IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the provocation defense as the deceased was intoxicated and did not provoke the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Marli Vankung, J.

Heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant along with Mrs. Mary L Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

2. This is a jail appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Judge, Fast Track Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib District, Kolasib, in Sessions Registration No. 39/2020 Kawnpui P.S. No. 09/2020 in Crl. Tr. No. 167/2020, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 20,000/-(twenty thousand) in default rigorous imprisonment for another two months.Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence order, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. Facts of the case in a nut-shell is that on 07.07.2020, a written FIR was received from Rodiat Vanlalpeka of Lungdai, ChhimVeng to the effect that on 06.07.2020 at around 6:30 pm, he found his mother Lalremruati, lying dead in her residence with multiple injuries on her body and that he strongly suspected her live-in partner, Thomas Lalthlamuana. A case under section 302 IPC was registered as KPI case No. 9 of 2020 dated 07.07.2020. During the course of an investigation, the case IO examined the complainant and had visited the place of occurrence. Inquest over the dead body was conducted and found cut mark around 2 inch long from her right ear to temple, cut mark 2 inch long on the head, multiple bruise mark on her abdomen, two small cut mark on her right shin, blacken mark on both eyes, blood oozing from her nose and mouth, multiple bruise mark on her buttock and few stool on her anus. One stick (axe handle), scissors, victim’s T-shirt all stained with blood and blood sample found on the back and the blood stained T-shirt and a short pant of the accused was also found. The case IO examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and also arrested the accused/appellant Thomas Lalthlamuana. During interrogation, his statement was recorded as ‘Disclosure Statement’ u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of two reliable witnesses. The dead body was forwarded to Medical Officer for PME. The PME report revealed that the cause of dead appeared to be ‘Haemorrhagic shock’ due to traumatic brain injury. The seized articles were sent to FSL, Aizawl. On receiving the FSL report which revealed that the suspected blood sample matched the with the deceased’s blood, a prima facie case u/s 302 IPC was found established against the accused/appellant and charge sheet was accordingly submitted.

4. The learned Trial Court framed charge under 302 IPC to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During trial, as many as 15 (fifteen) prosecution witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined u/s 313 CRPC, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. No defence witnesses were produced. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the submissions of both the parties convicted the accused/appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as mentioned above, and hence the instant appeal.

Submissions made by the learned counsels:

5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the commission of the act causing the death of the deceased victim is not denied. However, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 8, 11& 12 it is seen that the accused/appellant along with the deceased victim had gone to the house of Khianghnuna/PW-11, where the deceased victim and the accused/appellant had consumed liquor along with PW-11 and PW-12 (wife of PW-11). The victim in her drunken state had to be woken up, wherein the accused/appellant had hit her with his elbow several times and had even threw a bucket of water on her body. Thereafter, the deceased victim was taken to their house by PW-8 and PW-11. The learned counsel submits that it was because of the