Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 809 (GAU)

State of Mizoram v. Stephen Lalchawiliana

2025-05-16

NELSON SAILO

body2025
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. F Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae for the sole respondent/accused. [2.] Being aggrieved with the Judgment & Order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No. 46/2016 convicting the respondent under Section 304 IPC, the State has filed the instant appeal. [3.] The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.08.2016 at 10:30 PM, a written information was received from Abraham Zoramhluna of Zohnuai, Lunglei stating that on 27.08.2016 at around 10:00 PM, one C Lalsawmliana (the deceased) of Zohnuai, Lunglei was stabbed by Stephen Lalchawiliana (the accused/respondent), Lawngtlai, with a knife at Zohnuai, Lunglei and he succumbed to his injury. He, therefore, requested to take necessary action. As a result, Lunglei P.S Case No. 182 dated 27.08.2016 under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigated into. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the case I.O having found a prima facie case against the accused under Section 302 IPC submitted the charge-sheet. Charge was then framed against the accused under Section 302 on 21.03.2017 and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, the trial commence and during which time, the prosecution examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not have any witness to examine in his defence. The learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties passed the impugned Judgment & Order by convicting the accused under Section 304 IPC, after coming to a finding that the ingredients of Section 300 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Aggrieved, the State has filed the instant appeal. [4.] Ms. Linda L Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned Judgment & Order should be interfered with by this Court since the finding of the learned Trial Court that the ingredients of Section 300 IPC has not been proved is a finding contrary to the evidence led during trial. The learned Trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 304 IPC instead of 302 IPC by relying upon the statements made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and also the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. The learned Trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 304 IPC instead of 302 IPC by relying upon the statements made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and also the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. She submits that it is a settled law that the statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C can be relied upon only in conjunction with the evidence available on record and not isolation. She submits that likewise, the materials submitted in the charge-sheet cannot simply be relied upon for convicting the accused person or otherwise, unless the same is led in evidence during the trial. She, therefore, submits that upon the finding of the learned Trial Court there was provocation of the accused by the deceased and his companion and that the crime was committed on the spur of the moment are not born out of the evidence led during the trial and therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court is misconceived and should be interfered with by this Court. In support of her submission, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the Apex Court’s decision rendered in Manu Sao vs.State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 310 . [5.] The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the conviction and sentence order passed by the learned Trial Court is silent as to whether such conviction is under Section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II IPC. She thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Order should be suitably interfered with by this Court by taking into account the evidence led during the trial. [6.] Mr. F Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, submits that the evidence on record goes to show that there was a pre-altercation and fight between the accused on one side and the deceased person and his friend PW-12 on the other. There was provocation and the parties had exchanged punches between them. He submits that the accused had clearly stated in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he was threatened and attacked by the deceased and PW-12 on the night of the incident and that he retaliated in his self-defence. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the nature of the injury is only a single stab suffered by the deceased which can be seen from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-10) who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination (PME) and the case I.O (PW-14). The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that the nature of the injury is only a single stab suffered by the deceased which can be seen from the evidence of the Doctor (PW-10) who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination (PME) and the case I.O (PW-14). He submits that the case I.O in his cross-examination had also stated that there was no previous preparation on the part of the accused before the incident which shows that the injury inflicted by the accused was not intentional but was due to provocation and in the spur of the moment as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment & Order. He therefore submits that this Court may not interfere with the impugned Judgment & Order. In support of his submission, the learned Amicus Curiae had relied upon the following decisions:- (1) Satish Narayan Sawant vs. State of Goa, (2009) 17 SCC 724 . (2) Ruli Ram & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691 . [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties. In order to find out as to whether the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 304 IPC, the evidence led during the trial may be examined. [8.] PW-I, Abraham Zoramhluma, is the brother and informant of the deceased person. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 27.08.2016 at about 9:45 PM while he was sleeping, he received a phone call from his uncle Thanngura to inform him that his brother C Lalsawmliana had been allegedly stabbed by the accused and he asked him to immediately come to Christian Hospital, Serkawn. He went to the hospital alongwith his neighbor and on the arrival, his brother had already succumbed to his injury and was pronounced death. He immediately went to the Police Station, Lunglei to submit the FIR. [9.] PW-2, C. Lalthangliana is the seizure witness and in his examination- in-chief, he stated that he know the accused person present in the Court that day. On 28.08.2016 at about 1:00 AM, he alongwith police searched for the seized article i.e., one Khasi kitchen knife which was allegedly used by the respondent. The police informed that the respondent has stated that he had thrown away the alleged knife down the hill. The police informed that they found the knife near the volleyball court and he was summoned. The police informed that the respondent has stated that he had thrown away the alleged knife down the hill. The police informed that they found the knife near the volleyball court and he was summoned. The knife was still lying on the ground when he saw the same and he was made seizure witness. He appended his signature in the seizure memo. PW-2 exhibited the seized article, the seizure memo and his signature. In his cross-examination, besides reiterating what is stated in the examination-in-chief, he stated that he did not witness the respondent using the alleged seized article for committing the alleged offence. Likewise, PW-3 C. Lalmuankima, PW-4 Lalnundinga, PW-5 Lalrinsanga Khiangte, PW-6 F Lalremruata, PW-7 L. H Lalawmpuia and PW-8 Dengrikhuma are the seizure witnesses who either witnessed seizing of the wearing apparels of the deceased or wearing apparels of the accused (respondent). [10.] PW-9 Lalchhanzova, in his examination-in-chief stated that he was presently posted as Asst. Director, FSL, Mizoram, Aizawl and in connection with the instant criminal trial, the Office of FSL received the liquid blood sample of the victim and the accused, Khasi knife with suspected blood stain, navy blue T.Shirt with suspected blood stain, navy blue half-pant of the victim with suspected blood stain and camouflage long pants of the accused with suspected blood stain. He stated that he conducted the examination and the articles and that since the liquid blood samples received had already decomposed. He could not determine the blood group. However, he conducted DNA test of the blood sample of the victim and the results observation and conclusion of the tests that was conducted were being exhibited as Exbt. P-VII, wherein he subscribed his signature. The said documents were produced before the Court which he has identified. He also stated that the conclusion made by him with regard to the blood stain from Exbt.-E i.e., camouflage long pant of the accused with suspected blood stain was that of the victim (deceased). [11.] PW-10 is Dr. C Lalhlimpuii who conducted the PME. In her cross-examination she stated that she conducted PME upon the deceased on 20.08.2016 and on examining the body, she found that wound was stitched on the previous night. After removing the stitches, she found approximately 2 inches penetrating lacerated wound on the horizontally oriented umbilical region of abdomen. No other injuries were found and there was no exit wound. In her cross-examination she stated that she conducted PME upon the deceased on 20.08.2016 and on examining the body, she found that wound was stitched on the previous night. After removing the stitches, she found approximately 2 inches penetrating lacerated wound on the horizontally oriented umbilical region of abdomen. No other injuries were found and there was no exit wound. The depth of the wound was approximately 4.5 inches and evenly cut directed from front to back slightly left to right and upward. The track lacerates and perforates the abdominal wall and transverse mesocolon. PW-10 stated that on examining the wound it appeared to have been vigorously inflicted since the wound was larger than the alleged implement. The case of death was determined to be due to hemorrhagic mesocolon due to the injury on abdomen. There was an also approximately 2 litres of intra-peritonial blood present inside the abdomen. PW- 10 exhibited the PME report as well as her signature as Exbt. P-V and P-V(a) respectively. In her cross-examination she stated that she had found only one wound in the body of the deceased. [12.] PW-11 H. Lalchhanhima in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the accused person/respondent who was present in the Court only from the day of the incident. He was residing in Zohnuai and closed to the volleyball court. That he does not remember the exact date but however, it was late in the night that he heard some commotion outside his residence and he went to investigate the matter. On the road opposite to his residence, he saw the victim lying on the road and one person named Muana, who is the friend of the victim/deceased, was present. He saw the victim/deceased had sustained injury on his stomach and he was struggling to breath. He immediately rushed back to collect his vehicle (Gypsy) and he took the victim/deceased to Christian Hospital, Serkawn. After the victim/deceased was admitted for a short time, he came to know that he had succumbed to his injury. Later, the carried the death body of the victim/deceased to the Civil Hospital, Lunglei for post-mortem on request since no other vehicle was available. After the victim/deceased was admitted for a short time, he came to know that he had succumbed to his injury. Later, the carried the death body of the victim/deceased to the Civil Hospital, Lunglei for post-mortem on request since no other vehicle was available. [13.] PW-12 H Lalmuansanga, who is the friend of the victim/deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the accused person who is present in the Court and that he does not remember the exact date of the incident but after he had returned from work and had his dinner, he invited the deceased to accompany him to the house of Debu, who is a mistiri, to enquire where he had any work where he could earn his livelihood. Inside the house of Debu, the accused/respondent was present in the room and he asked him to enter the room. However, since the owner of the house Mr. Debu was not present, he did not want to enter in the room. The accused called him three times and asked for liquor. Later, he came out from the inner room and taunted him in a racial way and to which, he rebuked him and asked him not to insult him in such a way. In the process, he entered into an argument with the accused but he was stopped by his companion the deceased and he escorted him outside the house to prevent him from entering into an altercation with the accused. He alongwith the deceased therefore left the house of Debu and proceeded towards his house, which was located at Middle School veng. On the way, they had to pass through the volleyball court. After they had left the house of Debu, the accused followed them near the Anganwadi school where he entered into a fight with the accused. The accused first punched him three times on his face and thereafter, he retaliated. His companion the deceased repeatedly tried to stop them from fighting and therefore, he could not retaliate properly. Some members of Junior TKP who had come out on the road after their service broke up the fight and they asked them to return home. [14.] PW-12 and the deceased then proceeded towards their home. The deceased followed him at a short distance since he was engaged with his mobile phone. When they neared the junction of the main road opposite the house of Mr. [14.] PW-12 and the deceased then proceeded towards their home. The deceased followed him at a short distance since he was engaged with his mobile phone. When they neared the junction of the main road opposite the house of Mr. H Thanghmingliana, the accused rushed from behind and he saw him strike the deceased on his stomach. The deceased then cried out that he had been stabbed by the accused. He tried to follow the accused and grab him but however, since the deceased appeared to be an in a serious state, he did not follow him and he tried to look after the deceased while crying out for help. The son of Mr. H Tlanghmingthanga came out and he brought his Gypsy with which they carried the deceased to Civil Hospital, Serkawn. Upon reaching the Hospital and soon thereafter, the deceased was reported to have succumbed to his injury. Later, he accompanied the dead body of the deceased to Civil Hospital, Lunglei for post-mortem. In his cross-examination, PW-12 stated that it was a fact that the accused did not have any misunderstanding with the deceased and that he did not know whether the accused had the intention of murdering him. He also stated that he did not see the weapon allegedly used by the accused. He also stated that he entered into a fight with the accused and after pinning him down to the ground, he punched him several times. The deceased did not fight with the accused and he did not enter into an argument with the accused in the house of Debu in connection with daily employment. One Mr. Mithun was present in the house of Debu and he does not know who else was present in the house of Debu. He had carried about two glass of liquor into the house of Debu and he and the deceased had one glass each. The deceased did not take any liquor earlier that night. [15.] PW-13 Tawkawlha in his examination-in-chief stated that he does not know the person who was present in the Court and that he has only heard about him from other sources. He has a small shop located opposite the road from the residence of Mr. Thanghmingliana. The deceased did not take any liquor earlier that night. [15.] PW-13 Tawkawlha in his examination-in-chief stated that he does not know the person who was present in the Court and that he has only heard about him from other sources. He has a small shop located opposite the road from the residence of Mr. Thanghmingliana. He does not remember the exact date of the incident but it was late in the night where some Junior TKP has come to his shop to make their purchase. During that time, some members shouted that someone has been stabbed and being afraid, they rushed inside his shop and closed the door. He went outside to investigate and he saw one person rushing after another person. At a distance of about 10 meters, he saw the deceased. The person rushing after the alleged accused came back to look after the deceased. He rushed inside his shop and after a short time, the person rushing after the alleged accused forced the door of the shop open and shouted for help. He went out of the shop and saw the victim lying on the road. Other people had also gathered around and later, the deceased was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the reason for the alleged altercation and he does not know the accused or the deceased. [16.] PW- 14 Rodingliana Sailo is the first I.O, who in his examination- in-chief stated that on the day of the incident he was posted at Lunglei Police Station and during the night, they received an information about some untoward incident at Zohnuai. Thereafter at about 10:30 PM, an FIR was submitted by one Abraham Zoramhluna of Zohnuai to the effect that one C Lalsawmliana (the deceased) was allegedly stabbed by the accused. A case was registered and he was endorsed to conduct the investigation. He arrested the accused and immediately sent him to judicial custody on the same night in order to avoid any untoward law and order problem. He examined and recorded the statement of the complainant. The deceased was already taken to Lunglei Civil Hospital and he proceeded to the hospital and found that he had already succumbed to his injury. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found 1 & ½ inches punctured stab wound below his naval. He examined and recorded the statement of the complainant. The deceased was already taken to Lunglei Civil Hospital and he proceeded to the hospital and found that he had already succumbed to his injury. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and found 1 & ½ inches punctured stab wound below his naval. Internal organ of the deceased was protruding from the wound and the Doctor presented and he himself attempted to put back the internal organ but however, the same was not possible. He seized a navy blue blood stain T.Shirt and half- pant of the same colour worn by the deceased and took the blood sample of the deceased. After he conducted inquest, he alongwith the Police party proceeded to the place of occurrence at Zohnuai. At Zohnuai, other Police parties were already present and were in search of the alleged weapon used by the accused. The accused had earlier mentioned that he had thrown away the alleged weapon near the volleyball court at Zohnuai. After a thorough search was made, the alleged weapon namely; Khasi knife measuring about 30 cms in the handled with 10 cms blade was located near pavilion at volleyball court at Zohnuai. He made seizure of the alleged weapon and also made a sketch map of the place of occurrence. [17.] On the next day, he made requisition for conducting PME and thereafter proceeded to District Jail, Lunglei where the accused was kept under custody. He interrogated the accused and his wearing apparel was already in the custody of the Warden Dengrikhuma. His wearing apparel being camouflage, the same was not allowed to be worn inside the Jail. He therefore seized the camouflage long pant stained with blood allegedly belonged to the accused kept in the custody of the Chief Jail Warden. He also examined the companion of the victim who was present during the time of the incident and also other witnesses. He then sent the seized articles for forensic examination, which included the alleged weapon (Khasi knife), camouflage pant of the accused, navy blue T.Shirt and half pant of the victim and blood sample of the victim. Thereafter, he received the PME report which stated that the blood stain on the alleged weapon belonged to the victim, the blood stain on the half-pant also belonged to the victim. Thereafter, he received the PME report which stated that the blood stain on the alleged weapon belonged to the victim, the blood stain on the half-pant also belonged to the victim. The blood stain of the camouflage long pant also belonged to the victim. Therefore, from the interrogation of the accused, PW-14 concluded that the accused, after quarrelling with the victim had gone back to collect the alleged weapon which he admitted that the found to be honest person and with which he committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he presumed that the accused had preparation alongwith the offence. After he conducted all the investigation, he was transferred to Bunghmun Police Station and therefor, he handed over the case records to O.C, Lunglei Police Station. [18] PW-14 exhibited the materials he seized, the inquest report, the sketch map of the place of occurrence and his signature. In his cross-examination, PW- 14 stated that from the statements of the witnesses, the argument started between the accused and the companion of the victim regarding the taunting made by the accused towards the companion of the victim. That he did not have any knowledge whether the accused had any intention to commit the offence. While conducting inquest on the body of the victim, he found only one punctured sound on the body of the victim, measuring about 1 & ½ inch. He did not send the accused for medical examination on the date of the incident since there was apprehension of law and order problem. The accused appears to have sustained some simple injury on his face on the night of the incident. The alleged weapon could have been used for cutting vegetable. It was not a fact that the accused did not have the intention to commit the offence. [19.] PW-15 S.I Lalnuntluanga is the 2nd I.O who submitted the charge-sheet. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he knows the accused person present in the Court. He was posted at Lunglei Police Station after the incident happened. On his arrival, the case was endorsed to him by the O.C, Lunglei Police Station. On perusal of the investigation conducted by his predecessor (PW-14), he found a prima facie case against the accused under Section 302 IPC and since all necessary investigation was already carried out and conducted by his predecessor, he submitted the charge-sheet. PW-15 exhibited the charge-sheet and his signature. On perusal of the investigation conducted by his predecessor (PW-14), he found a prima facie case against the accused under Section 302 IPC and since all necessary investigation was already carried out and conducted by his predecessor, he submitted the charge-sheet. PW-15 exhibited the charge-sheet and his signature. In his cross-examination, he stated that he submitted the charge-sheet based on the investigation carried out by his predecessor with the documents available. That from his knowledge, the accused did not have any other murder case and that he also has no knowledge about the past history of the accused. He further stated that from the documents available, there was no previous preparation on the part of the accused before the incident. He finally stated that he is acquainted with the facts of the case. [20.] From the evidence led by the prosecution, PW-1 is the brother of the deceased and the informant. Apart from being the informant, he does not have any personal knowledge about the incident. He was informed about the incident over phone by his uncle Thanngura. PW-14 stated that when he was at the place of occurrence at Zohnuai, the accused person had mentioned that he had thrown away the alleged weapon near the volleyball court at Zohnmuai. When a search was made, the alleged weapon i.e., Khasi knife was recovered near the pavilion of the volleyball court at Zohnuai and he seized the said knife. PW-2 and PW-3 are the seizure witnesses of the said knife. In fact, PW-3 stated that when he was summoned to witness the seizure, he saw the knife was still lying on the ground in the volleyball court. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-14 corroborates with each other. PW-4 & PW-5 are seizure witness to the seizure of the T.Shirt and half pant both navy blue colour worn by the deceased, which was found to be stained with blood. PW-5 stated that he was summoned to Civil Hospital, Lunglei in connection with seizure of the wearing apparel of the deceased, he found the deceased still wearing the seized article.The T.Shirt worn by the deceased was torn in the stomach region. [21.] PW-14 also stated that he seized the wearing apparel of the deceased which was stained with blood and he also collected his blood sample. He also stated that he sent the seized materials for forensic examination. [21.] PW-14 also stated that he seized the wearing apparel of the deceased which was stained with blood and he also collected his blood sample. He also stated that he sent the seized materials for forensic examination. Later, he received the report which stated that the blood stain in the wearing apparel victim belonged to the victim himself. PW-9 in his evidence stated that he was posted as an Asst. Director, FSL, Mizoram and while being posted at such, the blood sample of the victim alongwith his wearing apparel was sent for examination and he found the blood stain appearing in his apparel to be belonging to the victim himself. It may therefore be seen that the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-9 & PW-14 corroborates with each other insofar as the story of the prosecution that the deceased, while wearing a navy blue T.Shirt and a navy blue pant had been stabbed in his naval region and the blood stain found in his wearing apparel belonged to the victim himself. The question, therefore, is as to who had stabbed the victim causing his death. [22.] PW-12, who is the friend of the victim and who was with the victim that night stated that he invited the victim to accompany him to the house of Debu. Although, Debu was not in the house, the accused was present there and he started taunting him in a racial way. While they were arguing, the victim stopped him and took him outside the house to prevent altercation and following which, they left the house of Debu but the accused followed them and he and the accused had a fight near Anganwadi school. The victim and some members of the Junior TKP broke up the fight and then he and the victim proceeded towards home. The victim was slightly behind him since he was busy with his mobile phone. When they reached the road junction of the main road opposite to the house of H. Thanghmingliana, the accused rushed from behind and he saw him strike the victim on his stomach. The victim then cried out that he had been stabbed by the accused. He tried to follow the accused to grab him but since the victim appeared to be in a serious state, he did not follow the accused and instead tried to look after the victim while crying out of help. The victim then cried out that he had been stabbed by the accused. He tried to follow the accused to grab him but since the victim appeared to be in a serious state, he did not follow the accused and instead tried to look after the victim while crying out of help. It can therefore be seen that the version of PW-12 also corroborates with the version of PW-4, PW-4, PW-9 & PW-14. [23.] PW-13 who was running a shop nearby, upon hearing the commotion went out of his shop and he saw one person rushing up the road after another person. At a distance at about 10 meters, he saw another person, the victim. The person rushing after the alleged accused person came back to look after the victim. Therefore, the version of PW-13 also corroborates to the version of PW-12 who clearly stated that although he tried to follow the accused but since he saw the victim was seriously wounded, he came back to attend to him. PW-14 had already stated that he had seized the wearing apparel of the accused person which was a camouflage long pant stained in blood. PW-8, who was the Chief Head Warden of the District Jail, Lunglei stated that when the accused was brought to Jail, he was wearing a camouflage pant. Since it was not permissible to be worn in Jail he asked him to take off his pant and he therefore retained the camouflage pant in the custody. [24.] PW-14, the case I.O stated that he seized the camouflage of the accused person which was in the custody of Chief Head Warden, District Jail, Lunglei and sent the same for forensic examination. PW-9 as Asst. Director, FSL, Mizoram had examined the seized material including the camouflage long pant belonging to the accused person which was stained in blood. He found the blood stains to be belonging to the deceased as per his report. It is, therefore, evident that from the deposition of PW-12 corroborated by the other witnesses, the accused person had inflicted a stab injury upon the deceased which ultimately led to his death. [25.] The learned Trial Court, however, vide the impugned Judgment & Order accepted the argument of the defence counsel that the accused was provoked by the deceased and his companion and therefore, the offence was committed on the spur of the moment. [25.] The learned Trial Court, however, vide the impugned Judgment & Order accepted the argument of the defence counsel that the accused was provoked by the deceased and his companion and therefore, the offence was committed on the spur of the moment. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that the victim and his companion had taunted provoked the accused at the house where they were drinking country liquor and had on earlier occasion some misunderstanding due to engagement as mistiri/labour in the locality where the accused was still a new resident. According to the learned Trial Court, although the accused had followed the victim and his companion after a short while after the argument, it cannot be construed that the accused had pre- planned the offence and deliberately attacked the victim knowing the consequence of the attack/offence. Therefore, the learned Trial Court held that the ingredient of Section 300 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and instead found the accused guilty of offence under Section 304 IPC for having stabbed the deceased on the spur of the moment or after a few minutes after the altercation. [26.] However, from the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs on the evidence led by the prosecution, it can be seen that the finding and conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record. PW-12 who is the friend of the victim and who was at the time of occurrence of the incident with the victim stated that when he entered into an argument with the accused, the victim stopped him and took him out of the house of Debu so as to prevent any altercation. However, the accused followed them and caught up with them near Anganwadi school where he and the accused entered into a fight. After he and the accused exchanged blows, the victim as well as some members of the Junior TKP stopped the fight and asked them to return home. Therefore, he and the victim proceeded towards home. However, while they were proceeding as such and the victim trailing behing him at a short distance, he saw the accused rush from behind and strike the victim on his stomach. The victim then cried out that he had been stabbed by the accused. The said evidence has not been rebutted or falsified during the cross-examination of PW-12 by the defence. The victim then cried out that he had been stabbed by the accused. The said evidence has not been rebutted or falsified during the cross-examination of PW-12 by the defence. Therefore, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the accused had acted on the spur of the moment is only misconceived. [27.] The learned Trial Court in sentencing the accused had taken into account certain factors to show leniency on the sentence to be imposed upon the accused, i.e; he is an educated person and imparting skills to other inmates in preparing a better life outside Jail, etc. However, it appears that the accused was also convicted in other case under POCSO Act, and for which reason, the Public Prosecutor had prayed for a harsh punishment in the present case. Therefore, conviction of the accused person for two separate crimes only speaks for itself. [28.] The learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the case of Satish Narayan Sawant (supra) to contend that the accused had acted on the spur of the moment to inflict the injury upon the deceased victim. The facts in the case relied upon only appears to be distinguishable since the provocation which resulted in the incident of stabbing was on account of constant provocation by the party concerned. However, in the present case as already stated herein above, despite the victim and PW-12 walking away from the house of Debu, the accused person followed them near Anganwadi school where he and PW-12 had a fight and when their fight was broken up, the accused still followed them near the main road junction opposite the house of H. Thanghmingliana. The argument, altercation etc., between the accused and PW-12 and the victim at three different places therefore cannot be termed as a continuous provocation on the part of PW-12 and the victim. The learned Amicus Curiae has also referred to the explanation made by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he stated that it was not him but PW-12 and the victim who attacked him first and that they were carrying a firewood stick. He also stated that he acted in self-defence. The learned Amicus Curiae has also referred to the explanation made by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he stated that it was not him but PW-12 and the victim who attacked him first and that they were carrying a firewood stick. He also stated that he acted in self-defence. However, the fact remains that such explanation cannot be accepted in isolation, since there is no suggestion even remotely anywhere in the evidence led during the trial that the victim and PW-12 were carrying a firewood stick and had first attacked the accused. [29.] The Apex Court in Manu Sao (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that the statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provision of Section 313(4) explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence against the accused in any other enquiry or trial for any other offence for which such answers may attempt to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provision of the Code but has its own limitations. The Court may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of any other evidence against him led by the prosecution. However, such statement made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the explanation made by the accused without there being any such evidence led during the trial cannot be accepted. [30.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, this Court finds that the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court that a conviction under Section 304 IPC is attracted instead of Section 302 IPC is found to be not supported by the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order is hereby set aside. [30.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, this Court finds that the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court that a conviction under Section 304 IPC is attracted instead of Section 302 IPC is found to be not supported by the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order is hereby set aside. However, instead of proceeding further into the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Trial Court, having regard to the provision of Section 377(3) Cr.P.C or Section 418(3) of the BNSS, 2023 so that a reasonable opportunity may be given to the accused for showing cause as to why the sentence should not be enhanced as per the charged Section. It is ordered accordingly. [31.] The accused for his conviction under 304 IPC vide Judgment & Order dated 16.02.2018 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- with a default clause vide Sentence Order dated 15.03.2018 and therefore, it may so happen that he has completed the term of his imprisonment by now. In order to verify the same, the Registry of this Court was asked to obtain information in this regard from the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl. The said authority vide Communication dated 14.05.2025 has written to the Registrar of this Court that the accused person according to their record was received by the Central Jail from District Jail, Lunglei on transfer on 06.04.2018 and that he was released on expiry of the sentence on 14.10.2022. [32.] Under the above circumstance, the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration as directed in the preceding paragraph and in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused by issuing necessary process including an arrest warrant (if necessary). Upon the appearance of the accused, the learned Trial Court shall give due reasonable opportunity to the rival parties to present their respective case and thereafter, bring the case to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. [33.] For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. F Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae, the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority shall pay him fees as per the rates fixed in this regard. [33.] For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. F Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae, the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority shall pay him fees as per the rates fixed in this regard. [34.] A copy of the Communication dated 14.05.2025 received from the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl is being retained in the record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. [35] With the above observation and direction, the appeals stands disposed of.