Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1021 (GAU)

P. C. LALCHHANHIMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM

2016-11-18

M.R.PATHAK

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State. 2. This Criminal appeal from jail has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 01.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 1461/2011 arising out of Kulikawn Police Station Case No. 84/2011 and S.R. No. 1/2011, wherein the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for another period of two months setting off the period of detention already undergone. 3. The case in hand has been set in motion on the basis of an FIR dated 03.07.2011 lodged by the informant Lalsangluri before the Officer-in-Charge of Kulikawn Police Station stating that in the evening around 6:30-7:00 pm on 02.07.2011 her husband Lalhmingmawia was stabbed by the accused Lalchhanhima and later her husband succumbed to his injury in the morning around 06:50 am. Accordingly, Kulikawn P.S. Case No. 84/2011 under Section 302 IPC was registered. 4. During the course of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, made an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the same for postmortem examination and collected the postmortem report, recorded the statement of the witnesses acquainted with the said incident, including the informant, arrested the accused, recovered the knife, the weapon used in the crime involved in the case and seized the same as per procedure and finding prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant submitted the charge sheet vide charge sheet 87/2011 dated 05.09.2011. 5. As the charge Section is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl by his Order dated 13.09.2011 forwarded the same to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl wherein, the same was registered as Criminal Trial No. 1461/2011 and by Order 13.09.2011 itself, the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl endorsed the same to the learned Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl for disposal of the said case. The learned Trial Court on perusal of the charge sheet, material evidence available on record and hearing the parties, by his order dated 05.10.2011 framed charged under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant ant it was explained to him, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for the trial. 6. In order to bring home the charges, against the accused/appellants, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and they were cross-examined by the defence, but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. However, after completion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellant was duly recorded by the Trial Court on 24.11.2011. From the postmortem report of the deceased dated 03.07.2011, Ext. P-7 it is seen that the deceased was about 37 years old and suffered following injuries (i) abrasion on left knee 1 x 1 cm, (ii) abrasion on front of neck 1.5 x 0.3 cm, (iii) peri-orbital contusion of right eye, (iv) laceration over right eyebrow 1.5 cm x subcutaneous depth, (v) stab wound on back of left side of chest 2 cm x cavity depth, (vi) stab wound on back of left side of abdomen 1.3 cm x muscle depth, (vii) stab wound just above sacral bone 1 cm left from mid line measuring 1.8 cm x muscle depth, (viii) contusion of scalp over right temporo frontal area, (ix) diffuse subdural and sub arachnoid haemorrahages more so over right cerebral hemisphere and base and (x) therapeutic surgical drainage insight wound on right lateral aspect of chest. 7. As per said postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to the cumulative effect of blunt trauma to the head and stab wounds produced by sharp stabbing weapon. 8. PW-10, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem on the deceased victim in his evidence affirmed about the aforesaid wounds on the deceased and admitted that as per his opinion the cause of death was cumulative effect cumulative effect of blunt trauma to the head and stab injuries to the body. On his cross-examination by the defense the Doctor concerned clarify that the said injuries can be caused by other sharp objects other than a knife and the stab injuries on the deceased did not show that any vital organs has been touched by the sharp object. On his cross-examination by the defense the Doctor concerned clarify that the said injuries can be caused by other sharp objects other than a knife and the stab injuries on the deceased did not show that any vital organs has been touched by the sharp object. He also stated in his cross that there was stab wound on his head and such blunt trauma to the head of the deceased may be caused due to falling and hitting his head on any object or being hit on the head and that there was no individual fatal injury to the deceased. 9. It is seen that the prosecution by examining said PW-10, the Autopsy Doctor, could prove the injuries found on the body of the deceased and also the cause of his death. We are, therefore, required to see as to whether the prosecution could bring home the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused appellants. 10. PW-1, Lalsangluri, the informant and the widow of the deceased, in her evidence in chief deposed that she was married to the deceased in the year 1999 with whom she has two sons and at the time of the incident both of them were minor of 11 and 8 years respectively and all of them use to stay at Aizawl. She also stated that in the evening of on 02.07.2011 while they were taking meal, the her mother-in-law Lalrohlui was informed by PW-2 that her son, husband of PW-1 was stabbed by the accused and that he had been taken to the Aizawl hospital at Misson Veng. She further stated that she immediately went to the Hospital hearing the same and found him in the said hospital lying on his bed in an unconscious state. Doctors informed her to get blood for him and the PW-2 along with one Malsawmsangzela was sent to obtain blood for him and the doctors stitch the wounds of her husband and due to non availability of proper facilities in the said hospital, as per advise of its doctor, he was shifted to Aizawl Civil Hospital, where he was given oxygen after X-ray, CT Scan was done upon him. She also stated that in the said hospital blood was sucked out from lung of her injured husband and urine was drained out from his bladder and that she was with him in the hospital by his side and her husband succumbed to his injuries in the morning hours of 03.07.2011. She also stated that she noticed cut injury just above right eye above her husband and she was told by eye witness of the incident that there were three cut injuries on his back. 11. In her cross examination, PW-1 stated that she was not present at the time of the incident and did not see the accused assaulting her husband and denied the suggestion that she falsely deposed before the Court. 12. PW-2, H. Laltanpuia, in his evidence deposed that after his evening meal on 02.07.2011, he visited the house of one Sangzuala of Salem Veng who died on 01.07.2011 and were sitting together with Pi. Dailovi and mother of Pu. Lawta. At that time said Lalhmingmawia and the accused Lalchhanhima came to Late Sangzuala's house, where Pi Dailovi requested the accused Lalchhanhima to escort a visitor to his house which the accused refused and replied back in indecent words, for which Lalhmingmawia rebuked the accused and after sitting in the house of Sangzuala for some time, both the accused Lalchhanhima and said Lalhmingmawia went out. It is when he heard commotion outside, he came out from the house of Late Sangzuala and saw that Lalhmingamwia was stabbed on his back side by the accused Lalchhanhima and being angry, he pushed the accused with a bench and other persons present in the scene caught hold of him and they took the injured Lalhmingmawia to Hospital and then went to Durtlang to obtain blood for him and before he returned from Durtlong, injured Lalhmingamwia was taken to Civil Hospital. PW-2 stated that the deceased had cut injuries on his back and also above his right eye and he attended Lalhmingamwia whole night till the time he expired in the next morning. 13. In his cross examination, said PW-2 stated that he did not see the accused using any knife and only saw the accused hitting the deceased with his close fist on his back and he cannot the time when the accused hitting the victim. 13. In his cross examination, said PW-2 stated that he did not see the accused using any knife and only saw the accused hitting the deceased with his close fist on his back and he cannot the time when the accused hitting the victim. He reiterated that he did not see any knife with the accused either before or after the incident and did not see police seizing any knife. He stated that the deceased died in the early morning on 03.07.2011 in the Civil Hospital. 14. PW-3, Pi. Rodailovi identified the accused and deposed that her husband Lalsangzuala died on 01.07.2011 and on the next day i.e. 02.07.2011 they had some visitors to offer condolence during their bereavement. On that day they had also prepared dinner for those engaged in fencing the grave of her late husband. On that day her maternal uncle Upa Biakchhunga and Rosiama of Republic veng were among the visitors and in the evening, prior to the dark, she asked the accused to escort them to their house to which the accused replied her that she has Chhuantea a smart son and hearing such reply, Lalhmingmawia scolded the accused Lalchhanhima and the accused Lalchhanhima being annoyed with that they had an altercation and at that point of time in their varanda the accused Lalchhanhima stabbed Lalhmingmawia. She further stated that at that point of time, she was besides them and noticing the incident her children started crying. She also stated that in the meanwhile said Lalhmingmawia fell down in their varanda and she caught hold of the hands of the accused Lalchhanhima and made an attempt to separate them and while she was holding accused's hand he stabbed Lalhmingmawia twice with a knife and that point of time there were other persons were present at the place of occurrence. She further stated that the injured Lalhmingmawia was taken to the Hospital thereafter whereas the accused Lalchhanhima left their house and in the early next morning said injured Lalhmingamwia expired. 15. In her cross examination said PW-3 stated that she cannot say how many times the accused stabbed the deceased before she caught hold of his hand and denied the fact that the accused did not stab the victim while she was holding his arm and also denied the fact that she did not see that the victim was stabbed by the accused. She also denied that the victim attacked the accused first and that is why the accused stabbed him. She further stated that her husband and father of the accused are brothers, whereas mother of the victim is the sister of the accused's father. 16. PW-4 C. Lalnghakliana identified the accused and deposed that around 06:00 pm on the date of the incident while he was sitting outside Dailovi's house with her son, he saw the Lalhmingamwia and the accused Lalchhanhima exchanging words and thereafter started fighting in the varanda and the accused was pulled inside the house by Pi Dailovi and he followed them inside the house and saw blood in the floor of their house and then he and two others nabbed away a long thick knife from the hand of the accused Lalchhanhima, telephoned Kulikawn Police Station and later when police came they took away the accused and the victim Lalhmingamwia was taken to Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries in the next morning. 17. In his cross examination, said PW-4 stated that the accused Lalchhanhima and the deceased Lalhmingamwia were relatives and stated that he did not see the accused beating the victim though he was present at the time their quarrelling. He also stated that he does not know who started the quarrelling and the fighting. He denied the fact that the deceased Lalhmingamwia attacked the accused with knife and that the accused took the said knife and fought back with the deceased. 18. PW-5 Lalhmingsangi, identified the accused and deposed before Court that her father Lalsangzuala expired on 01.07.2011 and on 02.07.2011 both the victim and the accused came to their house in the evening and when her mother Dailovi asked the accused to escort Pu Rasima and Pu Rochhunga to Republic Veng, the accused replied indecently and hearing the same the victim scolded the accused and then argument started between them and both the victim and accused went out of their house and started fighting where the accused stabbed the victim with knife. She stated that the accused stabbed the victim around his eye brow and his back and to her knowledge the accused had stabbed the victim two/three times. She stated that the victim was taken to the Hospital. 19. She stated that the accused stabbed the victim around his eye brow and his back and to her knowledge the accused had stabbed the victim two/three times. She stated that the victim was taken to the Hospital. 19. In her cross examination she denied the fact that she did not see that the deceased was stabbed by the accused with knife and stated that the place of occurrence is in front of their house. She also denied the fact that the deceased Lalhmingamwia tried to stab the accused and then the accused fought him back and further stated that she does not know the reason for their fighting. She also denied that the accused acted for his self defence. 20. PWs-6 and 8, namely, Liandailova and Laltlanthangi are seizure witness of the knife who did not see the incident, but in their cross examination stated that they did not witness the actual seizure of knife from the house of Pi. Rodailovi and it is only police who told them about it. 21. PW-7 K. Vanlaltlana, is another seizure witness pertaining to the T-shirt that was worn by the victim Lalhmingamwia. But in his cross-examination stated that he did not see the actual act of recovering the said T-shirt from the dustbin of Aizawl Hospital and it is the Nurses of the said Hospital who informed him that the said T-shirt was recovered from the dustbin of the said Hospital. 22. PW-9 Jonathan Lalthansanga Ralte, Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case identified the accused and deposed before the Court that he being the Investigating Officer of the case submitted the charge sheet finding sufficient materials against the accused P.C. Lalchhanhima. He further stated that on receipt of the FIR on 03.07.2011 submitted by PW-1, wife of the deceased, Kulikawn Police Station Case No. 84/2011 was registered on 03.07.2011 under Section 302 IPC. 23. In his cross examination, the PW-9, IO of the case stated that he arrested the accused on 02.07.2011 though FIR was submitted by the PW-1 on 03.07.2011. He also stated that no blood stain could be seen in the knife as it had been washed cleaned by the seizure witnesses and denied the suggestion that the knife seized by him was not the knife used by the accused in stabbing the victim and that the witnesses did not see that the victim was stabbed by the accused. He also stated that no blood stain could be seen in the knife as it had been washed cleaned by the seizure witnesses and denied the suggestion that the knife seized by him was not the knife used by the accused in stabbing the victim and that the witnesses did not see that the victim was stabbed by the accused. 24. The accused P.C. Lalchhanhima, in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC admitted that one the next day of the death of his uncle Lalsangzuala, when Mrs. Dailovi asked him to drop someone, then he replied badly for which the victim rebuked him and then they started quarrelling and than the victim punched him first with his buckles and the accused admitted that he stabbed him. He also admitted that he drank alcohol and intoxicated with pill and he was just not sober. 25. From the above it is seen that PWs 2, 3 and 5 are the eye witness to the incident regarding stabbing of the deceased by the accused and their evidence could not be destroyed by the defense and as such it remained intact. Moreover, the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, also admitted regarding stabbing of the deceased by him in the incident. 26. It is to be noted herein that though evidence regarding commotion between the accused and the deceased could be found, but the accused did not receive any kind of injury in such commotion. Moreover, the PW-3 in her evidence clearly stated that though she was holding the hands of the accused, in spite of that the accused stabbed the deceased 2/3 times, which remained unrebutted. 27. From the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it leads to cogent and reliable evidence that it is the accused appellant P.C. Lalchhanhima who killed the deceased person Lalhmingamwia, on the fateful evening on 02.07.2011, the date of the incident and the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubts with regard to guilt of the accused appellant in the case. 28. 28. From the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2011 with regard to the present accused appellant has rightly been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aizawl in Criminal Trial No. 1561/2011, corresponding to S.R. No. 133/2011, arising out of Kulikawn Police Station Case No. 84/2011, which does not require any interference in appeal and accordingly affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court. 29. We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by both Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram representing the State. 30. On raising a bill, the State Legal Services Authority, Mizoram, Aizawl shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- to Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Amicus Curiae towards her legal remuneration. 31. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 32. However, considering the medical report of the accused submitted by the constituent Medical Board of Aizawl Civil Hospital; the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl is directed to provide the necessary medical facilities to the accused appellant and if required and advised by the Medical & Health Officer of the Central Jail, Aizawl he may be treated in Civil Hospital, Aizawl. 33. Registry shall send back the LCR to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aizawl along with a copy of the Judgment. 34. Registry shall also forward a copy of the Judgment to the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl for his necessary purpose to provide medical facilities to the accused appellant.