Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MARLI VANKUNG
Shri Lalhruaitea S/o Pimea (L) Bualpui Venglai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Mizoram Aizawl – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)
Heard Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal had been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Fast Track Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib District, in connection with Sessions Registration Case No. 24/2020 in Criminal Trial No. 102/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and Section 436 IPC. The appellant has been sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for twelve months, vide Sentence Order dated 05.10.2023. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 months under Section 436 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by PW-1 on 19.03.2020 stating that on 18.03.2020 at around 9:14 p.m, the Accountant of PW-1, i.e. one Dinbandhu Prasad Singh’s throat was slit and his quarter was set ablaze, which was located near the Petrol P
The court established that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of injuries and weapon used, and provocation must be grave and sudden to reduce charges under IPC.
Culpable homicide can be reduced from murder to a lesser charge if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, as outlined in Section 300 IPC.
The court established that provocation must be grave and sudden to negate intent for murder, which was not satisfied in this case.
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.
The conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, as the act was without premeditation, characterized by provocation.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the premeditated nature of the appellant's actions.
The court established that circumstantial evidence, when unbroken and corroborated by confession, can lead to a conviction for murder, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused.
The court confirmed that repeated and severe assaults infer intent to kill, regardless of claimed provocation, thus upholding a murder conviction.
The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.
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
