Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 736
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Marli Vankung, JJ.
Sh. C. Malsawma S/o Pawihbawiha - Appellant
Vs.
State of Mizoram Aizawl - Respondent
CRL.A(J)/29/2024
Decided On : 30-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Lalzekima, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl,P.P., Mizoram
The court established that intention to kill can be inferred from circumstances, rejecting the appellant's claim of accidental shooting as an afterthought.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1B)(a) - Conviction for murder and illegal possession of firearm - Appellant shot his son during a family dinner, claiming intention to shoot the TV - Court found no provocation and established intent to kill based on evidence and circumstances - Conviction upheld despite procedural errors in charge framing. (Paras 2-60)
(B) Intention in Criminal Law - The intention to kill must be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act - The appellant's claim of accidental shooting was deemed an afterthought, with evidence indicating a deliberate act. (Paras 58-60)
Facts of the case:
The appellant shot his son during a family dinner, claiming he intended to shoot the TV due to noise disturbance. The incident occurred on 04.03.2017, leading to the son's death from a gunshot wound. (Paras 4-5)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the appellant guilty of murder and illegal possession of a firearm, concluding that the shooting was intentional and not accidental. (Paras 8-9)
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant had the intention to kill and whether the procedural errors in charge framing affected the conviction. (Paras 10-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's actions indicated a clear intention to kill, as evidenced by the circumstances of the shooting and the lack of provocation. (Paras 58-60)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal had been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in SC No. 104/2017 (Criminal Trial No. 927/2017), by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The appellant was thereafter, vide Sentence Order dated 18.07.2023, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 10 days under Section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 05.03.2017, addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Bawngkawn Police Station, to the effect that on the night of 04.03.2017 at around 9:30 pm, the appellant had shot his son during a family dinner. The SBBL 12 Bore Gun, LG TV bearing ricochet mark and blood stained clothes were seized. Inquest over the dead body was conducted and it was forwarded to the Civil Hospital for autopsy. In pursuance to the FIR dated 05.03.2017, Bawngkawn PS Case No. 78/2017 was registered on 05.03.2017 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
5. After conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant by the case I.O., who found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty, stating that he tried to shoot the TV and accidentally shot his son C. Zonunmawia.
6. The trial proceedings concluded with the examination of 18 prosecution witnesses (PW in short) and examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. In the examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant did not deny that he was holding a gun while the deceased was lying beside the dining table on the floor.
7. The question No. 9 and the answer given to the said question by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, is to the effect that the appellant had no intention to shoot his deceased son, as he intended to shut down the TV by using the SBBL gun, because his deceased son used to put on the TV with a high volume, which disturbed his sister who was studying. The appellant further stated that he did not know how his deceased son came between the TV and the appellant, when the appellant shot the TV. The question No. 9 and the answer given to the same by the appellant, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, is reproduced herein below as follows:-
“Q.9. Do you have anything else to say in your favour?
Ans: The fact is that I have no intention to shot my deceased son but I intended to shut down the TV by the said SBBL gun because my deceased son used to play the TV with a high volume while his sisters were studying. I do not know how my deceased son came between the TV and me while I shot the TV I also would like to state the case I.O recorded my statement falsely.”
8. The learned Trial Court, after examining the evidence and hearing the arguments put forth by the parties, came to a finding that the appellant had not been provoked by the deceased before shooting him at point blank range. It also held that the stand of the appellant that he tried to shut down the TV with the SBBL gun was only a lame excuse and that there was no reason for the accused to fire the SBBL gun, except due to the fact that he had the intention to kill the deceased. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that as the SBBL gun used by the appellant to shoot his son belonged to the
