The court affirmed that a violent assault resulting in death constitutes intentional murder under Section 302 IPC, with no valid claims of provocation from the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)

Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aizawl District in SC No. 45/2021 arising out of Crl. Trial No. 819/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of fine Simple Imprisonment for one month, vide Sentence Order dated 12.06.2024.

3. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to an FIR dated 12.03.2021 submitted by the brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the appellant, who is also Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1), before the Officer-in-Charge, Aizawl Police Station, which was to the effect that the informant believed that the deceased (wife) had died at the hand of the appellant (husband), Aizawl PS Case No. 160/2021 dated 12.03.2021 under Section 302 IPC was registered.

4. The case Investigating Officer (I.O) investigated the case and after completing his investigation, submitted a charge sheet dated 08.06.2021, wherein he found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant on24.01.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 18 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 2 are eye witnesses, i.e. PW-8 (daughter of the appellant) and PW-9 (who was the friend of the deceased).

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the evidence that he had dragged his wife around9:00 am and smashed her head on the floor, besides assaulting her. He also denied that he had dragged her into the bathroom and poured water on her.

7. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had intentionally killed his wife and that none of the Exceptions in Section 300 IPC had been attracted. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentence was imposed as reflected in the earlier paragraph.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that though there were eye witnesses to the incident of the appellant’s action being the cause of for the death of the deceased, the act of the appellant was unintentional, inasmuch as, the appellant did not have the intention to kill his wife. She further submits that the evidence of PW-8, who is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased is to the effect that she saw the appellant hitting the deceased with his belt and a water bottle, besides pouring water in her ear. Further, the appellant was hitting the head of the deceased very hard. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the belt and the water plastic bottle was not sent to the FSL for examination, to prove that they were the weapons used for hitting the deceased.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that as per the appeal petition submitted by the appellant, the death of the deceased was caused due to grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased, inasmuch as, the appellant got angry due to the deceased not being able to breastfeed the couple’s baby on account of the deceased being drunk. She submits that the appeal petition clearly shows that the deceased had been woken up by the appellant to breastfeed thei