Point of Law: Once prosecution established a prima facie case, appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to circumstances under which deceased met an unnatural death inside house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for conclusion of his being assailant of deceased.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl Judicial District, in Crl.Tr.No. 359/2016, convicting the appellant under section 304 (Part-I) IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I 10 (ten) years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to undergo SI for 30 (thirty) days vide its order dated 07.12.2016.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that S.I. Malsawmtluanga submitted enquiry report on 23.10.2015 at around 3:00 Am to the effect on 23.10.2015 at around 00:15 hrs information was received over telephone at Thenzawl Police Station from one Shri J. Lalchhanhima of JNV, Thenzawl to the effect that one Smt. Zonunsangi, w/o J.P. Laldawngliana had been found dead in their rented house. In the course of enquiry, the P.O. was carefully examined and inquest was held over the dead body of the victim Zonunsangi. A firewood measuring 2 feet with long hair stuck on it, suspected to be used for killing her was seized on the spot. The husband of the victim, James P. Laldawngliana was apprehended and interrogated at the Police Station and his statement was recorded. At the time of interrogation, James P. Laldawngliana admitted his guilt, stating that he had burnt his wife by pouring kerosene on her, and hit her on her head with firewood in their residence. As a result, his wife succumbed to her injury on the spot. Hence, TZL PS Case No. 22 of 2015 dated 23.10.2015 u/s 302 IPC was registered and investigated by S.I. Malsawmtluanga.

4. During investigation, the appellant James P.Laldawngliana was arrested and his statement was recorded and was forwarded to CJM for judicial remand. The dead body of Zonunsangi was forwarded to CHC, Thenzawl, for post mortem examination. The hair of the deceased was also obtained by the medical officer to compare with the hair stuck on firewood. The seized firewood stuck with long hair and the sample of the deceased’s hair was sent to FSL for examination. Three witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Later, the PME report was received and the report revealed that the cause of death was due to skull fracture and intracranial bleeding. FSL report was also received and the expert opined that the deceased hair and the hair stuck on firewood could have come from the same source. A prima facie case being found against the accused under Section 302 IPC, the Case I.O. submitted charge-sheet.

5. Upon committal of the case, the Addl. 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 7 out of 8 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC. The accused denied that he had caused injury to his wife which led to her death. As the accused failed to produce witness, his evidence was closed. After hearing both the parties, the learned lower court passed the impugned order dated06.12.2016, convicting the appellant under section 304 (Part-I) IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I 10 (ten) years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to undergo SI for 30(thirty) days vide its order dated 07.12.2016. Hence the instant appeal.

6. Mr.Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there was a lot of lacuna in the investigation of the case. The FSL report Exhibited as Ext-P3 is not conclusive and the terms used is “could have” which means that it is not conclusive whether the hairs of the victim and the hairs from the fire wood actually belonged to the deceased victim. The case I/O has failed to get the blood stain found in the fire wood examined and no finger print has been examined. There was no DNA test done to prove that