IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

MarliVankung, J.

Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Champhai Judicial District, Mizoram in SR No. 53/2021 A/o Crl.Tr. No. 137/2021, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, i.d. R.I for 1 (one) month.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that an FIR was filed by the SI, Champhai Police Station to the effect that on 23.06.2021 at 3:00 PM, a telephonic information was received from one Lalremruata Cherput, VCP Hnahlan stating that one Hmingthanmawia (38) S/o C. Lalthianghlima of Hnahlan Dam Veng was found lying on the long chair with serious injury (unconscious condition) on his head inside the residence of his elder brother Tunsianmuanga of Hnahlan Dam Veng. He was evacuated to PHC, Hnahlan for medical treatment but he succumbed to his injury on the way. Upon reaching Hnahlan village, he saw that the body of Hmingthanmawia (38), S/o C. Lalthianghlima of Hnahlan Dam Veng was already placed in the coffin, in the residence of his elder brother Tunsianmuanga. Inquest over the death body was conducted in the presence of reliable witnesses and the body was forwarded to M.O., PHC, Hnahlan for PME to ascertain the cause of his death. After all formalities were observed, foul play on the death of the deceased was found due to head injury sustained suggesting signs of being beaten by unknown person by using blunt weapon. On the said receipt of the FIR, the case was registered as CPI-PS Cases No. 53/2021 dated 23.06.2021 under Section 302 IPC.

4. The case was duly investigated into and the witnesses were examined. The Post Mortem Examination report was also received. The case I.O arrested the accused/appellant on 24.06.2021 and from the statement of the accused/appellant and from the disclosure statement, wherein the murder weapon/tools were seized in the presence of disclosure witness and other witnesses, the case I.O found prima facie against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, the charge sheet was submitted. The learned Trial Court on 19.08.2021, framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial, as many as 5 (five) prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused/appellant was then examined under 313 Cr.P.C, thereafter, one defence witness was examined. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the instant appeal.

5. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that that the learned Trial Court had erred in convicting the present appellant under 302 IPC. He submitted that there were no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution evidence is all circumstantial evidence, the learned Trial Court had wrongly based its decision on the deposition of PW No. who is a witness to a disclosure statement made by the accused/appellant made before case I.O which resulted in the recovery of the murder weapon (a plough /spade), however no disclosure statement recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was exhibited. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has also mentioned and relied on last seen together theory, based on the statement made by a person named Zohmingliana, however, the statement of said person Zohmingliana, mentioned by the learned Trial Court at para 9 of the impugned Judgment & Order, is not recorded in the court. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in not considering the statement of the accused/appellant made un