Point of Law: If an offence takes place inside privacy of a house and in such circumstances where assailants have all opportunity to plan and commit offence at time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for prosecution to lead evidence to establish guilt of accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by courts.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. This is appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei, Lunglei Judicial District, in convicting the appellant under section 304 IPC and sentencing him vide order dated 19.11.2018, to undergo R.I 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-i.d S.I for a period of one year. Period of detention already under gone by the accused/appellant to be set of.

3. The Prosecution story in brief is that on 21.10.2017 @ 6:30 am a written complaint was received from R. Lalnunmawia, S/o R. Rozawna of Lunglawn stating that on 20.10.2017 @ 9:00 pm one Lalthanchami, (35) D/o LH.Lalnunmawii of Lunglawn was found dead in the jhum hut belonging to Pu Vanlalzuia at Mel 4 Mual, Lunglawn VC area, and multiple external injuries were found on her body. Hence, Lunglei PS C/No. 180/2017 dt.21.10.2017 u/s 302 IPC was registered. In this regard on 20.10.2017 @ 9:20 pm a telephonic information was also received from HC. Lalrodinga of Hauruang stating that one Lalthanchami, w/o Raymond Zothanchama of Lunglawn had accidentally fallen down from the jhum hut and died at the spot. Formal enquiry was conducted before registering the case on the basis of the above telephonic information. During enquiry, the P.O i.e. Jhum hut belonging to Pu Vanlalzuia of Lunglawn was visited and the P.O was examined carefully. No any accidental mark on the ground which reportedly was the place where the deceased person fell down from the jhum hut was found and the sketch map of the P.O was also drawn. Inquest was conducted over the dead body of deceased Lalthanchami (35), and found multiple injuries on her different parts of the body i.e the inquest reveals that there was suspicious doubt on the death of Lalthanchami against her husband Raymond Zothanchama as he was the only one who stayed with the victim at the time of her death at the P.O. Hence, the suspected person Raymond Zothanchama was apprehended for interrogation as well as for safe custody.

4. During investigation, the deceased was forwarded to M.O. Civil Hospital, Lunglei on 21.10.2017, for post-mortem examination. The accused was formally arrested and he was thoroughly interrogated, during interrogation he admitted his guilt. As per provision of U/S 27 Indian Evidence Act, his disclosure statement was recorded in presence of two reliable independent witnesses. The involved weapon/property i.e Dao and Kurta were recovered and seized on being led and shown by the accused person in presence of the same witnesses who were presented at the time of recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The PME report in respect of deceased Lalthanchami was received from MO, Civil Hospital, Lunglei, which revealed that the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage from spleenicrupture, most probably due to blunt trauma. Under the above fact and circumstances, a primafacie case u/s 302 IPC was found against the accused Raymond Zothanchama /appellant and charge sheet was submitted accordingly.

5. Upon committal of the case, the Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him in the language known to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 9 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 of Cr PC. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence made out against him and stood as the defence witness. After hearing both the parties, the learned lower court passed the impugned order dated order dated 15.11.2018, convicting the appellant under section 304 IPC and sentencing him vide order dated 19.11.2018, to undergo R.I 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-i.d S.I for a period of one year. Hence the instant appeal

6. Mr. Aldrin L