STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. LALNINGHAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal reference has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 5-8-2003, passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl, in G.R. Case No. 1 of 1996, convincting the accused Lalninghaka under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :- On 1-1-96 at about 11 p.m., when Laldawnga, accompanied by his wife, Lalhmuaki, was about to reach his home, Vanlalnela (since deceased) who was the younger son of Laldawnga, assaulted Laldawnga at the back of his head. The accused Lalninghaka, who was the elder son of Laldawnga too assaulted his father on the back of his head with a stick and when Laldawnga fell down, Vanlalnela took out a knife, which accused Lalninghaka snatched from his brother and slit the throat of his father, Laldawnga. Thereafter, the said two sons of the deceased Laldawnga with the help of their mother, buried the dead-body of their father within the compound of their house. On the following day, however, accused Vanlalnela went to one Vanthaga, who was a member of the local VCP, and narrated to him the occurrence. Vanthaga, then, sent a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Champhai P.S., through accused Vanlalnela and, on receiving the same, the police registered a case under Section 302, IPC against the said two sons of deceased Laldawnga and his widow. During investigation, police exhumed the said dead-body and held inquest thereon. The accused Lalningkhaka made a judicial confession and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the both the said sons of Laldawnga and their mother, accused Lalhmuaki.

(3.) In all, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of their case. The two accused were, then, examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and in their examination aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding accused Lalninghaka guilty of the charge framed against him, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as already mentioned hereinabove. The accused Lalhmuaki was, however, acquitted.