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 IPC, 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. 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 judgment dated 10.04.2023 had considered evidence tendered by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the statement made by the accused under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and also the statement of the DW-1, who was a teacher and who knew the accused, being her ex-student. The defense witness had claimed that she was present at the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court after consideration of the aforesaid evidence found that the eye witness described the scene as if there were arguments between the two scooty riders and the accused. The defense witness had claimed that she was present at the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court after consideration of the aforesaid evidence found that the eye witness described the scene as if there were arguments between the two scooty riders and the accused. The accused fisted the victim and he collapsed on the road surface and remained there motionless. The learned Trial Court refused to accept the story of the prosecution that the accused had fisted the motionless victim again. The learned Trial Court took into account the observation made in the inquest report, which show small cut above the left ear about half inch length but not deep, and that his head was swollen about one and half inch. Reference was made to the Post-Mortem Report which indicated that the victim had suffered multiple small abrasions on the front of the neck and right shoulder, hematoma on the occipital area, small laceration at the right parietal area, skull base was fractured, epidural hematoma left temporo-parietal area, right frontal sub-dural hematoma. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the proven facts and circumstances had cogently established that it was the accused who was responsible for the death of the victim. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the incident had happened without premeditation, a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, and therefore, found that the case is covered by Exception 4 of section 300 IPC. The learned Trial Court had concluded that the accused had intentionally caused such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death and that it was not accidental. The accused was therefore, found liable for intentionally causing bodily injury to the victim as was likely to cause his death. Under the facts and circumstances, the accused is found guilty for commission of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 IPC Part-I and was accordingly convicted. The sentence imposed upon him is already noted in the earlier paragraphs. This order is under appeal in the present case. Arguments in the appeal: 8. Mr. Under the facts and circumstances, the accused is found guilty for commission of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 IPC Part-I and was accordingly convicted. The sentence imposed upon him is already noted in the earlier paragraphs. This order is under appeal in the present case. Arguments in the appeal: 8. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed grievous error while considering the evidence led by the PWs to come to a conclusion that the accused had intentionally assaulted the victim to cause such injury as is likely to cause death. He has submitted that the evidence of the PW-3, which is clinching in this case, was the judicial statement which was recorded on 06.04.2021. PW-3 had stated that the victim was seen sitting on the scooty, with one leg was down and the other still on the scooty, as if he was about to get down. At that point of time, the accused had hit the person and he fell down on the ground. While before the Judicial Magistrate, the PW-1 had stated that the accused came back and once again beat the person, during her cross-examination, she had denied seeing the accused assaulting. He has submitted that the statement made in the cross-examination would carry more weight than the judicial statement and therefore, it has to be assumed in favour of the accused that he did not assault the victim. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the version of the PW-4, as given during cross-examination, the accused had not assaulted the victim when their friend had left them. He has further submitted that as per the version of the PW-4, the victim could speak when the PW-4 met him in the hospital and in fact the victim was accompanied by the PW-4 when he wanted to go to the bathroom. In the bathroom as per the version of the PW-4, the victim removed the cotton piece on his nose. He bled profusely from the nose after he removed the cotton piece on his nose and therefore, he had difficulty in breathing and could hardly breathe. In the bathroom as per the version of the PW-4, the victim removed the cotton piece on his nose. He bled profusely from the nose after he removed the cotton piece on his nose and therefore, he had difficulty in breathing and could hardly breathe. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim had not expired due to the injuries, if any, received when he fell down from his scooty but rather it was because he had removed the cotton piece from his nose and the nose blocked his airways, because of which he expired. The learned counsel submitted that none of the other witnesses had stated that they saw any scuffle between the victim and the accused and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court that the accused had fisted the victim was not based on evidence. 9 . The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following cases in support of his submission; i. Keshub Mahindra -versus- State of M.P , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 129 ii. Mavila Thamban Nambiar -versus- State of Kerala , reported in (2009) 17 SCC 441 iii. Camilo Vaz -versus- State of Goa, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 1 and, iv. Kamal -versus- State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 933 10 . The learned counsel has also referred to the deposition of the PW-11 and the post-mortem report to stress that the nature of the injuries on the skull of the victim are not such as what have occurred even if it is assumed that the accused had punched his face once and therefore, if such injuries are the cause of death, it cannot be said that the alleged punch would be the reason for the death of the victim. The learned counsel has further submitted that in order for a case to fall within the grasp of section 304 IPC Part-I, some conditions have to be fulfilled. However, none of the conditions are fulfilled in the present case. 11. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. P.P for the State has submitted that there is no doubt that the appellant herein was involved in the incident which led to the untimely death of the victim. Drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, the learned Addl. 11. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. P.P for the State has submitted that there is no doubt that the appellant herein was involved in the incident which led to the untimely death of the victim. Drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, the learned Addl. P.P has submitted that it is the version of eye witness that the accused had dealt a blow to the victim, causing him to fall down from the scooty. The evidence is un-rebutted that death occurred due to severe head injuries which included a factured skull. There can be no doubt that the blow by the accused had resulted in injuries which finally led to the death of the victim. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that it can be reasonable to presume, once the aforesaid facts are proved, that the accused had the knowledge that administering a severe blow to the victim was likely to cause death even if the intention to cause death is not presumed. The very nature of the injuries would explain that the cause of death was ‘coma’ caused by intra-cranial hemorrhage due to the blunt trauma to the head. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court. She has further submitted that when the crime is proved it has been left to the discretion of the Trial Court to decide the quantum of sentence. She has therefore, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. Conclusions: 12. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties have been heard. The Trial Court record and the judgments relied upon have been perused. Undisputed facts in this present case are that the victim along with two other persons had reached Farm Veng, Pu Bawka Point where the accused was present near his home. The accused objected to the victim and his two friends creating noise in the area. A scuffle occurred due to which the victim fell down from the scooty, and his friend drove away with the scooty, whom the accused chased for a while. The victim suffered bleeding from his nose and with some help from the prosecution witnesses, he was taken to the hospital where he expired a little past midnight. The cause of death was intra- cranial hemorrhage due to blunt trauma to the head. The victim suffered bleeding from his nose and with some help from the prosecution witnesses, he was taken to the hospital where he expired a little past midnight. The cause of death was intra- cranial hemorrhage due to blunt trauma to the head. The victim’s skull base was fractured and epidural hematoma in left temporo-parietal area and right frontal sub-dural hematoma was noted during post-mortem. The learned Trial Court has already held that no intent could be imputed on the accused to cause death of the victim. The learned Trial Court however, held that the accused intentionally caused bodily injury as was likely to cause his death and that it was not accidental. The post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem reveals that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the intra-cranial hemorrhage, which occurred in the left temporo-parietal area and right frontal sub-dural hematoma of the skull. The skull base was fractured. Assuming that the accused had dealt a blow, directed at the face of the victim, it cannot be held to reason that the injury suffered would be towards the top of the skull or the base of the skull or behind the skull. It is in evidence that the victim fell down from the scooty and this could be either when he was hit by the accused or when the accused shoved him or on his own. The injury to the back of the skull can only be explained if the victim hit the back of his head on any hard surface of the road. This Court, on the basis of the nature of the injuries which resulted in the death of the victim, finds that the injuries could be sustained when the victim fell on the road and not due to the blow, if at all administered by the accused. In such view of the matter, the intent of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death does not stand proved in the present case. This Court will now proceed to see whether the act was done with the knowledge that the act of the accused was likely to cause death. In the preceeding paragraphs, this Court has used the term “assuming” that the appellant dealt a blow to the victim. This Court will now proceed to see whether the act was done with the knowledge that the act of the accused was likely to cause death. In the preceeding paragraphs, this Court has used the term “assuming” that the appellant dealt a blow to the victim. This is so because, there is no direct and unshaken evidence to show that the accused had actually dealt a blow to the victim, who was sitting on the scooty (as per PW-3). Rather, in her cross- examination, the PW-3 stated that it was a fact that she did not see the accused assaulting the injured/victim. The PW-4 who was riding the scooty with the victim in his cross-examination said that he did not know which part of the victim's body the accused had punched. The post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the report does not support the allegation of any blow being dealt to the victim on the facial part and no injuries were reported in the facial part of the victim. Thus, it cannot be assumed that the accused had in fact dealt a blow to the victim. It comes in the statement of the accused, recorded during examination under section 313 Cr.PC, that the accused admitted that when he went near, the pillion rider i.e. the victim, he grabbed him on the left side of his shirt and the accused push him to defend himself, upon which the victim fell down to the ground. There is no reliable evidence at all from any of the witnesses that the accused had even thereafter dealt any blow to the victim. Therefore, it appears to this Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had dealt a blow to the victim as a result of which the victim fell down from the scooty. It rather appears that the things were heating up, the accused went near the victim and there was some push and shove due to which the victim fell down. After he fell down, the victim received injuries to the back side of his skull and also suffered epidural hematoma left temporo-parietal area. It rather appears that the things were heating up, the accused went near the victim and there was some push and shove due to which the victim fell down. After he fell down, the victim received injuries to the back side of his skull and also suffered epidural hematoma left temporo-parietal area. In the present case, knowledge cannot be attributed to the accused to the extent that he could have known that a push and shove might result in a fall which might hit behind the skull to cause intra-cranial bleeding which in turn may lead to death. When the act of administering a blow to the victim has not been proved beyond doubt, in the peculiar circumstances in which the victim suffered injuries, neither intention of death, nor intention of causing injuries which is likely to cause death nor knowledge that the act of a shove or push (to free one’s shirt from clutches of the victim) is likely to cause death, can be attributed to the accused. The fact of altercation and the fall of the victim are proved. The fall which led to intra-cranial hemorrhage because of the injury to the back side of the skull could have been caused by accident. There is no use of weapons or excessive force or repetitive assaults involved. No complete chain of events has been proved by the prosecution to impute mens rea on the accused, either of knowledge or of intention of doing an act so as to cause injuries which is likely to cause death. In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused administered blow to the victim and has also failed to bring home the charge that the accused caused the victim to fall from the scooty with the knowledge that such a fall would cause injury which would likely resulted in death or had the intention to cause such injury which is likely to cause death. In the result, the judgment & order of the learned Trial Court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges. He is to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Criminal Appeal stands allowed.