SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2269

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Sh. Jonathan Lalremkima, S/o Sh. C. Lalmuanpuia - Appellant
Versus
The State of Mizoram, The Secretary, Home Department And Anr. - Respondents
Crl.A. 27 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B. Lalramenga
For the Respondent: Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, Addl. P.P

The absence of direct evidence proving intent or knowledge of causing grievous injury negates culpability under Section 304 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part-I - Appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - The Trial Court convicted the appellant due to intentional bodily harm leading to the victim's death; however, the High Court found no evidence of intent or knowledge of causing death by push or shove resulting in injuries. (Paras 4, 6, 12)

(B) Legal Principle - The absence of direct evidence proving intent to kill or inflict injuries likely to cause death absolves the accused from culpability under Section 304 IPC. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in a fatal altercation leading to the victim's injuries, which resulted from a scuffle. The dispute arose over noise created by the victim and his companions. The victim succumbed to head injuries after falling from his scooty during the incident. (Paras 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish that the accused administered a blow, resulting in the injuries that led to death. The court ruled the incident was accidental. (Paras 10, 12)

Issues: Whether the appellant intended to cause death or knew his actions were likely to cause death. (Paras 9, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without concrete evidence of the accused’s intention or knowledge concerning the fatal repercussions of the incident, the charges could not be upheld. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: The judgment of the Trial Court is set aside; the accused is acquitted. Criminal Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the incident leading to appeal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. findings and conclusions of the trial court. (Para 6 , 7)
3. arguments presented by the appellant and state. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. court's final analysis and reasoning. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. P.P for the State.

2. This matter was heard at length on 18.11.2025 and the judgment & order was reserved.

Proceedings leading to the appeal:

3. The case emanates from an FIR lodged with the Officer-in-Charge, Lunglei Police Station informing that the husband of the informant was beaten up by an unknown miscreant at Farm Veng, Pu Bawka Point and that he was taken to the hospital at Lunglei. When the informant reached the hospital, the husband of the informant was unconscious and despite best efforts of the Doctors to resuscitate him, he succumbed to his injuries on 15.03.2021 at around 12:25 A.M. A request was made to find out the miscreant who is behind the death of the husband of the informant and take action against him.

4. The case was registered as Lunglei P.S Case No. 33/2021 dated 15.03.2021 under section 302 IPC and investigation was carried out. The accused was arrested on 15.03.2021 and the final report/charge-sheet was filed by the Investigation Officer on 23.08.2021. During the trial, 9 prosecution witnesses were examined. The learned Trial Court examined the appellant under section 313 Cr.PC on 26.08.2022 and by the judgment & order dated 10.04.2023, the appellant was convicted under section 304 Part-I of the , 1860 and sentenced by the order dated 12.04.2023 to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another one month. A 20 days period from the term of sentence was set off.

Prosecution story:

5. The prosecution story in brief was that the victim and another person had gone out to buy local made liquor at Lunglawn and after buying the local liquor, they both drank the liquor near Vety Office, Chanmari and then proceeded towards Pu Bawka point. At around 6:00 P.M, they met a common friend and three of them rode towards near Pu Bawka point. While they were waiting near Pu Bawka point, the accused went up to them and punched the deceased on his face, who fell down to the ground. The accused thereafter attacked the friend of the victim and frightened, the friend fled away on the scooty. When the friend of the victim went back to the place of occurrence by foot, he learned that the victim has already been taken to the Lunglei Civil Hospital. The friend of the victim thereafter went home to inform the incident to the wife of the victim. The victim was given treatment at Civil Hospital Lunglei, where he expired at midnight.

The Trial:

6. PW-1 is the informant. PW-2 (who claimed to be the eye witness of the scuffle between the accused and the deceased) had referred to the judicial statement recorded by the learned Magistrate on 06.04.2021. PW-4 was the friend of the victim. PW-5 was a resident of the place where the scuffle allegedly took place and who claimed to have seen the occurrence after the victim had fallen to the ground. PW-6 was also a resident at Farm Veng who claimed to have seen the victim lying on the ground. PW-7 claimed to have taken the victim by auto-rickshaw to the Civil Hospital when he found him lying injured in the road. PW-8 was the person whom the victim and his friend met at Farm Veng who also claimed to be a person when the accused came shouting towards them but he left before the fight and PW-9 was the Investigation Officer. PW-11 was the Doctor who attended the dead body of the victim when it was brought for post-mortem from Lunglei Police Station. One DW was examined and cross-examined. Statement under 313 Crpc was recorded.

Findings of Trial Court:

7. The learned Trial Court in its jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top