JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. PP, Mizoram.

2. The appellant/convict has prayed for setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, i.d. S.I for 3 (three) months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months. The sentences were to run concurrently and the detention period undergone was also to be set off.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that on 07.07.2017, a written FIR was received by the Aizawl Police Station from Sh. K. Lalherliana, PW-1, stating that his employee, the appellant had assaulted his (the appellant’s) wife, Smt. Cheuzakimi, in his farm at Maubawk, Aizawl, due to which the victim succumbed to her injuries on the spot. Aizawl P.S. Case No. 303/2017 dated 07.07.2017 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant. After investigation was conducted and post mortem of the dead body showed that the cause of death was due to head injuries, multiple fractures of ribs, fractures of arm bone and leg bone, Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

4. The Charge-sheet was filed in Criminal Trial No. 1460/2017 (S.C No. 180/2017). Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 on 13.12.2017, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. During the trial, 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was undertaken on 10.04.2019. The learned Trial Court thereafter passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2019, by which the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, i.d. S.I for 3 (three) months. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced to 3 (three) months imprisonment under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

5. Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae submits that his prayer in the appeal is limited, as there is an eye witness to the crime committed by the appellant. He submits that the appellant should not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC, as the appellant had been provoked by the fact that his deceased wife had admitted to being unfaithful to the appellant. He accordingly submits that the appellant could have, at best, been convicted under the first Exception to Section 300 IPC.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the appellant having stated that he saw his wife with another man in the farm house, while being examined under Section 313 CrPC, the explanation given by the appellant should have been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the fact that the appellant saw his wife with another man in a farm house and the fact that PW-7 had stated in his evidence that the appellant told him that his wife had been unfaithful to him, clearly proved that the appellant was provoked. The learned Trial Court should have accordingly considered whether the provocation caused to the appellant, would put the appellant’s case within Exception-1 of Section 300 IPC.

In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (1) Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747, (2) Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 369 and in the case of (3) Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1124/2022, which was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2022.

7. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. PP, on the other hand submits that the evidence on record does not show that there was any sudden provocation made by the deceased wife to the appellant and as such, the defense taken by the learned Amicus Curiae that