the incident. After he informed Robert, both of them fearing that they may be attacked by the appellant, stayed back in the jhum hut for quite some time. Later on, the appellant came to the hut and opened the door and they both carried some weapon in case the appellant attacked them. Although he knew that the appellant had murdered both Rongura and Nghaki by hitting them with a log, this fact was confirmed when the accused himself repeatedly said that he had murdered Rongura and Nghaki as he entered the hut. The appellant then had some food and fell asleep. Thereafter, he along with others in the late night left the hut and proceeded towards the village to inform others about the incident including his father. On hearing the news, his father and one of his relative left for the place of occurrence and persuaded the appellant to surrender himself before the police fearing that he may be assaulted by a mob after the news about the murder become known. As advised, the appellant went to Kolasib and surrendered himself before the Police Station. After some days, the police came and asked for his help to locate the log used by the appellant to murder the two persons. The log was ultimately found by the Kawnpui YMA and after which, he and PW-5 were summoned by the police for recording their statements. 14. After some days, the police came and asked for his help to locate the log used by the appellant to murder the two persons. The log was ultimately found by the Kawnpui YMA and after which, he and PW-5 were summoned by the police for recording their statements. 14. PW-7, Smt. Zairemmawii in her examination-in-chief deposed that on 06.02.2015, she was on duty at her post in PHC Lungdai. Around 2:00 PM, the police brought two dead persons namely, Nghaki and Rongura, who they suspected had been murdered. She conducted examination of the deceased persons and gave her opinion that the cause of death of Rongura and Nghaki was due to head injury. In her cross examination, she stated that on examining the two deceased persons, she found their skulls fractured. There was loss of normal bones continuity i.e., their skulls lost their normal shape and which could not happen without the bones being fractured. 15. PW-8, Sh. H. Lalduhsanga, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 10.02.2015, he was on duty at Kolasib District Court, where police personnel brought the accused appellant for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He recorded his confessional statement after explaining to him that he was not bound to make the confession and if he did, it may be used as an evidence against him. He also believed that the confession was made voluntarily by the appellant. The cross examination of PW-8 was declined by the defence counsel. 16. After the prosecution witnesses were examined, the defence examined Sh. Vara as DW-6. The said witness in his examination-in-chief deposed that he was requested to give defence evidence. He stated that he did not know anything about the incident i.e., the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the appellant. However, at the time of the incident, the appellant and his wife were staying in his jhum hut at Khankawn. The cross examination of the said witness was declined by the prosecution. 17. From the appreciation of the prosecution’s evidence, more particularly the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, it is seen that there is clear corroboration in their statements. PW-6 deposed that on the day of the incident after they had food, he saw the accused appellant going towards the jhum hut of the deceased persons murmuring something with anger. 17. From the appreciation of the prosecution’s evidence, more particularly the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, it is seen that there is clear corroboration in their statements. PW-6 deposed that on the day of the incident after they had food, he saw the accused appellant going towards the jhum hut of the deceased persons murmuring something with anger. Seeing this, he and the wife of the appellant followed the appellant behind him. The appellant was walking very fast and they could not catch up with him. On reaching the hut of the deceased persons, he heard the sound of someone being hit and as he entered the hut, he saw the accused with a log in his hand and he tried to hit him as well. He however managed to escape and ran back towards his jhum hut and the wife of the appellant followed him. He narrated the entire incident to PW-5. 18. Coming to the framing of the charge against the appellant under Chapter-XVII of the Cr.P.C., it may be seen that the appellant admitted to the charge and pleaded guilty stating that he had killed Nghaki and Rongura. Even in the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted of having beaten up the two deceased persons on the night of 05.02.2015. He also admitted having tried to hit PW-6 and which clearly corroborates the version of PW-6. It is also nobody’s case, including the defence that there was/were other person/persons other than the appellant in the hut at the relevant time. 19. Insofar as the statements made by the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it is a case of plain denial by the appellant as noticed earlier. With the admission of the charge by the appellant and the corroborated statements of the prosecution witnesses, his response to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot dilute the incriminating evidence appearing against him. The law with regard to Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The statements made under this provision cannot be the basis for convicting the accused person and it is only a provision to enable the accused person to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. The law with regard to Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is well settled. The statements made under this provision cannot be the basis for convicting the accused person and it is only a provision to enable the accused person to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. At the same time the explanation of the accused without there being any corroboration with the evidence led during trial cannot come to the aid and rescue of the accused. 20. Thus upon having regard to the case in its entirety, irrespective of the fact that the appeal is not maintainable in view of Section 375 of the Cr.P.C., we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as the order of sentence. 21. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Registry to send back the LCR immediately. 22. For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Victor L. Ralte, his fee is quantified at Rs. 9000/-, which shall be paid by the State Legal Services Authority on production of a copy of this order.