IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that provocation must be grave and sudden to negate intent for murder, which was not satisfied in this case.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in SR. No. 115/2022 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 137/2022 (Serchhip PS Case No. 46/2022) and the sentence order dated 17.08.2023, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, Simple Imprisonment for another 15 days.

3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant Sh. Kapliana, who is also the prosecution witness No. 1 (PW-1) submitted an FIR dated 29.05.2022, stating that at around 3 PM of 29.05.2022 his daughter Rosangzuali was found dead in her marital home. There was blood coming from her nose and mouth and her hair was covered with blood. The FIR also stated that the perpetrator of the crime appeared to be her husband, the present appellant. In pursuant to the FIR, Serchhip P.S Case No. 46/2022 under Section 302 IPC was registered on 29.05.2022. After Inquest Report has been made in respect of the dead body, besides a post-mortem examination having been conducted, the case I/O seized a piece of wood/timber, which was about 1 feet 10 inches long and 2x4 inches thick with blood stains, from the place of occurrence. The police also seized swab blood sample on a piece of cotton from the scene of the crime and the wearing apparel of the victim with blood stains. Swab blood stain found on the body of the accused was also taken for comparison. After perusing the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 04.07.2022, the case I/O submitted a charge sheet, having found a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant.

4. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the learned Trial Court, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 15 prosecution witnesses (PW) and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had established the fact that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of his victim wife. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo punishment as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a finding that the case was a murder case and was covered within the parameters of Section 300 IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is murder if either of the 4 conditions provided in Section 300 is present and if the 5 Exceptions therein are not attracted. However, in the present case the appellant was deprived of the power of self control by the grave and sudden provocation on the part of his wife and as such, the cause of death of the victim by the appellant, would come under Exception - I of Section 300 IPC.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that on 29.05.2022 the appellant had asked his wife and children to attend church and he had told his wife that in the meantime, he would wash the clothes. However, the appellant had forgotten to wash the clothes. When his wife and children returned from church, she scolded the appellant and cursed him for not washing the clothes. Thereafter, the appellant went out of his house and returned home in the afternoon. When he reached home, he saw his wife and her boyfriend (Liana) sitting inside the master bedroom touching each other on their breasts and kissing each other. An argument broke out and his wife took a dao (big knife) and tried to strike the appellant. The appellant thereafter picked up an object and threw it at the victim. Meanwhile, the victim’s boyfriend ran away. After the victim dropped the dao, the appellant slapped the vi