Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT AIZAWL BENCH
NELSON SAILO, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
P.C. Sanghluna – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (J) No. 4 of 2024
Decided On : 30-10-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Appeal - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for stabbing the deceased during a quarrel - The appellant claimed self-defense, stating he was attacked first - The court found no evidence supporting the self-defense claim and upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 2, 30, 46)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Lalruatmawia, who was stabbed during a quarrel on 12.03.2017. The appellant claimed he acted in self-defense after being attacked with a wooden stool. (Paras 4, 28)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the appellant's claim of self-defense and that the stabbing was intentional. (Paras 42, 46)
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant acted in self-defense and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to uphold the conviction. (Paras 41, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence supporting the self-defense claim and the circumstantial evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 36, 46)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This Criminal Appeal (J) has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition filed by the appellant Sh. P.C. Sanghluna, impugning the judgment and order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Champhai in S. R. No. 143/2017 arising out of Khawzawl P.S. Case No. 21/2017, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The appeal petition has been submitted by the appellant, who is serving out the sentence imposed on him in the Central Jail, Aizawl through the Special Superintendant, Central Jail, Aizawl. As the appellant was not defended by any counsel, Mr. Jordan Rohmingthanga, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the cause of the appellant before this Court in this appeal.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:
b. On receipt of the FIR, Khawzawl P.S Case No. 21/2017 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated.
c. The appellant was detained while he was on the way to Khawzawl Police Station. He was later on taken to the Police Station and was arrested.
d. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch map of the place of occurrence and seized the weapon (knife) used in committing the offence. After completing other necessary formalities regarding the investigation and finding sufficient material against the present appellant, the charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
e. On 23.08.2017, the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the present appellant for committing murder of Lalruatmawia. When the said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded his innocence. However, he admitted that he did stab the deceased in exercise of his right of private defence as the deceased first attacked him with a wooden stool on his right shoulder, inside the residence of Sainghinglova at Chalrang Village.
f. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side examined as many as eight (8) Prosecution Witnesses (from PW-1 to PW-9, no one was examined as PW-8).
g. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant pleaded that he exercised his right of private defence when he was attacked by the deceased with a wooden stool.
h. In support of the innocence of the appellant, the defence side also adduced the evidence of four (4) Defence Witnesses.
5. Before considering the rival submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.
6. PW-1, Rimawia, who is the first informant of the case, has deposed that, on 12.03.2017, while he was at Khawzawl Police Station, he received a telephone call from Mr. F. Vanla
The court upheld the conviction for murder, finding no evidence of self-defense and confirming that circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of provocation.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires intent to kill, which was absent in this case, justifying a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the premeditated nature of the appellant's actions.
Point of Law : Murder case – conviction upheld - in a case of direct evidence, "motive" is irrelevant whereas in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may indeed be an important link which comple....
Part II of Section 304 of IPC comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to ....
The court established that circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to guilt, and in this case, the evidence supported a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of....
The court established that a conviction for murder requires conclusive evidence, and in the absence of such evidence, a charge can be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
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
