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.

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 Pump named VEES Petrol Filling Station, Bualpui.

4. The FIR dated 19.03.2020 was registered by the Kawnpui Police Station as Kawnpui PS Case No. 6/2020 dated 19.03.2020 under Section 302/436 IPC.

5. During investigation, the appellant who had been arrested, confessed to having committed the crime of killing the deceased and the same was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. After the investigation was completed, the case I.O. i.e. PW-31, submitted the chargesheet, on finding a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC and Section 436 IPC against the appellant.

6. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 436 IPC on 11.11.2020, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the trial, 22 prosecution witnesses and 1 defence witness were examined by the learned Trial Court. After the evidence of witnesses were recorded, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC, in which he denied having anything to do with the death of the deceased.

8. The learned Trial Court on perusing the evidence and after hearing the counsels for the parties, came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having killed the deceased and setting the body and the house of the deceased on fire. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC and Section 436 IPC.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there being no eye witness to the crime, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, which does not form a complete chain. He however submits that in the appeal petition filed by the appellant, the appellant has taken the responsibility of killing the deceased. However, the appellant had caused the death of the deceased due to a grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased. He submits that due to the above, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and he should have instead been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. He also submits that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased, as his confessional statement shows that the appellant had gone into the house of the deceased to drink water. However, as the appellant had unknowingly used the cup used by the deceased to drink water, the deceased was angry with the appellant and had told him that Mizo’s were very dirty. Thus, in the heat of argument, the appellant had stabbed the victim’s forehead twice. However, as the deceased started shouting, the appellant had thereafter slit the throat of the deceased.

10. The appellant’s counsel submits that there was no pre-meditation to kill the deceased when he entered the house of the deceased, as such, in the absence of the pre-meditation on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased;