JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2017, passed by the Addl. Sessions Court, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 217/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, S.I for 1 month, vide Order dated 07.11.2017. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.03.2017, one C. Lalbiakfela of Electric Veng, Lunglei submitted an FIR at the Lunglei Police Station stating that at about 6.30 a.m., his grand aunt C. Sangziki was stabbed by her grandnephew Rosangliana Sailo, due to which the said C. Sangziki succumbed to her injury. On the basis of the FIR, Lunglei P.S. Case No. 56/2017 dated 30.03.2017 under Section 302 IPC was registered. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was thereafter filed against the appellant. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant and the prosecution thereafter adduced their evidence before the Trial Court. The evidence of the prosecution showed that the appellant had inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased, i.e. his grand aunt, on her back. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC gave a blanket denial with regard to the incident stating that he could not verify the correctness or otherwise of the incident, as he was not in his proper sense, as he was suffering from alcohol withdrawal syndrome. The learned Trial Court thereafter passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2017 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him as per the Sentence Order dated 07.11.2017. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. F. Lalengliana submits that the ground of challenge made by the appellant in the present appeal is only to the effect that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of his grandaunt. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has taken us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the statement given by the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has taken us through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the statement given by the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, on the other hand, submits that the intention of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased is clear from the multiple stab wounds made on the back side of the body of the deceased, as reflected in the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that as there is no dispute to the act of stabbing the deceased by the appellant, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2017 and Sentence Order dated 07.11.2017. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The Post-Mortem Report done on the body of the deceased shows that there has been multiple wounds caused to the body of the deceased by the appellant, who had apparently used a knife. 8. The extracts of the Proper Search & Seizure Form Report exhibited as Exhibit P-III and Post Mortem Report exhibited as Exhibit P-IV, state as follows:- Exhibit P-III:- “I - External Appearance 2. Wounds – Position size and Character- (1) Punctured wound (R) Breast 1x0.5 cm muscle deep=2 cm away from sternum (2) Punctured wounds on B/L chest posterior side (lower) (3) Punctured wound (R) mid gluteal region 2x0.5 cm & (R) upper thigh (post) 3x0.5 cm muscle deep.” Exhibit P-IV:- “MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OF DISEASE Multiple punctured wounds were seen on B/L chest wall posteriorly, (R) Breast, mid gulteal region and (R) upper thigh posteriorly. Evidence of (dark colored blood) bleeding from (L) chest was seen. OPINION OF MEDICAL & HEALTH OFFICER AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH In my opinion the patient death was caused by shock due to haemorrhage as a result of penetrating injury to Lung and Heart causing Hemothorax.” 9. Section 300 IPC states as follows:- “300. Evidence of (dark colored blood) bleeding from (L) chest was seen. OPINION OF MEDICAL & HEALTH OFFICER AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH In my opinion the patient death was caused by shock due to haemorrhage as a result of penetrating injury to Lung and Heart causing Hemothorax.” 9. Section 300 IPC states as follows:- “300. Murder.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” 10. Under Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death. 11. In the case of Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1958 SC 465 , the Apex Court has held at paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:- “(12) To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300 “thirdly”; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. (13) Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under S. 300 “thirdly”. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.” 12. In the present case, the evidence adduced shows that multiple stab wounds were inflicted by the appellant on the back of the appellant’s grand aunt, who was supposedly 72 years old. The position of the wounds and the detailed injury description given by the Medical Officer in his evidence, clearly shows that multiple puncture wounds were present and that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of penetrative injury to her lungs and the heart. 13. The position of the wounds and the detailed injury description given by the Medical Officer in his evidence, clearly shows that multiple puncture wounds were present and that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of penetrative injury to her lungs and the heart. 13. The above facts clearly go to show that the stab injuries caused upon the deceased was not accidental or unintentional. In fact, the multiple fatal puncture wounds on the back of the old lady, caused by a young man who is approximately 22 year old does not give any other inference, besides the same being intentional. The attempt by the learned Amicus Curiae in trying to project the fatal stab wounds as unintentional is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the fact that the deceased was stabbed on the back and the presence of multiple wounds clearly establishes the intention of the appellant of causing death to the deceased. There is nothing to show that the attack of the deceased by the appellant was not premeditated and pre-planned. In fact, the stabbing of a 72 year old lady by a 22 year old grand nephew is not only cruel, but also inhuman. There is nothing to show that the said act of inflicting major stab wounds suddenly started upon the heat of passion due to a sudden quarrel or for any other sudden provocation. 14. In view of the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in concluding that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of his grand aunt when he started stabbing her multiple times from behind. 15. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Lunglei in Criminal Trial No. 217/2017 and the Sentence Order dated 07.11.2017. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. Send back the LCR. 17. In appreciation of the services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, his fee is fixed at Rs. 9000/-, to be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority.