JUDGMENT : Marli Vankung, J. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram representing the State. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, in Criminal Trial No. 97 of 2016 Ref: Saiha PS C/No. 91/2016, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of two persons namely Elizabeth and Sideii. Accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default S.I. for one year. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the appeal is that on 08.09.2016, a written FIR was lodged by B. Clement of Chhuarlung village before the officer-in-charge of Siaha Police Station informing that on 07.09.2016 one women Elizabeth (34 yrs) was found dead inside her jhum hut and his mother Sideii (65 yrs) was also found dead in the jhum field about 10 meters away from the jhum hut. Both of them were seriously injured with blood stains and it was strongly suspected that they must have been brutally murdered. Hence, Siaha PS C/No.91/16 dt.08.08.2016 u/s 302 IPC was registered and duly investigated into. The Police party headed by the S.P, Siaha rushed to the place of occurrence and when they reached the village, the dead bodies had already been shifted to their own respective houses at Chhuarlung village. An inquest was conducted over the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses. The dead bodies were then forwarded to the Medical Officer for Post-mortem Examination (PME). The PME report of both the deceased persons was that the cause of their death was due to head injury caused by massive blows. The place of occurrence was visited and a sketch map of the same was drawn. There was bloodstain on the floor though some of the stains were partly washed away by the local NGO members who had reached the place early before information was given to the police. The place of occurrence was visited and a sketch map of the same was drawn. There was bloodstain on the floor though some of the stains were partly washed away by the local NGO members who had reached the place early before information was given to the police. Bloodstained firewood, carrier rope and a hoe was seized from the P.O. Several suspected persons were interrogated and consequently, from the light of interrogations and on the interrogation of the appellant, a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC was found and the case I.O submitted the charge sheet before the Court. 3. In due course, after committal of the case to the Court of Session, the learned Session Judge, Lunglei, commenced the trial of the case after observing all the required legal formalities. 4. A formal charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant by the Court of Sessions Judge, Lunglei. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the appellant and to which, he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen prosecution witnesses and they were also subjected to cross-examination by the defence. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The answer given by the appellant against the questions put to him was basically that of denial. The defence examined two defence witnesses including himself. 6. After hearing the parties through their respective counsels the trial court decided the case vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2019, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default thereof, to undergo S.I for one year as already stated herein above. 7. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the case of the prosecution is purely based on circumstantial evidence as there are no eye witnesses. He submits that it is a settled position of law in circumstantial evidence that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. He submits that it is a settled position of law in circumstantial evidence that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. That the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and no one else and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, no such evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish any chain of circumstances to prove guilt of accused beyond any periphery of doubt. 8. He further argued that the prosecution has based its case mainly from the alleged extra judicial statement of the accused before the police. That the alleged extra judicial confession stated to be made by the appellant by the 4(four) Prosecution’s Witnesses is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, since the PWs are all police personnel and moreover, their depositions are not similar. He has placed reliance upon the following cases decided by the Apex Court in:- (i) Krishnan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2008) 15 SCC 430 , (ii) Dillip & Anr Vs. State of M.P. (2001) 9 SCC 452 , (iii) State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 , (iv) Eradu Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316 followed in (v) Vinod Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 722. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that with regard to the finding of the ld. trial court that the accused could not satisfactorily explain how such human blood came into existence on his pant and canvas shoes in his defence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233 with regard to defect or fallacy in defence evidence has held that in order to judge the truth or falsity of the version given by the defence, the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence are well settled, namely :-(i) The onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from the weakness or falsity of the defense version while proving its case………...(iii) That the onus of the prosecution never shift. 10. 10. The Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has argued that it is not a disputed fact that on the day of the incident, the appellant had engaged two persons to work in his farm while he had departed from the main road and joined his labourers very late. That PW 10, one of the labourers had seen the appellant go towards the jhum field of the deceased Elizabeth at around 9 to 10 am and thus, the last seen together theory is applicable in this case since the dead bodies were found later on the same day. The appellant’s behavior in refusing to sit in the Sumo on their way back and his preference to sit on the roof of the Sumo clearly indicates his guilt. The same also was due to his clothes being blood stained. That the appellant is suspected to have a loose moral towards women. The Forensic Science Laboratory report points to the guilt of the appellant and the blood sample of the appellant drawn by the case I.O. shows that his blood group was found to be O+ve. The appellant was unable to explain how human blood group AB was found on his long pant and canvas shoe in his defense in the trial court. The learned PP further submitted that the appellant had also confessed his guilt in the presence of PW14, PW15 and PW16 and that even if the aforesaid PWs are police personnel, their evidence should not be given any less credit. The Learned PP relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 . The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the defence witness No.1 is not one of the labourers engaged by appellant on 07.09.2017 since the appellant who deposed as DW No.2 on cross-examination has admitted that the defense witness DW1 is not the person engaged by him on that fateful day. Thus the defense evidence is with ulterior motive and not reliable. 11. Thus the defense evidence is with ulterior motive and not reliable. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant portion of evidence adduced in the trial court is briefly highlighted as under :- PW1/B.Clement is is the son of the deceased Sedeii and the informant who submitted the F.I.R. He identified the accused and stated that the accused had been living in their village for the past 10 years. His knowledge of the incident is that on 7.9.2016, he was attending a meeting in connection with MTP (NGO) when at about 7:00 P.M. they were informed that the dead body of Elizabeth was found in the jhum hut of her field. Being thus informed, PW 1 along with other persons went to the P.O. and saw the dead body of Elizabeth in the jhum hut of her field. Since his mother Sideii had not returned from the field, he went to their jhum hut to search for her. He did not find her in the jhum hut and after sometime he was informed that the body of his mother Sideii was found about 10 meters away from the jhum hut of the deceased Elizabeth. Information was given to the police and both the dead bodies were not allowed to be moved until the arrival of the police. After he returned home he reported the incident/matter to the police. The same was reduced in writing by the police and he appended his signature on the FIR. In the beginning, they did not suspect anybody but however, after making inquiry in the village, they learnt that the accused was weak towards the opposite sex and therefore, they reported their suspicions to the police. During his cross examination, nothing relevant was made out. 12. PW2/Z.T. Chyuko had similarly testified that on 7.9.2016 at about 7:00 Pm while he was in a meeting in connection with MTP (NGO), they received the information of the discovery of the body of the deceased Elizabeth in her Jhum hut and that she was covered with blood. He had also gone to the place of occurrence along with others and saw the dead body of Elizabeth which was already covered with cloth and the body of the deceased Sideii. The dead bodies of both deceased were then taken to the village. He had also gone to the place of occurrence along with others and saw the dead body of Elizabeth which was already covered with cloth and the body of the deceased Sideii. The dead bodies of both deceased were then taken to the village. The accused was also reportedly present among the people looking for the dead bodies. At that point of time, they did not have any suspicion on the accused. Around mid-August, he had known that the accused often invited Elizabeth to work in his fields and they often returned late. He did not favour such activity and on 06.09.2016, he had forbade her to go with the accused when the wife of the accused invited her to work in his field. During cross examination, he mentioned that there was blood stain on the walls and utensils in the Jhum hut. 13. PW3 and PW4 are the seizure witnesses of the articles 1) hoe 2) fire wood 3) rope for local made basket (hnam) seized from the Jhum hut on 08.09.2016. They have stated that they saw blood stains on the hoe and rope (hnam). 14. PW No. 5/Lianchhunga PW No. 6/Beichakao are the seizure witnesses on seizure of the clothes of the accused. They stated that on 23.9.2016 they were summoned by the police to the house of the accused and the police requested them to stand as seizure witness for the clothes that had been seized from inside the house of the accused. The seized articles were work clothes belonging to the accused. During the cross examination of PW4, he stated that he is not aware whether the seized articles were actually stained with blood. That plantain stains also appeared similar to blood stain. 15. PW No. 7/T. Nochhua stated that on 7.9.2016 after taking morning meal and attending to household chores she accompanied the accused on foot to the jhum field. Adjacent to the jhum field was the jhum field belonging to Pawsai and Nokipa. Pawsaia was already working in his jhum field. The accused handed over sugar, rice etc. for lunch and placed them in her basket and informed her that he would be going to trap porcupine and left her at the junction between Pawsaia and Nokipa jhum field. Thereafter, she cleared the jhum field along with Pawsaia as they were engaged as daily labour by the accused. The accused handed over sugar, rice etc. for lunch and placed them in her basket and informed her that he would be going to trap porcupine and left her at the junction between Pawsaia and Nokipa jhum field. Thereafter, she cleared the jhum field along with Pawsaia as they were engaged as daily labour by the accused. It was already past mid-day meal time when the accused returned from setting trap for porcupine. After the accused returned, he also joined them for a short time in clearing the field. Thereafter, he went to prepare mid-day meal and invited them to take the meal. After their mid day meal, the accused, Pawsaia and herself continued to work in the field. In the evening they all returned home. On the way they met Sumo which was plying from Siaha to Ainak. On stopping the Sumo Pawsaia and herself sat inside the Sumo. The accused did not enter the Sumo but sat on top of the Sumo although there was room for him to sit inside. The accused was wearing an off-white shirt and a camouflage pant. The shirt and camouflage pant produced in court were the clothes worn by the accused on the day of incident. During her cross examination she stated that she did not notice any sign of blood stain on the clothes of the accused. The accused wore a camouflage canvas shoe. 16. Pw 8/Juliet statement is to the effect that she saw Elizabeth early in the morning and Elizabeth mentioned that she would be going to her Jhum field later. 17. PW No. 9/Vachhuangia identified the accused and stated that on 7.9.2016 he was among the members of NGO who had proceeded to the jhum fields in search of the victim/deceased Elizabeth. He was among the first person to locate the body of the deceased. The deceased Elizabeth was lying prone on the floor of the jhum hut and was covered with ‘Thlangra’ (rice cleaning implement made of bamboo). On uncovering the Thlangra he saw that the blouse of the deceased was peeled up with her breast exposed. Her pants were also pulled down up to her thighs. After this they search for Sidei. About 10 meters away from the jhum hut, they found the dead body of Sidei. They did not allow anybody to touch or remove the dead bodies until the arrival of police. Her pants were also pulled down up to her thighs. After this they search for Sidei. About 10 meters away from the jhum hut, they found the dead body of Sidei. They did not allow anybody to touch or remove the dead bodies until the arrival of police. In his cross examination he stated one half burnt firewood was found near the body of Sideii. There are other jhum fields near to the jhum field of Elizabeth. 18. PW No. 10/C. Beikhaito identified the accused and stated that on 7.9.2016 between 9-10 Am, on the way to the jhum fields he saw the accused ahead of him. He could clearly identify that it was the accused departing from the main jhum path towards the jhum field of the deceased Elizabeth. In his cross examination he stated that he could see that the accused was wearing a stained white shirt and a camouflage pant. He could not see the shoes of the accused. The jhum field of Elizabeth is below the hill. 19. PW No. 11/Dr. Zodinthara first conducted the PME on Z. Elizabeth and his findings are as below:- 1. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the left forehead. 2. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the right forehead. 3. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on back of head (occipital area). 4. Bruise mark injury on the head/face and on neck region. 20. He also examined and opened the skull and found hemorrhage caused by the injury sustained by the deceased person on the head region. Accordingly in his opinion the cause of death was due to head injury (massive intracranial hemorrhage). 21. Thereafter, he conducted PME on N. Sidei and his findings are as below:- 1. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the left side of forehead. 2. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement behind the right eye region. 3. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the right side of cheek. 4. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the back of head (occipital area). He also examined and opened the skull and found hemorrhage caused by the injury sustained by the deceased person on the head region. Accordingly, in his opinion the cause of death was due to head injury (massive intracranial hemorrhage). 22. 4. Injury apparently caused by blunt implement on the back of head (occipital area). He also examined and opened the skull and found hemorrhage caused by the injury sustained by the deceased person on the head region. Accordingly, in his opinion the cause of death was due to head injury (massive intracranial hemorrhage). 22. In his cross examination he stated that there was sign of blood stain on the clothes of both the deceased persons. The clothes of N. Sidei were wet. 23. PW No. 12/Lalchhanzova identified the accused and stated that presently he is posted as Asst Director FSL, Mizoram Aizawl. In connection with the instant criminal trial the office of FSL, Mizoram Aizawl had received the following articles for determining:- 1. Long hoe stain with suspected blood 26.5 inch approximate. 2. Carrying rope with suspected blood stain. 3. Firewood with suspected blood stain. 4. Camouflage long pant with suspected blood stain. 5. A pair of camouflage canvas shoe with suspected blood stain. 6. Short sleeve white colour shirt with suspected blood stain. 7. Vaginal swab. It may be mentioned that when requisition was sent the articles had serial No. 4, 5 & 6 were allegedly belonging to the accused. The results of the examination are as follows: 1. Blood group of human origin belonging to blood group AB were detected from the stains of exhibits at Serial No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 above. 2. Blood was detected from stain of Exhibit at Serial No. 3 which was however insufficient for blood grouping. 3. Blood was not detected from the stain of Exhibit at Serial No. 6. 4. Semen was not detected from the stain of Exhibit at Serial No. 7. Ext-P-VII is the biological examination report submitted by me. 24. In his cross examination he stated that the blood sample of the accused and victim were not sending for examination. 25. PW No. 13/John Malsawmtluanga identified the accused and stated that during the time of incident, he was posted as O.C. of Phura P.S. On 23.09.2016 while he was on duty at Siaha he was instructed to escort the accused with the Phura P/S vehicle to deliver him to Lunglei. During the journey, the accused narrated what had occurred at the time of incident to the other police personnel present in the vehicle. He believed that the accused had confessed his guilt to the offence. During the journey, the accused narrated what had occurred at the time of incident to the other police personnel present in the vehicle. He believed that the accused had confessed his guilt to the offence. He could not overhear properly since he was driving the vehicle. On reaching Lunglei, they delivered the accused to Lunglei P/S and thereafter, to Lunglei District Jail. Nothing pertinent was made out during cross examination 26. The testimonies of PW No. 14/Ngurlianzauva, PW No.15/H.C. Lalchhuanthanga and PW No. 16/Const. Beipikhei are more or less similar with some minor discrepancies. A gist of their testimony is that on 23.9.2016 they were the escorting party under the command of S.I. John Malsawmtluanga, escorting the accused from Siaha to Lunglei fearing public commotion. The accused made an extra judicial confession inside the vehicle and they all heard the accused narrate what had taken place on 7.09.2016. According to the accused, on 7.9.2016, he hired his father-in-law Beisai and another female resident to work in his jhum. He told his father-in-law that he would go to enquire the trap of porcupine somewhere and left his jhum. He went to the jhum of Elizabethi and saw her inside the jhum hut. His sexual desire arose when he saw Elizabethi and moved towards her intending to have sexual intercourse. However she refused. They struggled for some time. He punched her down on the floor and he picked up a nearby hoe and gave a blow on her head and she fell down unconscious. He removed the pant and underwear of the victim in order to have sexual intercourse with her. In the meantime another lady Sideii approached the jhum hut shouting from the distance that she had heard a lot of noise. When Sideii came closer, he feared that she would know what he had done, so he picked up a firewood and gave her a blow before she came into the jhum hut. As fear caught him, he went down to the nearby brook and washed himself and then proceeded to his jhum where two of his hired workers were working. During cross examination of the witnesses, it is made out the accused was under arrest when he made the alleged extra judicial confession. 27. A notable difference found in their testimonies is that of the testimony of PW No. 16/Const. During cross examination of the witnesses, it is made out the accused was under arrest when he made the alleged extra judicial confession. 27. A notable difference found in their testimonies is that of the testimony of PW No. 16/Const. Beipikhei, who has mentioned that while on duty to escort the accused from Siaha to Lunglei, since there was apprehension of public disturbance against the accused, he made the accused wear his uniform and he wore his clothes. On the way after they has passed Siaha District and entered Lawngtlai District he again exchanged clothes with the accused. After this he coaxed the accused into telling him exactly what had occurred and that there was no apprehension of public disturbance anymore. The accused thereafter narrated as to what happened on the date of incident which is similar to the testimonies of PW14 and PW15. 28. PW No. 17/H.C. Rochungnunga identified the accused and stated that during the time of incident he was posted at Siaha P/S as Sheristadar. On 07.09.2016 at about 7:00 pm, on receiving information about dead body at Chhuarlung village, he along with other police party proceeded from Siaha towards Chhuarlung and arrived at Chhuarlung after midnight. He proceeded to the house of the deceased Elizabethi and conducted inquest over the body. The report of inquest is marked Ext-P-IX and his findings are recorded in the inquest report. Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of the other deceased Sideii and did inquest over the dead body. The report of inquest is marked Ext-P-X and his findings are recorded in the inquest report. On 08.09.2016 morning, he visited the P.O and drew sketch map and made seizure of the alleged implements used during the incident. The seized articles were : (1). Wooden log measuring about 17 inches. (2). Hnam (carrying rope for local basket). (3). Hoe. Before he visited the P.O. and Chhuarlung village, the police from the concerned Lungbun Outpost had visited the place of incident and had made arrangement for securing the place of incident and the dead bodies from any disturbance in collection of evidences. In his cross examination he stated the seized articles was delivered to Siaha P/S without any tampering. 29. PW No. 18/Inspector Vanlalsiama identified the accused and stated that on 07.09.2016 at about 9:30 pm they received information at Siaha PS regarding dual murder committed at Chhuarlung village. In his cross examination he stated the seized articles was delivered to Siaha P/S without any tampering. 29. PW No. 18/Inspector Vanlalsiama identified the accused and stated that on 07.09.2016 at about 9:30 pm they received information at Siaha PS regarding dual murder committed at Chhuarlung village. On the same night they proceeded to Chhuarlung village with S.P, Siaha and other police party. On arrival at Chhuarlung village it was found that the dead bodies were already brought to their respective residences under police escort from Lungbun outpost and local NGO’s. Inquest of the dead bodies was carried out at their respective residences. The police made discreet investigation and suspected about 5 persons. Out of these 5 persons, his investigation led to suspicion on the present accused Vanlalpianga considering his character, past antecedents and also cordial relationship with the deceased person Elizabethi. The next day i.e. on 08.09.2016 they visited the P.O. and recovered the following implements allegedly used for committing the offence -1). Hoe (Bawngtuthlawh). 2) Carrying rope for basket (Hnam). 3) Firewood. The articles were duly seized. The accused Vanlalpianga was arrested about 9 days later after examining witnesses and collecting materials in connection with the offence. During police interrogation the accused Vanlalpianga confessed to committing the offence. From his confession, they obtained search warrant and recovered the following articles from the house of the accused – 1). Camouflage coloured pant. 2) Camouflage coloured shoe. 3) Off white coloured shirt. 4) Nokia Handset. He made seizure memo in respect of these articles. The articles at serial number 1, 2 & 3 above and the other articles recovered earlier were forwarded to FSL for examination. He duly received the report from FSL. He also drew blood sample from the accused and sent to P.C. Pharmacy for laboratory examination in order to ascertain the blood group of the accused so as to determine that the blood found on the clothes of the accused did not belong to him but to the victims. He was sent for recording of judicial statement to Lunglei District Court by passing Siaha and Lawngtlai District Courts fearing untoward incident from the public against the accused person. However, during this period the Lunglei District Courts were not functioning due to the untoward incident that had occurred at Lunglei Courts sometime during the period 22.09.2016. Therefore judicial statement could not be recorded at the relevant time. However, during this period the Lunglei District Courts were not functioning due to the untoward incident that had occurred at Lunglei Courts sometime during the period 22.09.2016. Therefore judicial statement could not be recorded at the relevant time. Later when the Courts started functioning the accused had turned hostile and did not confess to his committing the offence and therefore judicial statement was not recorded. From examining the above materials, statement of witnesses, confession of accused before police there was no doubt that the accused Vanlalpianga had committed the alleged offences. He found prima facie case against the accused Vanlalpianga u/s 302 IPC and submitted charge sheet accordingly. During his cross examination he stated that there was possibility of other persons from the village could have gone to the jhum fields on the date of incident. The seized articles i.e. Hoe and carrying rope were sent to FSL for examination of blood group and not finger print. He had made requisition for examination of blood group of accused but such requisition was not place on record. He did not cite the laboratory technician as witness in his final report. But he denied the suggestion that he has falsely submitted the final report against the accused. 30. DW No. 1/Beisai@ Posai identified the accused and stated that he was engaged by the accused to work in his jhum field along with T. Nauchhua. On 16th September 2017 he proceeded along with the accused to his jhum field at about 8:30 am. On the way we picked up T. Nauchhua. He proceeded ahead and arrived at the jhum field at around 9:30 Am. After sometime T. Nauchhua arrived and he enquired the where about of the accused. T. Nauchhua informed him that the accused had gone to look up his animal traps which he had laid. After a short while the accused arrived and they started their work at the jhum field. He was with the accused and T. Nauchhua the entire day and they departed together for home in the evening. In his cross examination he stated that the accused was his brother-in-law. On the way back from the jhum field the accused was perched on top of the sumo although there was space inside the vehicle since he was carrying some maize. 31. In his cross examination he stated that the accused was his brother-in-law. On the way back from the jhum field the accused was perched on top of the sumo although there was space inside the vehicle since he was carrying some maize. 31. DW No. 2/Vanlalpianga (accused) deposed that on 07.09.2016he had engaged Beisai and T. Nochhua as labourersin his jhum field. After arriving at the jhum field he had departed for about 20 minutes to set trap for animals in the jungle. After he returned from setting the traps all three of them worked together in the jhum field. On the way back from the jhum field since he was carrying maize in a big gunny bag they availed of a Sumo which they met on the way.He was arrested after a lapse of about two weeks from the date of alleged incident. The police and local MTP had conducted their own inquiry and since they could not come up with any concrete evidence. On the enquiry conducted by local MTP and V.C they suspected that the accused person involved should have signs of injury. All male members were called by the local MTP and V.C. on 9.9.2016 for physical examination. He was also present and no sign of external injury was seen on his body. The local MTP had also summoned two young men who were found near the jhum hut/P.O and they were interrogated in his residence. After the interrogation the local MTP President PuHrothi had borrowed his shoes and returned them in the evening in a very wet condition. The clothes seized by the police were also worn by him several times in between the alleged date of incident and seizure and therefore he does not remember any sign of blood on his clothes or how sign of blood was present on his shoe which was borrowed for a day by the MTP President. The police also took his finger print after he was arrested however the results of the finger print are not produced before the court. The summon for giving evidence by alleged witness Beisai was made through telephone calls. He was also surprised when Beiluasa appeared before the court to give defence. He did not think that it would entail dire consequences and did not inform the court about the alleged impersonation. The summon for giving evidence by alleged witness Beisai was made through telephone calls. He was also surprised when Beiluasa appeared before the court to give defence. He did not think that it would entail dire consequences and did not inform the court about the alleged impersonation. In his cross examination he stated that his blood sample was drawn by the police. He does not know his blood group. He did not disclose anything about the case to the police on the way from Siaha to Lunglei. 32. On meticulous study of the evidence on record at the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention herein that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. We find that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are with regards to recovery of the dead bodies of the victims Elizabeth found in her Jhum hut and the body of Sideii about 10 meters away from the Jhum hut. They have not stated anything that connect the involvement accused/appellant to the prosecution case. The statement of PW2 only goes to show that the accused/appellant and Elizabeth were known to each other. 33. PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW6 are the seizure witnesses of the seized articles from the Jhum hut and the house of the appellant respectively. The clothes of the appellant was seized only on 23.09.2016 and on cross examination PW5 stated that he was not aware whether the seized articles were actually stained with blood. 34. We find that of PW No. 7/T. Nochhua is the only witness who was with the appellant on the day of the incident. Though her testimony goes to show that the appellant was not with her during the fore afternoon of 07.09.2016, we find that it is not unusual for a person to set traps to catch small animals when they go to their Jhum field. It is noted that she did not see any blood stain on the clothes of the accused/appellant after he returned from setting traps and it appears from her deposition that nothing unusual was noticed while the appellant after joining them, had worked with them and ate with them after cooking their mid day-meal. It is noted that she did not see any blood stain on the clothes of the accused/appellant after he returned from setting traps and it appears from her deposition that nothing unusual was noticed while the appellant after joining them, had worked with them and ate with them after cooking their mid day-meal. The fact that the appellant on their way home preferred to sit on top of the sumo instead while there was a seat inside the sumo cannot in itself be viewed with suspicion. 35. The evidence adduced by PW No. 10/C. Beikhaito stating that he saw the appellant going toward the field of the deceased Elizabeth cannot automatically lead to the presumption that he had entered the Jhum hut of the deceased victim Elizabeth. Moreover PW 10 during cross examination stated that the Jhum field of Elizabeth is below the hill wherein, it can be reasonably presumed that the jhum field of the deceased Elizabeth is some distance away from where he saw the accused/appellant. We cannot accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the principles of “last seen together“ is applicable in this case, since the evidence clearly shows that the appellant was not seen together with the deceased Elizabeth. 36. The evidence of PW No.11/Dr. Zodinthara who conducted the post mortem examination is that the cause of death of both the victims was due to was due to head injury (massive intracranial hemorrhage), thus it is held that the death of the deceased victims was homicidal in nature due to the injuries sustained by them. 37. The evidence of the Forensic Expert PW12 shows that Hnam(rope used for local basket) and hoe seized from the place of occurrence(P.O) on 08.08.2016 had blood stains which are of human origin and belong to ‘AB ‘blood group and the same blood group was found in the seized camouflage pants and camouflage shoes of the appellant. However we find that since no blood sample of the deceased victims Elizabeth or Sideii were sent for examination to link the Forensic report to the deceased Elizabeth or Sideii, the Forensic report in itself cannot be of material evidence in the prosecution case. Further, we find that no evidence has been placed on record to show that the blood of the appellant belongs to ‘O+ve’ blood group, as alleged by the case I.O. 38. Further, we find that no evidence has been placed on record to show that the blood of the appellant belongs to ‘O+ve’ blood group, as alleged by the case I.O. 38. Regarding the extra judicial confession alleged to be made by the appellant before PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 the testimonies of the above witnesses are more or less the similar. They testified that the appellant on the way from Saiha to Lunglei in the vehicle admitted his guilt by narrating the details of the incident. We have however noted that this extra judicial confession alleged to be made by the appellant is before the police personals escorting the appellant in their vehicle from Siaha to Lunglei after the arrest of the appellant on 23.9.2016. Further PW 16 also stated that he had coaxed the appellant into telling him exactly what had occurred. This thus indicates that the alleged extra judicial confession was not made only after he was coaxed and does not appear to be voluntarily. We have further noted that PW 18/Inspector Vanlasiama, the case I.O., has strangely not mentioned anything about this alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant but instead has deposed that the accused on interrogation admitted his guilt. The accused during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. has also stated that” The police party interrogated me and pressing me to say something about the incident but I did not say anything to them admitting guilt as stated by them in the Court.” 39. In view of the above the alleged extra judicial confession need to be tested in light of sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 24 provides that: -‘A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise’. Section 25 of the Evidence Act, also provides that “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence”. 40. Section 25 of the Evidence Act, also provides that “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence”. 40. In light of the provisions of sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the evidence adduced as discussed above, we find that sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to the alleged extra judicial confession made before PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 and we are constrained to hold that the extra Judicial confession alleged to be made by the appellant before the police personals PW16, PW14, PW15 is not an admissible evidence. 41. Thus after meticulous reading and analysis of the evidence of the Prosecution which is based only on circumstantial evidence we are unable to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned PP. In our considered view, the prosecution evidence fail to be sufficient to enable this court to come to a conclusion that the prosecution have proved their case against the appellant/accused with proof beyond reasonable doubt. 42. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 where in it has been observed thus- “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” In Sashi Jena v. Khadal Swain (2004) 4 SCC 236 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1077 the Apex this Court again reiterated the well-settled principle of law on circumstantial evidence that there should be a chain of circumstances showing complicity of the accused person with the crime and the chain should be complete. The above cases were referred to by the Apex Court in Krishnan Vs. The above cases were referred to by the Apex Court in Krishnan Vs. State Represented by Inspector (Supra) while the Apex court held that:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 43. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the evidence discussed above and tested in the light of principles of law highlighted above, it must be held that the evaluation of the findings recorded by the trial court suffers from improper appreciation of evidence on record and we therefore find merit in the appeal. In the result, the conviction of appellant Vanlalpianga vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2019 in Criminal Trial No. 97 of 2016 is found to be unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty unless he is wanted in connection with some other case. 44. Crl. Appeal No. 52 of 2015 is thus disposed.