SULTAN AHMED Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 29.12.08 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl convicting the accused appellant under Sections 302/376/384 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 2 years respectively for these offences. THE sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. AR Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the State.

(3.) THE learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the purported confessional statement is visibly not in compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in absence of any eye witnesses of any alleged incident, the conviction of the accused appellant is unsustainable in law. He pleaded in particular that not only the accused appellant had not been accorded sufficient time to reflect, no memorandum, as compulsorily required under Section 164(4) of the Cr.P.C. having been recorded, the so called confessional statement is non-est in the eye of law. Drawing the attention to the impugned judgment, Mr. Malhotra, has urged that though the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant by relying on the confessional statement the oral testimony of PW 1, PW 2, PW 10, PW 11, PW 12, PW 13, PW 15 and PW 16 as well as the documents proved by them, it omitted to confront him with all incriminating materials appearing against him but acted upon the same. On this aspect of the failure of the learned trial court to put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused appellant, the learned Amicus Curiae has urged that such lapse has vitiated the impugned judgment and order more particularly in the background of the earlier decision rendered in the Criminal Reference No.2/2006, rendered by this court on 27.2.2007. As in spite of the clear direction contained in this order passed by this court, the learned trial court failed to act in compliance with the requirement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside on that count alone, he contended. THE learned Amicus Curiae emphasised that not only there subsists a confusion with regard to the actual date of death of the deceased there being no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge of rape and extortion, the conviction of the accused appellant on these counts also is clearly illegal. Mr. Malhotra, to buttress his argument, has placed a decision of this court in 2009 (3) GLT 899 : Sarjan Boro Vs. State of Assam.