JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. M. Doji, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State and Mr. J. Jini, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the victim. 2. The instant appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed assailing the Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2021 in Sessions Case No. 50/(UDV)/2012, under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959, whereby the Appellant was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 IPC and 1 year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. an FIR was lodged on 19.06.2012, by one Shri Baro Ekroya that Shri Jaha Ekroya, The prosecution’s story in brief is that son of Duti Ekroya of village Italin has shot at SmtiNutha Pulu wife of Chana Milli of Italin on 18.06.2012. After receipt of the FIR, Anini P.S. Case No. 08/2012, under Section 307 IPC, read with Section 25(1A)/27(1) of the Arms Act was registered against the Accused/Appellant. During the investigation, it was revealed that the victim was standing outside her residence and at that time, the Appellant, who is her neighbor, without any reason and provocation shot at her with an intention to kill her with an SBBL gun. It was also found that the victim sustained bullet injuries on her upper chest and she was shifted to Roing District Hospital from where she was again referred to Dibrugarh. The Accused/Appellant Jaha Ekroya was arrested and also, the weapon of the offence was seized. The empty cartridges seized were sent to FSL for testing. On having collected sufficient materials, the Investigating Officer (IO) had filed the Charge- Sheet under Section 307/326 of IPC, read with Section 251(A)/27(1) of the Arms Act. It was stated in the Charge-Sheet that if required, a Supplementary Charge-sheet would be filed after receipt of the FSL report. 4. After receipt of the Charge-Sheet, the Trial Court framed charges against the Accused/Appellant on 24.02.2013, under Section 326/307 IPC, read with Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. It was stated in the Charge-Sheet that if required, a Supplementary Charge-sheet would be filed after receipt of the FSL report. 4. After receipt of the Charge-Sheet, the Trial Court framed charges against the Accused/Appellant on 24.02.2013, under Section 326/307 IPC, read with Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court examined 7 witnesses and also recorded the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, it is seen from the record that though several summonses were issued for presence of the IO in the instant case, the IO could not be examined as the IO did not make himself present in the Trial Court, in the instant case. It is seen that the Trial Court had also examined the Magistrate before whom the Appellant had allegedly confessed his commission of the alleged offence under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After examination of the Magistrate, the Trial Court examined the Appellant again under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.12.2021 as the Magistrate was made a witness on a later stage of the trial. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court had come to a conclusion and passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2021, convicting the Accused/Appellant, under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act as mentioned above. 5. PW-1 is the own brother of the Accused/Appellant, who had lodged the FIR against the Appellant for having shot at the victim and for having caused grievous bullet injuries on the victim. The FIR was exhibited as Exhibit-1 and his thumb impression was exhibited as Exhibit-1(A). P/Exhibit-2(A) is his signature related to seizure of SBBL gun. In his cross- examination, he stated that he did not know the contents of the FIR. He further deposed that he did not know the reason for the quarrel. He further deposed that there was no enmity between the victim and his brother, i.e., the Appellant. 6. PW-2 is the brother of the victim and he deposed that the Accused is the neighbor of his sister and their house is located at a distance of 10-20 metres from the house of the Accused. He deposed that the Accused shot at her victim sister with 12 bore gun and caused bullet injuries on her chest for which his victim sister was taken to Roing hospital and thereafter, to Dibrugarh. He deposed that the Accused shot at her victim sister with 12 bore gun and caused bullet injuries on her chest for which his victim sister was taken to Roing hospital and thereafter, to Dibrugarh. During his cross-examination, he stated that he was told by his victim sister that the Accused had fired at her from the window of his house. 7. PW-3 is the victim and she deposed before the Court that Accused had shot her from his house while she was standing near her house. The bullet hit her chest and went out from her back, for which, she became unconscious and retained consciousness only at the medical at Dibrugarh. She stated that the incident took place on 18.06.2012 about 9.30 A.M. to 10.00 AM. She further stated that the bullets were recovered from her body. During her cross-examination, she deposed that the Accused had shot at her from the window of his house and she had only seen the gun but not seen the person who had shot her. 8. PW-4 is the Medical Officer who had examined the victim. He deposed and confirmed that injury was caused due to hit of bullet. He deposed that bullet entered from the right side of chest of the victim. He deposed that the bullet entered from the front side of the chest and exited from the back side of the victim. The bullet that had got stuck inside the body was taken out through back hole and was handed over to the patient and her attendant. He had exhibited the MLC report of the patient as Exhibit-3 and his signature as Exhibit-3(A). He had exhibited the information given to the local police of Assam as Exhibit-4. During his cross- examination, he had deposed that the age of the wound would be less than 48 hours as blood was still oozing out of the wound. He further deposed that he could not exactly say the nature of the arms said to have been used for firing and also could not say the distance from where it was hit causing the injury. 9. PW-5 deposed that he knows Jaha Ekroya and before the death of his father, he was told that the gun of his deceased father was given to Accused/Appellant Jaha Ekroya. 9. PW-5 deposed that he knows Jaha Ekroya and before the death of his father, he was told that the gun of his deceased father was given to Accused/Appellant Jaha Ekroya. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not have any documents to prove that the gun used was the weapon of offence belonged to his deceased father. 10. PW-6, deposed that she did not know from where the police had seized the gun. She deposed that she had not put her thumb impression on the seizure memo. Hercross was declined by the defence. 11. PW-7 is the Magistrate, who recorded the Confessional Statement of the Accused. He had identified the Accused standing on the dock as Jaha Ekroya. He deposed that he recorded the Confessional Statement of the Accused on 27.06.2012. He deposed that the Accused/Appellant was informed about the legal formalities before recording his Confessional Statement. He deposed that the Accused confessed before him that he shot the victim Shanti Milli while he was drunk. He had exhibited the Confessional Statement as Exhibit-5, which contains 5 pages and his signatures asExhibit-5 (A) and (B). During his cross- examination, he deposed that he recorded the Confessional Statement in the capacity of JMFC. He deposed that he did not remember from whose custody, the Accused/Appellant was produced before him for recording of his Confessional Statement. He deposed that he gave sufficient time to the Accused to refresh his mind before he made his Confessional Statement, which took half an hour. 12. The Accused/Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, in a question posed to him that PW-2 Shri Erita Pulu deposed that his sister had been shot by 12 bore gun by you. What do you have to say on this? The Accused/Appellant replied saying “I have compensated the victim for causing injuries on her by gunshot”. Another question to the effect that PW-3 Shanti Pulu deposed that you assaulted her, what do you say on this? The Appellant replied “This is true; I shoot at her because I got annoyed with when she dumps garbage in my place.” 13. It is seen that the IO in the instant case had not been examined.However, the Magistrate, who recorded the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant was produced before the Court and his statement was recorded. He further exhibited the Confessional Statement before the Trial Court. It is seen that the IO in the instant case had not been examined.However, the Magistrate, who recorded the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant was produced before the Court and his statement was recorded. He further exhibited the Confessional Statement before the Trial Court. After hearing the parties and finding material against the Accused/Appellant, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the Accused/Appellant for 10 years rigorous imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced one year imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment of one month. It was directed that the sentence has to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, Lohit district, Arunachal Pradesh, dated 20.12.2021, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant. 14. Mr. M. Boje, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the Appellant submits that the entire conviction has been based only on suspicion and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that though there was a mention of filing of Supplementary Charge- Sheet after receipt of the FSL report regarding the empty cartridges recovered from the body of the victim, neither any such FSL report nor any Supplementary Charge-Sheet had been filed in the instant case. He submits that without the FSL report, it cannot be proved that the empty cartridges found in the body of the victim can be treated as the bullets shot from the gun used in the offence. He submits that the custodial gun was seized from PHC Italin, PO/PS-Anini, Dibang Valley District on 20.06.2012 wherein, two seizure witnesses were named. However, except Baro Ekraya PW-1, the second seizure witness was not examined. He further submits that it was not explained how the gun was seized from PHC Italin and not from the house of the Accused/Appellant, wherein the allegation was that the gun shot was fired from the house of the Accused/Appellant. He submits that the seizure witnesses did not support from where the seizure was actually made. He further submits that it was not explained how the gun was seized from PHC Italin and not from the house of the Accused/Appellant, wherein the allegation was that the gun shot was fired from the house of the Accused/Appellant. He submits that the seizure witnesses did not support from where the seizure was actually made. He further submits that in the instant case, the IO who is a vital witness in the instant case, who had investigated and filed the Charge-Sheet had not been examined, which goes to vitiate the whole prosecution story in the instant case. He submits that Charge-Sheet was not exhibited and proved in the instant case. He submits that serious suspicion cannot replace the proof that is required in a criminal case, and in the instant case, the whole case is based on suspicion and the case has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the Accused/Appellant has already spent more than 8 ½ years behind the bars and therefore, at this stage, he is liable to be released from the jail. 15. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Radha Mohan Hajong Vs. The State of Assam , reported in (2025) 3 GLT 117, wherein, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has held that suspicion however grave, it may be, cannot take place of proof and there is a large difference between ‘that may be proved’ and something ‘that will be proved’. He submits that in the instant case, since the story of prosecution is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt though there is a Confessional Statement, the same cannot justify the conviction in the instant case. He submits that though the victim had stated that the gun shot was fired from the window, she specifically mentioned that she did not see as to who had fired the gun. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the instant case is the correct example wherein, the prosecution’s story is totally based on suspicion and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is also based on suspicion and not proved beyond reasonable doubt; and therefore, the instant Appeal should be allowed by releasing the Accused/Appellant from the jail. 16. Per contra, Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. 16. Per contra, Mr. G. Tado, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the case is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as the Confessional Statement which was recorded properly by the Magistrate as well as the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proves that the version of the victim and that can be taken into account as proof as there is consistency in both the statements. He further submits that the Magistrate who had recorded the Confessional Statement had also been examined and he had also deposed that after following the due procedure, the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant was recorded. The Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant was exhibited and the same had been proved by the Magistrate. In view of the Confessional Statement as well as the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in addition, the statements of the witnesses recorded in the instant case, it is clear that none other than the Accused/Applicant had committed the offence of shooting the victim in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that no wrong has been committed by the Trial Court in convicting the Accused/Appellant under Section 307 of the IPC as well as Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act. He further submits that non-examination of the IO cannot be treated as fatal in a criminal case as the same had not prejudiced the Accused/Appellant in any way. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he submits that the conviction of the Accused/Appellant is right in the instant case, taking into account the facts and circumstances and the depositions of the witnesses in addition to the Confessional Statement recorded by the Magistrate in the instant case. 17. In support of his argument that non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is not fatal, he has referred to the case of Bahadur Naik Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1582 , wherein it has been held by the that non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is of no consequence in the Hon’ble Supreme Court facts and circumstances of that case. He further referred to the case of Mahiram Bora Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1582 , wherein it has been held by the that non-examination of the Investigating Officer as a witness is of no consequence in the Hon’ble Supreme Court facts and circumstances of that case. He further referred to the case of Mahiram Bora Vs. The State of Assam , reported in 1993 2 GauLR 79 wherein the High Court has held that a reading of confessional statement, which is voluntary and , wherein the Hon’ble Gauhat not in contradiction to Section 313 Cr.P.C. then, it can be trusted as true and trustworthy. In support of his argument that non-examination of IO is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, he has also referred to the case of Behari Prasad Etc. Vs. The State of Bihar , reported in ( 1996) 2 SCC 317 18. Mr. J. Jini, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the victim, supported the submissions made by the learned Addl. P.P. and submits thatthe statements under Section 164 CR.P.C., recorded by the Magistrate, the Accused/Appellant had voluntarily admitted his guilt by his Confessional Statement. He submits that in the instant case, the Magistrate was also examined and the whole formalities of Section 164 were followed during the Confessional Statement of the Accused/applicant. He submits that the Confessional Statement corroborates the statements made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the Accused/Applicant. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that there is nothing wrong in the Judgment &Order passed by the learned Trial Court in the instant case and therefore, the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also carefully gone through the Trial Court Record that have been produced before this Court. 20. It is seen from the records that the Confessional Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the Accused/Applicant was recorded on 27.06.2012 by the Magistrate. The Accused/Appellant was brought before the Magistrate after about 8 days of the alleged commission of the offence. It is also seen that after the detention of the Accused/Appellant by the police at 3:00 AM of the intervening night, he was brought before the Magistrate at about 11:00 AM on the next day, after he was produced before the Magistrate (JMFC) at 10:00 hours. It is also seen that after the detention of the Accused/Appellant by the police at 3:00 AM of the intervening night, he was brought before the Magistrate at about 11:00 AM on the next day, after he was produced before the Magistrate (JMFC) at 10:00 hours. It is also noticed that to normalize the Accused/Appellant and to find the truth, the Magistrate had asked certain questions to find out his mental condition. It is also seen that the Accused/Appellant was explained about the provisions of Section 164Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act in details. Several questions were asked and information was given to the Accused/Appellant before recording his statement after finding the Accused/Appellant to be in normal state of mind. It is seen that the statement of the Accused/Appellant is very specific that to the effect that in the morning of 18.06.2012, he was heavily drunk from many places and when he returned to his house, he saw that his veranda was deposited with large number of timbers and wood. He was annoyed that those people, specifically, the victim always used to disturb him; so, getting angry due to his drunkenness, he took out his gun and shot at the victim. It is also mentioned that the recording of the Confessional Statement of the Accused consumed about half an hour of time, meaning thereby that sufficient amount of time was given to the Accused/Appellant to make his statement before the Magistrate. It is also seen from the record that a certificate had been issued by the Magistrate to the effect that he being conversant with the provisions of Rule 23 of Gauhati High Court Rules, Circulars, Orders and relevant provisions regarding recording of confession, he had recorded the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant after duly following the aforesaid provisions of law. He further certified that the Accused/Appellant was explained that he was not bound to make any confession and if he did so, the same might be used against him and the confession had been made voluntarily. 21. As discussed above, it is also seen that the statements made under Section 313 CR.P.C. also, the Accused/Appellant had stated that he had shot the victim and for that he had paid money as compensation to her. Thereby, admitting the fact that he was the one who had shot the victim. 21. As discussed above, it is also seen that the statements made under Section 313 CR.P.C. also, the Accused/Appellant had stated that he had shot the victim and for that he had paid money as compensation to her. Thereby, admitting the fact that he was the one who had shot the victim. There is no inconsistency in the statements of the Accused/Appellant under Section 164Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 22. Now, coming to the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, it is seen that PW-1, namely, Baro Ekroya, is the elder brother of the Accused/Appellant and they are of same parents. He deposed that he was told that his brother, i.e., the Accused/Appellant had assaulted the victim and on advice of others, he lodged the FIR. He also deposed that he could not read or write as he was an illiterate person. During his cross- examination, he stated that he did not see the incident himself and as told by the PI and other villagers, he had lodged the FIR, which was drafted by the PI but, he did not know the contents therein. He also stated that he did not know the reason of the quarrel. He stated that the victim and the Accusedwere not having any enmity prior to the incident. He further stated that he did not know about the gun shown to him before this Court today and the gun belonged to whom. PW-2 is the brother of the victim. He stated in his deposition that Accused and his sister are neighbours and the distance between their houses was 10/20 metres. He stated that the Accused/Appellant shot his sister by 12 bore Gun. In his deposition, he stated that he was not present at the time of the incident and he did not see the incident. He had only the Accused had fired from the window of his house. He also heard about the incident as the victim’s sister told him that stated that his sister did not tell him as to why she was shot by the Accused. PW-3 is the victim who stated that the Accused/Appellant shot her with a gun when she was standing near her house. He also heard about the incident as the victim’s sister told him that stated that his sister did not tell him as to why she was shot by the Accused. PW-3 is the victim who stated that the Accused/Appellant shot her with a gun when she was standing near her house. She stated that she was shot from his house and the bullet hit her in the upper chest and went outside when she became unconscious and she regained her consciousness on the way to Dibrugarh hospital. She stated that she was doing some gardening work in her kitchen garden when the Accused/Appellant shot her. In her cross- examination, she stated that Accused shot her from the window of his house. She stated that she had seen the gun but not the Accused in that room. She stated that other than the Accused, nobody would shoot her from his house. From the aforesaid depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, one aspect is certain that the victim was shot by someone, allegedly, by the Accused/Appellant. However, there is no certainty as no one had seen the Accused/Appellant firing the gun as the victim had stated herself that she had seen only the gun but not the person who has shot the gun. However, she had presumed or she is sure that nobody other than the Accused/Appellant could have shot her from the house of the Accused/Appellant. PW-4 is the Medical Officer who confirmed that the victim was injured by gun shot and small palettes of bullet were recovered from her body, which were handed over to the patient and the attendants. PW-5, namely, EpenduEkru stated that he knew the Accused/Appellant. He stated that before expiry of his father, he was told that his gun was given to the said Accused Jaha Ekroya. In his cross-examination, he stated before the police that he did not know the Accused/Appellant. He further stated that he did not have any document to show that gun belonged to his father. He further stated that he could not identify the gun of his father. PW-6, namely, Episo Ekroya, who was named as one of the witnesses in the seizure memo stated that she knew the Accused/Appellant. She stated that she did not have any idea from whom the police had seized the gun. She also stated that she had not put thumb impression on any seizure list. PW-6, namely, Episo Ekroya, who was named as one of the witnesses in the seizure memo stated that she knew the Accused/Appellant. She stated that she did not have any idea from whom the police had seized the gun. She also stated that she had not put thumb impression on any seizure list. Her cross-examination was declined by the defence. 23. From the aforesaid depositions of PW-4, PW-5 and PW6, it certainly cannot be ascertained from where the gun was recovered though PW-5 wanted to say that the gun was delivered to the Accused/Appellant by his father; he could not specifically state anything neither about the gun nor the identification of the gun.He made a very general statement about the delivery of the gun by his father to the Accused/Appellant without any corroboration or proof. He could not further explain why the gun was given to the Accused/Appellant by his father. The witness to the seizure memo also, could not state anything about the seizure of the gun as she denied putting her thumb impression in the seizure memo. The prosecution’s story regarding the seizure of the gun from PHC is also very difficult to understand as how the gun has reached the PHC, if the gun was used by the Accused/Appellant from his house. Therefore, the recovery of the gun from a different place other than the house of the Accused/Appellant makes the prosecution story doubtful. 24. PW-7, the Magistrate had deposed before the Court that the Confessional Statement recorded of the Accused/Appellant was voluntary and the same was done after due compliance to the relevant legal provisions as well as in terms of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 25. Now, the question as to on the face of the Confessional Statement recorded under the 164Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the discrepancies about the seizure of the gun will carry how much creditability that the same will negate the story made by the prosecution case in the instant case. This Court has carefully gone through the P. Ext. No.5, i.e., the Form for recording the statement of the Appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Form contains not only the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant but also various questions which were put by the Magistrate during his recording of the Confessional Statement. This Court has carefully gone through the P. Ext. No.5, i.e., the Form for recording the statement of the Appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Form contains not only the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant but also various questions which were put by the Magistrate during his recording of the Confessional Statement. It is seen that all the cautionthatis required by the Magistrate had been taken by the Magistrate while recording the Confessional Statement of the Accused/Appellant. It is seen from the Form that the Accused/Appellant was appropriately explained about the provisions of law and that he was not bound to make any confession, but if he did make a confession, it might be used against him as evidence and that he should not say anything, because others had asked him to say and that he had liberty to say whatever he really wanted to say and that he should say nothing, which was untrue. It is also seen that the Magistrate had given time for reflection to the Accused/Appellant and also asked several questions which would reflect his mental condition. Sufficient time was taken in recording the Confessional Statement also. It is also seen that the Magistrate was examined as witness as PW-7 and he had been cross-examined also. It is seen that the observation made by the Magistrate, was not negated and infact, it had gone completely unchallenged by the defence. 26. Now the question comes whether on the basis of a Confessional Statement which is corroborated by the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., an accused person can be convicted or not. In this connection, the case of the Sankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248 , being relevant is taken for consideration. In the as follows: - “If the first case is satisfied, the Court must, before acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is stated therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability to such a confession, or for that matter any such substantive piece of evidence, there is no rigid cannon of universal application. Even so, one broad method, which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. Even so, one broad method, which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be probable catalogue of events and naturally fitsin with the rest of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test.” 27. From the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the judicial confession made by the Accused/Appellant in the instant case is not only voluntary, but true as well. In another case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down as follows: “……………………………………………It is, however, true that Sarwan Singh has made a confession and in law, it is always open to the Court to convict an Accused on his confession it self though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless usually Courts require some corroboration to the confession statement before convicting an Accused person on such statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such case would always be a question of fact to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.” 28. In the case of Kehar Singh Vs. The State , reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883 clear that there is no impediment in law in conviction of , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it an accused solely on his own confession, even if retracted, provided that the Court believes such a confession as true. The law, that no Court can throw away a confession merely because the confession was retracted, has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kutty alias Laxmi Narashinhan , reported in 2001 Crl. Law Journal 4168 observed as follows: , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has “……………………….Learned Judges of the High Court declined to act on the said confession mainly for two reasons. First is that the confession was retracted by the maker thereof and second is that the recovery of articles was made prior to the confession. We may state at the outset itself that both reasons are too insufficient for overruling the confession. First is that the confession was retracted by the maker thereof and second is that the recovery of articles was made prior to the confession. We may state at the outset itself that both reasons are too insufficient for overruling the confession. It is not the law that once a confession was retracted the Court should presume that the confession is tainted. As a matter of practical knowledge we can say that non-retracted confession is a rarity in criminal cases. The retract from confession is the right of the confessor and all the Accused against confessions were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The Court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects. The twin test of a confession is to ascertain whether it was voluntary and true. Once these tests are found to be positive the next endeavour is to see whether there is any other reason, which stands in the way of acting on it. Even for that, retraction of the confession is not the ground to throw the confession overboard.” 29. In the case of K.I. Parunny Vs. Asstt. Collector (HQ) Central Excise Collectors, Cochin , reported in (1997) 3 SCC 721 , the Supreme Court has settled the legal position that confession can form the sole basis of conviction and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “………………………It would thus be seen that there is no prohibition under the Evidence Act to rely upon the retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to make the same basis for conviction of the Accused. Practice and prudence require that the court could examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether there are any other facts and circumstances to corroborate the retracted confession. It is not necessary that there should be corroboration from independent evidence adduced by the prosecution to corroborate each detail contained in the confessional statement. The court is required to examine whether the confessional statement is voluntary; in other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If the court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary then it is required to examine whether the statement is true. The court is required to examine whether the confessional statement is voluntary; in other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If the court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary then it is required to examine whether the statement is true. If the court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base the conviction. However, prudence and practice require that court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.” 30. In view of the aforesaid ratios Supreme Court, it is apparently cleared that a conviction, laid down by the Hon’ble solely, on the basis of the Confessional Statement, which has been recorded as per the law in true terms be made. 31. In the instant case, it is seen that the Confessional Statement was recorded in compliance of all relevant procedures and laws and in a proper Form. It is also seen that the Confessional Statement has been corroborated by the statements of the victim who had been injured allegedly by the Accused/Appellant. It is also seen from the records that there is no material of any enmity between the Appellant and the victim and therefore, there is no reason why the victim who had been injured will implicate the Accused/applicant unnecessarily. It is also seen from the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the Accused/Appellant had himself corroborated the Confessional Statement by his statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In a specific question made to him, he had himself stated that he had shot the victim being annoyed and drunk. He had also stated that he had paid some money as compensation as he had shot the victim. The aforesaid facts clearly show that there is no much doubt about the shooting of the victim by the Accused/Appellant in the instant case. However, as for the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are concerned, it is important to bear in mind that though a statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not a statement made on oath and is not,strictly speaking evidence, yet the statement, so made, can, indeed be taken into consideration, at the trial, against the Accused for the purpose of arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the Accused. 32. 32. As far as the reliability that can be given to the statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, the case of The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh , reported in AIR 1992 SC 2100 , can be held as follows: - “51. That brings us to the question whether such a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code can constitute the sole basis for conviction. Since no oath is administered to the Accused, the statements made by the Accused will not be evidence stricto sensu. That is why, sub-section (3) says that the Accused shall not render himself liable to punishment if he gives false answer. Then comes sub-section (4), which reads: "313 (4) The answers given by the Accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed." 33. Therefore, the answers given by the Accused, in response to his examination, under Section 313, can be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial. Hence, though not strictly evidence, Sub-Section 4 permits that it may be taken into consideration in the inquiry or trial. 34. e Supreme Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. State of M.B. reported in AIR 1953 SC 468 The Hon’bl held that an answer given by an Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by a prosecution witness. 35. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the that the statement under Section 313, though not made under Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion oath, can be taken into account in finding out the guilt of the Accused if the same is corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case, it is seen that the Confessional Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. corroborates each other and the same could not be demolished by way of any cross-examination or any material relevant in the instant case by the defence. 36. In the instant case, it is seen that the Confessional Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. corroborates each other and the same could not be demolished by way of any cross-examination or any material relevant in the instant case by the defence. 36. On the basis of the aforesaid and taking into account the whole facts in the instant case, it is seen that though there is no eye witness, except the statement of the victim that the gun was shot from the house of the Accused/Appellant, the Confessional Statement made before the Magistrate which has been found to be properly recorded by the Magistrate as well as his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are sufficient to prove the guilt of the Accused/Appellant in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt. 37. This court has considered the case referred by the Amicus Curiae appearing for the Appellant, i.e., Radha Mohan Hajong (supra). This Court is of the opinion that in the instant case, there is more than suspicion is involved as there are Confessional Statement as well as the same has corroboration by the statements of witnesses as well as the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. made by the Accused/Appellant voluntarily. 38. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered and conscious opinion that there is no infirmity in the Judgment & Order rendered by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Tezu, Lohit District (A.P.), vide his Judgment dated 20.12.2021. Therefore, the Appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 39. The Trial Court Records are to be sent back immediately.