Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
P. C. Zobiaksanga – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
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 regis
The court established that provocation must be grave and sudden to negate intent for murder, which was not satisfied in this case.
Culpable homicide can be reduced from murder to a lesser charge if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, as outlined in Section 300 IPC.
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
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, constitutin....
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the appellant's act was committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
