The main legal point established in the judgment is that an act committed in a sudden heat of passion during a quarrel, without premeditation, falls within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J

Heard Mr. Angshuman Bora, learned Senior counsel for the appellant along with Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment & Order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl in Session Case No. 28/2021, arising out of Criminal Trial No. 301/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, i.d. imprisonment for 1 (one) year and under Section 6(2) r/w Section 5(2) of MLP Act, 2019 and sentenced to undergo 5 (five) months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4000/-, i.d. imprisonment for 2 (two) months, vide Sentence Order dated 09.12.2021.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was received on 10.12.2020 to the effect that on 09.12.2020, Dr. Laltanpuia was found on the verge of death at his Kulikawn resident and was rushed to the Aizawl Hospital, wherein he succumbed to his injuries at around 10:00 PM. They have reason to believe that he died in the hands of his wife/appellant.

4. Pursuant to the FIR, the case was registered as KLK P.S. Case No. 106/0 dated 10.12.2020 under Section 302 IPC. The case I.O. thereafter investigated the case and examined the witnesses, sent the body of the deceased victim for PME and accordingly the case I.O. found prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and section 6(2) r/w 5(2) of MLP Act and charge sheet submitted. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 6(2) r/w Section 5(2) of MLP Act, 2019 by the learned Trial Court on 1st December, 2021, wherein the appellant had pleaded not guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC and claimed to be tried accordingly. The accused however pleaded guilty under Section 6(2) of MLP Act, 2019 admitting that she had consumed two cups of Royal Stag mixed with juice at 5:30 PM in their resident.

5. During trial as many as 27 prosecution witnesses were examined in the Court, the accused/appellant was then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, thereafter, one defendant witness was examined. The learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 6(2) of MLP Act, 2019 and accordingly, sentenced the appellant as stated in the foregoing paragraphs.

6. Mr. Angshuman Bora, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that this is a clear case where there was no intention to commit the offence under Section 302 IPC since no mens-reahas been proved against the appellant. He submits that on the evening of the incident, the appellant and the deceased, both had consumed liquor and an argument had erupted between them, wherein the appellant on the sphur of the moment, being provoked at, unintentionally stabbed the deceased, which unfortunately caused his death.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant led this Court through the evidence of PW-9, PW-29 & DW-1, where it was also stated by the witnesses that the relationship between the deceased and his wife/appellant was not good. That the deceased Dr. Laltanpuia used to be abusive towards his wife. The learned counsel also led this Court to the evidence of PW-13, who is the friend of the deceased wherein, the appellant had made a kind of extra confessional statement before him and she had told him that she had stabbed the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation. The learned senior counsel submits that from the medical evidence, there was only one single injury which was due to provocation and that she had no intention to cause death.

8. Mr. Angshuman Bora, learned senior counsel submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The only witness who was at the place of occurrence was PW No. 27, Chrystie Malsawmkimi, who was only 5 years of age and not safe to blindly rely on her statement. The prosecution failed to pr