IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the premeditated nature of the appellant's actions.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Amicus Curiae and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. This appeal has put to challenge the Judgment dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 75/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of fine Simple Imprisonment for 90 days.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 24.05.2020 was submitted by the informant (PW-1), to the effect that he had received information that Lalthatluangi of Saitual Chawnpui Veng, had been assaulted by her husband in the residence of PW-9. On reaching the residence, he found the deceased Lalthatluangi lying on the floor with blood oozing from her injury. During inquiry, it was found that the victim had been assaulted by the appellant (husband), by stabbing her with a knife on her right arm and right thigh with intent to kill her. The appellant was apprehended while hiding inside his residence and the knife was also seized in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3. The victim succumbed to her injuries after reaching the hospital. Inquest was conducted and Post Mortem Examination (PME) requisition was also submitted. After the PME was done, the body was handed over to her relatives for conducting a funeral.

4. The FIR was registered as Saitual P.S. Case No. 13/2020 dated 24. 05.2020 under Section 302 IPC. The investigation started and after examining the witnesses and receiving the FSL report, the Investigating Officer, having found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, submitted the Charge-sheet. The case was thereafter committed to the learned Trial Court for trial.

5. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant by the learned Trial Court, wherein the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After the evidence of 16 Prosecution Witnesses were recorded and the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had committed murder under Section 300 IPC and accordingly, convicted him under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was thereafter sentenced vide Order dated 06.12.2023 by the learned Trial Court.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that as the conviction of the appellant has been based on the evidence of the 2 eye witnesses, PW-12 and PW-13, who are interested witnesses, the learned Trial Court committed an error in giving credibility to the testimonies of the interested witnesses. In support of his submission that the evidence of the interested witnesses should not be given credibility by the learned Trial Court, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Jabbar Ali Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1440.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that Section 102 (2) & (3) Cr.PC has been violated, inasmuch as, the seized knife which had been exhibited as Ext.M was not forwarded to the immediate Superior Officer by the seizing Police Officer, nor had the same been reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. He also submits that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses as regards the apparel worn by the deceased, as can be seen from the inquest report vis-a-vis the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the evidence of PW-12 shows that PW-12 had stated he had not seen the appellant holding any weapon in his hand. Thus, the same was in contradiction to the further testimony of PW-12 that she had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife. He also submits that the severity of the injury sustained by the deceased was not mentioned by the Medical Officer (PW-15) or that the injury suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

10. He also submits that the offenc