JUDGMENT : (Michael Zothankhuma, J.) Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aizawl District in SC No. 45/2021 arising out of Crl. Trial No. 819/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of fine Simple Imprisonment for one month, vide Sentence Order dated 12.06.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to an FIR dated 12.03.2021 submitted by the brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the appellant, who is also Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1), before the Officer-in-Charge, Aizawl Police Station, which was to the effect that the informant believed that the deceased (wife) had died at the hand of the appellant (husband), Aizawl PS Case No. 160/2021 dated 12.03.2021 under Section 302 IPC was registered. 4. The case Investigating Officer (I.O) investigated the case and after completing his investigation, submitted a charge sheet dated 08.06.2021, wherein he found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant on24.01.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 18 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 2 are eye witnesses, i.e. PW-8 (daughter of the appellant) and PW-9 (who was the friend of the deceased). 6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the evidence that he had dragged his wife around9:00 am and smashed her head on the floor, besides assaulting her. He also denied that he had dragged her into the bathroom and poured water on her. 7. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had intentionally killed his wife and that none of the Exceptions in Section 300 IPC had been attracted. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentence was imposed as reflected in the earlier paragraph. 8. 7. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had intentionally killed his wife and that none of the Exceptions in Section 300 IPC had been attracted. The appellant was accordingly convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentence was imposed as reflected in the earlier paragraph. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that though there were eye witnesses to the incident of the appellant’s action being the cause of for the death of the deceased, the act of the appellant was unintentional, inasmuch as, the appellant did not have the intention to kill his wife. She further submits that the evidence of PW-8, who is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased is to the effect that she saw the appellant hitting the deceased with his belt and a water bottle, besides pouring water in her ear. Further, the appellant was hitting the head of the deceased very hard. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the belt and the water plastic bottle was not sent to the FSL for examination, to prove that they were the weapons used for hitting the deceased. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that as per the appeal petition submitted by the appellant, the death of the deceased was caused due to grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased, inasmuch as, the appellant got angry due to the deceased not being able to breastfeed the couple’s baby on account of the deceased being drunk. She submits that the appeal petition clearly shows that the deceased had been woken up by the appellant to breastfeed their baby. However, the deceased went to sleep again without breastfeeding the baby, as the deceased was drunk. This made the appellant very angry and as he could not control his anger, he struck her head against the bed and the wall. He then pulled the deceased towards the bathroom and poured water on her to awaken her. However, pool of blood came out from her head. Thereafter, he left the house, telling the deceased to feed the baby before he came back to the house. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the contents of the appeal petition submitted by the appellant clearly shows that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. Thereafter, he left the house, telling the deceased to feed the baby before he came back to the house. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the contents of the appeal petition submitted by the appellant clearly shows that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. The assault made by the appellant was basically due to the deceased not being able to feed the baby, due to her being drunk. As such, a case of murder has not been made out and the charge under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. 11. In this regard, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 289 12. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. Vanneihsiami, on the other hand submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses clearly points to the fact that the appellant was the cause of death of his wife, as he had assaulted her. The injuries on the scalp and the body of the deceased also showed the intensity of the assault on the appellant, which caused the death of the deceased. Further, even after having caused grievous assault on the deceased, the appellant without any consideration for the well-being of the deceased had left the residence in a very cold manner. She also submits that there was no provocation on the part of the deceased towards the appellant. She also submits that the appellant denied that he had assaulted the deceased, which was witnessed by his daughter and neighbor, though, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving the reason/explanation for the act of the appellant lay with the appellant. Thus, not only ocular evidence, but also the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the appellant. In support of her submissions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vahitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 338 13. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 14. In support of her submissions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vahitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 338 13. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 14. At the outset, it may be relevant to extract a few paragraphs of the appeal petition submitted by the appellant through the Jailer, Central Jail, Aizawl, which is as follows:- “(b) On the day of the alleged incidence, my wife was drunk and could not feed my baby still suckling mother's milk. It was in the morning of dt. 12.03.2021 that I woke my wife to get up and feed my little baby her milk as the baby was crying for mother's milk. After getting her up and letting her set up in a position to feed the baby on her lab, she suddenly collapsed to sleep again keeping the baby crying. Having seen her unable to feed the baby in a drunken mood made me furious and highly angry as the baby could not stop crying. I could no longer control my anger and started to hold her hair and started to strike her head against the bed and wall. She said she was sorry but my anger grew more as she said sorry. I pulled her towards the bathroom thinking that pouring water on her might help her awake. But pool of blood squeeze from her head and completely flooded the floor. After doing so, I left the house telling her to feed the baby before I came back. During my absence, her sister and few other neighbors were there and they scolded me why I beat my wife like that? They took her to Ebenezer Hospital but to my dismay. She was declared brought dead. My action on my wife was out of anger and the consequence of her demise was an accidental cause of death. Frankly, I did not intent to take her life; I just hit her head in a hope to punish her for being drunk. It was not intentional at all. It was a very unfortunate incident which I also never expected to happen. (c) The incident and consequence all together had turn out in a much unexpected manner. Frankly, I did not intent to take her life; I just hit her head in a hope to punish her for being drunk. It was not intentional at all. It was a very unfortunate incident which I also never expected to happen. (c) The incident and consequence all together had turn out in a much unexpected manner. I completely regret my action and I did not blame anybody for the kind of sentencing 'am given upon but my plea for this Appeal-Petition is that my kids are still very small and tender and my parents are no more with us, my only Brother & Sister are not employed and it's really difficult for them to shoulder the burden of my sinful deeds. My kids too are having hard tune not only to mention about what they will eat to survive but who will take care of them when they are sick and in great difficulty. Therefore, you are requested to kindly show your mercy on my situation to impugned Judgment and Order of the Session Court and set aside and quash the order in order to minimize the terms of my conviction at the lowest terms possible under your Honorable Court. I therefore would like to request you to kindly consider my humble Appeal-Petition to set aside and quash of the said impugned Judgment and Order in Session Case No.45 of 2021 and Crl.Tr. No.819 of 2021 u/s 302 IPC. Where I was convicted and sentences to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default of payment of the fine, I shall have to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of 1 (one) month and also would like to request you Honour to kindly set aside and quash the said Oder and sentence and set me free from the case or sanction remission of my jail terms to the minimum year as per the law permits.” 15. As can be seen from the above extract of the appellant’s appeal petition, the appellant has not denied the fact that he was the cause of the death of his wife, which according to him, was accidental. As can be seen from the above extract of the appellant’s appeal petition, the appellant has not denied the fact that he was the cause of the death of his wife, which according to him, was accidental. Though the appellant has taken a stand in his appeal petition that he could not control his anger, due to his wife not being able to breastfeed their baby due to her being drunk, this Court is of the view that the same cannot amount to grave and sudden provocation, so as to attract Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. 16. The evidence of PW-8, who is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, is to the effect that as she was about to reach her house she met Peka, who resided below their house and who told her to hurry to save her mother. When PW-8 reached her home on 12.03.2021, she saw her father, the appellant seated on a chair, stating that he was going to put her mother on the road. He then beat the deceased with a belt and poured water in her ear. He then hit her with a plastic bottle and made her naked. The appellant continued to abuse the deceased while the deceased was lying on the ground. Though PW-8 shouted at her father to stop hitting her, the appellant did not obey PW-8. PW-8 then went out to call her aunty Ma-i for help. Thereafter, aunty Ma-i and PW-8 entered their home, wherein they saw the deceased lying motionless on the ground. Aunty Ma-i then helped her on the bed and covered her body with a cloak. Aunty Ma-i then took PW-8 to her home where she stayed for a while. Aunty Ma-i called others and informed them of the condition of the deceased. She thereafter saw the deceased being taken to Ebenezer Hospital, though she did not see the face of the deceased. 17. The evidence of PW-9, who is the friend of the deceased, is to the effect that on 12.03.2021, at around 11:00 am, PW-8 called her while she was sitting in her shop, informing her that her father was assaulting her mother, stating that there was a cut on her chin and asked PW-9 to come to their house. 17. The evidence of PW-9, who is the friend of the deceased, is to the effect that on 12.03.2021, at around 11:00 am, PW-8 called her while she was sitting in her shop, informing her that her father was assaulting her mother, stating that there was a cut on her chin and asked PW-9 to come to their house. When PW-9 went to the house, she saw the victim lying on the floor and her face was facing the floor in a naked position. The appellant was present and was bothering the deceased. PW-9 then shouted at the appellant, saying, “How inhuman can you be by assaulting the deceased”. The appellant then told PW-9 that the deceased had consumed his liquor, which he had kept hidden and was having a blackout. PW-9 then stated that she called the deceased, who uttered “umm” and at that moment, the appellant came and caught hold of the hair of the deceased and pulled her inside the bathroom and kicked her. The appellant then pulled the hair of the deceased and hit her head on the ground and poured water on her head. PW-9 then said that she stopped the appellant saying that he should not treat his wife in that manner, to which the appellant said that she deserved even worse than that. As she was afraid of the appellant’s behaviour towards the deceased, PW-9 took PW-8 and her younger sister, who was about one year old and went to her house. In the evening around 3:00 pm, the appellant took the two children, thinking that everything would be alright. When she looked into the bathroom, she saw the victim still lying in the bathroom, her face towards the floor in a naked position. PW-9 then told PW-8 to go and see whether her mother was still breathing or not. However, PW-8 said that she could not understand anything and asked PW-9 to come inside the bathroom. As PW-9 could not sit or touch the deceased as she was holding the baby in front of her, PW-9 called the neighbours to see the victim. When they went into the house of the deceased, the appellant was not present in the house. When the neighbours came and shifted the deceased, no one was sure whether the deceased was still alive or not. The deceased was thereafter taken to Ebenezer Hospital in a vehicle. 18. When they went into the house of the deceased, the appellant was not present in the house. When the neighbours came and shifted the deceased, no one was sure whether the deceased was still alive or not. The deceased was thereafter taken to Ebenezer Hospital in a vehicle. 18. The evidence of PW-2, who is the elder brother of the appellant is to the effect that on 12.03.2021, at around 3:30 pm to 4:00 pm, PW-1 had rang him up and informed him that the deceased was found seriously injured. When he reached the house of the deceased, he saw the deceased was lying in the bathroom motionless and covered with a white bedsheet. PW-1 and PW-2 thereafter took her inside the room and covered her with a quilt. Thereafter, they took the deceased to Ebenezer Hospital in a taxi. In his cross examination, PW-2 said that the appellant was not in the residence but in his office when they reached the place of occurrence. He also said that the couple used to fight and they both consumed liquor. 19. The evidence of PW-3, who is a person of the same locality as the appellant, is to the effect that the appellant was not present when he carried the deceased from the bathroom to the bedroom. 20. The evidence of PW-4, who is a friend of the appellant, is to the effect that he was a seizure witness with respect to the green colour pyjamas suit of the deceased. 21. The evidence of the case I.O, PW-19 is to the effect that he conducted an inquest over the dead body and found various injuries on the body of the victim, which were as follows:- “I conducted an inquest over the dead body. The following injuries were found on the body namely: (1) Laceration 1 cm on the left side forehead (2) Laceration 3 cm on her chin (3) Laceration 1 cm on her left side lower lip (4) Abrasion 8 cm on her left abdomen (5) Abrasion 1X1 cm on her left elbow (6) Abrasion 2X1 cm on her left side of the body (7) Bruises on her left face i.e. left forehead, left eyebrow and cheek, on her left shin, on her right arm and on her left nape.” He also made a requisition for post-mortem examination of the deceased at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl. Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was informed and they conducted examination of the crime scene. PW-19 further stated that he submitted the chargesheet as he found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 22. The evidence of PW-15, who was the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased on 13.03.2021, stated that on examination, he found serious injuries. PW-15 stated that in his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to cranio-cerebral injuries (head injury). The external and internal injuries, which PW-15 had found during post-mortem examination was as follows:- “External injuries: (1) Contusion of 4 x 2 cms present on forehead, 1 cm above inner end of left eyebrow. (2) Contusion of 5 x 3 cms present on the left side of forehead above left upper eyelid. (3) An abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm present on left side of forehead, 3 cms above left eyebrow. (4) Laceration of 1 cm on inner aspects of lower lip. (5) Laceration of 2 x 0.5 cms present on the chin. (6) An abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm present on left side of back of the chest. (7) An abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm present on left elbow. (8) A horizontally placed abrasion of 8 x 0.5 cms present on front of left side of the abdomen below left hypochondrium. (9) Multiple abrasions present on left knee. Internal Injuries: (1) Scalp: Contusion of inner layer of scalp present with diffused haematoma under the scalp. (2) Skull: Fracture present on occipital bone. (3) Brain: Diffused Sub-Dural and Sub-Arachnoid haemorrhages present on both hemispheres of the brain.” 23. As can be seen from the evidence that has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and the contents of the appeal petition submitted by the appellant, there is no doubt that the assault made on the deceased by the appellant was the cause of death of the deceased. Though the appellant has tried to make out a case of grave and sudden provocation having been made by the deceased towards the appellant, which led to the appellant losing his power of self- control, there is nothing to show that there was any provocation on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, it is only in the appeal petition that some kind of reason has been given by the appellant for having killed his wife. On the other hand, it is only in the appeal petition that some kind of reason has been given by the appellant for having killed his wife. However, in the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, no reason has been forthcoming from the appellant as to why and how his wife was killed. A few of the questions and answers that had been recorded by the learned Trial Court during the examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, is reproduced herein below as follows:- “Q. It is in evidence that in the night of 11.03.2021 you were heavily intoxicated and you slept early. You were wakened up by the cries of your youngest daughter and you drank another three pegs of liquor. After that you watched TV in the sitting room with your wife. What do you have to say? A. This is true. Q. It is in evidence that later at around 8:00 am when you could not find the liquor which you hid and realized that your wife had consumed it, you were infuriated. At around 9:00 am your daughter again started crying and enraged you grabbed your wife by her clothing and dragged her down the floor from the bed tearing off all her clothing. You then smashed her head on the floor twice. Your eldest daughter Lalrinzuali was also present at the time begged you to stop assaulting your wife. After you assaulted her you dragged her outside and into the bathroom. You poured water on her trying to revive her. You then went to office between 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm and later to Rangvamual to drink liquor again. What do you have to say? A. I did not hit my wife or assault her in any way. Our youngest child was sleeping and I tried to wake my wife up to look after the baby. Even when I left her in the bathroom she was not fully awake but she spoke and said that she would look after the child.” A perusal of the above would show that the appellant has denied not only killing his wife, but has also not given any explanation with regard to the conduct of his deceased wife on the particular date of the incident. 24. 24. In the case of Vahitha (Supra) , the Supreme Court has referred to other decisions of the Supreme Court, where it has been held that in terms of Section 313 CrPC, the accused has the freedom to maintain silence during the investigation as well as before the court. It has also held that when there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence, but circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. This has been observed in paragraphs 45 & 46 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Vahitha (Supra), which are as follows:- “45. In Ramnaresh, this Court has, though recognized the right of the accused to maintain silence during investigation as also before the Court in the examination under Section 313 CrPC but, at the same time, has also highlighted the consequences of maintaining silence and not availing opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him, including that of the permissibility to draw adverse inference in accordance with law. This Court observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 274-75, paras 49 &52) "49. In terms of Section 313 CrPC, the accused has the freedom to maintain silence during the investigation as well as before the court. The accused may choose to maintain silence or complete denial even when his statement under Section 313 CrPC is being recorded, of course, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference, be permissible to it in accordance with law. 52. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is upon the court. 52. It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is upon the court. One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of CrPC is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 CrPC, insofar as it supports the case of the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction. Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law." 46. The principles enunciated by this Court in regard to the obligation of explanation in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the consequences of want of explanation have been explained by this Court in Satpal as follows: “6. We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.” 25. In the case of Rampal Singh (Supra) , the Apex Court has held that where an act is done with the intention to kill, it will be murder within the meaning of Section 300 IPC and punishable under Section 302 IPC. Where the act is done on a grave and certain provocation which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender himself, the offence could fall under the Exception to Section 300 IPC, which would be punishable under Section 304 IPC. It further held that another fine tool which would help in determining such matters is the extent of brutality or cruelty with which such an offence is committed. 26. In the present case, the action of the appellant in assaulting his wife had been made without any provocation, as can be seen from the evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court. As such, it cannot be said that there was grave and sudden provocation on the part of the wife, which resulted in the appellant losing his power of self-control, which led numerous bodily injuries on the deceased, leading to her death. The assault had also been made on a vital part of the body (skull). The explanation given for the assault on the deceased by the appellant, as per his appeal petition, is nowhere reflected in the records of the learned Trial Court and the same seems to be an afterthought. In view of there being eye witnesses to the assault on the deceased by the appellant and the fact that the appellant has also not denied that he was the cause of death of the deceased in his appeal petition, we are of the view that the appellant had caused the death of his wife in a cold blooded manner. Further, the appellant had also left the house even after having battered his wife, which showed that he was without remorse for the assault inflicted upon his deceased wife. On considering all the above factors, we are unable to convince ourselves that the appellant did not intentionally kill his wife, by causing numerous injuries on the skull and the body of the deceased. 27. On considering all the above factors, we are unable to convince ourselves that the appellant did not intentionally kill his wife, by causing numerous injuries on the skull and the body of the deceased. 27. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere to the impugned Judgment & Order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 28. Send back the LCR. 29. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, her fee is fixed at Rs. 8500/- (Rupees Eight thousand five hundred) to be payable by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority.