Page No.# 1/16 GAHC030006102024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl.A(J) No. 33 of 2024 Appellant: Sh. Ephraim Lalhnama. -Versus- Respondent: State of Mizoram. Advocate for the Appellant : Mr.Lalramdinthara, Amicus Curiae. Advocate for the respondent : Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. PP, Mizoram. BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Date of hearing : 27.10.2025. Date of judgment : 29.10.2025. Page No.# 2/16 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. Lalramdinthara, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge -I, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Sessions Case No. 103/2023 arising out of Bawngkawn P.S Case No. 629/2023 under Section 307/326/324 IPC. The appellant has been convicted for a period of 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) and fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default clause to undergo another period of 5 months R.I for the offence under Section 307 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo another period of 3 months R.I for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The accused/appellant is also sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer another 2 months imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. It was directed that all the 3 sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.09.2023, at around 6:50 pm, a written FIR was lodged by the PW-1, who is the son of the PW-2 & PW-3/victims that on 05.09.2023, at 5:00 pm, his younger brother, the accused has assaulted Page No.# 3/16 his parents and attempted to kill them by hitting on their heads with a wooden pestle (Mizo Suk). Hence, he prayed to the authorities to take legal action against the accused for attempting to kill his parents. The instant case was registered against the accused under Section 307 and 326 IPC and it was duly investigated. 4. During the investigation, the place of occurrence was visited and witnesses were also examined and their statements were recorded. The accused was arrested and upon interrogation, he admitted his guilt. The assault weapon was also seized from the place of occurrence. Having found prima facie case against the accused under Section 307/326 IPC, the charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. Charge was framed against the accused/appellant under Section 307/326/324 IPC on 08.12.2023 and it was read over and explained to him. However, since the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents along with 1 material exhibit. The defence did not examine any witness. 6. The prosecution had relied mainly upon the depositions of the PW-2 and PW-3, who are the injured witnesses and also the depositions of PW-6/Medical Page No.# 4/16 Officer and PW-7/Investigating Officer. 7. Upon examining the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case against the accused/appellant and proved the charges brought against the accused/appellant under Section 307/326/324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant. 8. Assailing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.06.2024 and the Sentence Order dated 12.06.2024, the learned Amicus Curiae had submitted that the PW-2 and PW-3 have admitted in their cross-examination that they had caused provocation to the accused/appellant. PW-3 had stated in her cross- examination that if she had not angered the accused person, the alleged incident would not have happened and that the incident started only because the accused person confronted PW-2 and PW-3 due to certain provocation. The PW-3 also admitted the suggestion that the accused person took the pestle (Mizo Suk) out of anger, after she had approached him and passed the verbal comments as stated in her examination-in-chief. Therefore, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the fact that there was provocation on the part of PW-2 and PW-3 has been admitted by them. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that as per the deposition of PW- Page No.# 5/16 6/Medical Officer, the injuries suffered by the PW-2 and PW-3 are not grievous in nature. The PW-6 has stated that the injury on the PW-2 was grievous in nature as the victim was in a state of unconsciousness for 5 minutes after the incident. However, the injury report only states that there was laceration of 3x1 cm, on the occipital region (head). This injury does not come within the definition of grievous hurt as given in Section 320 IPC. As far as the injury on PW-3 is concerned, the PW-6 has clearly stated that the nature of injury is simple in nature. This deposition of PW-6 has not been rebutted by the defence in the cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the conviction under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained in the present case, at best it can only be the conviction under Section 324 IPC. 10. As far as the conviction under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are intention, knowledge and circumstances that if he by that act had caused death, he would be guilty of murder. In the present case, the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was any motive, intention or knowledge on the part of the accused/appellant. He has submitted that since there was provocation, the appellant had hit back at the PW-2 and PW-3 and since, they were all alone at that relevant time, if he had the intention to kill them, he could have committed the offence. Page No.# 6/16 11. The learned Amicus Curiae has also drawn the attention of this Court to the seized weapon which is wooden pestle (Mizo Suk) which is stated to be 1.5 ft long in the seizure memo. However, the diameter of the pestle is not given. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the said pestle (Mizo Suk) is a round wooden stick used for making chutney and can hardly be said to be a dangerous weapon as it is not sharp and does not have sharp edges to cause serious injuries. It is also being proved by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that the accused/appellant had only hit the PW-2 and PW-3 once with a pestle. 12. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the PW-2 and PW-3 are the parents of the accused/appellant and he had no intention to commit murder. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the accused/appellant was drunk at the time of the incident and due to the provocation by the PW-2 and PW-3, he had retaliated by hitting them but without any intention or motive whatsoever to commit murder. Even the Investigating Officer/PW-7 in his cross- examination deposed that the victims were never admitted in the hospital and they were discharged after giving first-aid. This also goes to show that the injuries sustained by PW-2 and PW-3 were simple in nature and would have never caused death. 13. The learned Amicus Curiae has relied on the case of Sivamani & Page No.# 7/16 Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581 and the case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551. Relying on the case of Sivamani & Another (Supra), learned Amicus Curiae states that the Supreme Court in the said judgment had held that when there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows and when the injuries are found to be simple in nature, the same is at additional point in the accused/appellant favour and the Supreme Court had accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and it was converted to Section 323 and 324 of the IPC. Even in the case of Hari Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court had held that under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that Section. The intention or knowledge of the accused/appellant must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “Attempt to Murder”. The Court further held that under Section 307, the intention precede the act attributed to accused/appellant. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is infected are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to Page No.# 8/16 determine the intention. 14. In view of the submissions made above, the learned Amicus Curiae prays that the conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 326 IPC may be quashed and set aside as the prosecution has not been able to prove the same. The learned Amicus Curiae further submits that PW-2 and PW-3 have already forgiven the accused/appellant and have also written a letter praying for reduction of the sentence of their son/accused. 15. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand has argued that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the accused/appellant had committed the offences under Section 307/326/324 IPC. She has submitted that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 corroborates with that of PW-1 and the FIR. Referring to the evidence of the PW-2 and PW-3, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that PW-2 deposed that the accused person had previously tried to kill him by strangulation. The accused often creates trouble and gets physically violent when he gets drunk and assaulted him and his family several times before the present incident. It is stated that the PW-2 in his re-examination deposed that they did not do anything which could anger the accused person. The PW-2 in his examination- in-Chief also stated that it is not safe for them if the accused/appellant is Page No.# 9/16 released on bail or discharged or acquitted in connection with the instant case. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor referring to the evidence of PW-3 also submits that the PW-3 deposed that the accused had often assaulted her before the present incident and he had also tried to kill the PW-2 several times. She also deposed that if the accused person is released or discharged or acquitted, she has a strong reason to believe he would take a revenge and assault her and her family. The PW-2 and PW-3 also deposed that the accused had shouted at them saying that he would kill them all. 16. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor therefore, submitted that there was no provocation on the part of the PW-2 and PW-3, but the intention to murder was present in the accused/appellant for a long time even before the present incident. In support of her contention regarding the intention, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted relying on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shamsher Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 807 that in the said case the Supreme Court had held that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted. 17. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that intoxication cannot Page No.# 10/16 be an excuse for the accused/appellant as the law regarding intent or knowledge of an intoxicated person has been laid down in the case of Nanhe Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 13 SCC 765. In the cited case, the Supreme Court had stated that in so far as the impact of intoxication and causing death while in the state of intoxication is concerned, reference to Section 86 IPC is relevant which provides for the offence caused by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of his act. The said provision absolves the accused of committing an offence by reason of intoxication and incapability of knowing the nature of his act. However, for applying the said provision, it has to be noticed that such intoxication has to be administered to him against his will or without his knowledge which means that it should not be voluntary intoxication. Secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, therefore, states that in the present case, there is nothing to show that the accused/appellant was intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge. 18. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the learned Trial Court has correctly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 307/326/324 IPC and prays that this Court may not interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2024 and the Sentence dated 12.06.2024. Page No.# 11/16 19. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both sides and have examined the materials available on record. 20. As noted above, there are two injured witnesses in the present case. One is PW-2, the father of the accused/appellant and the other is PW-3/the mother of the accused/appellant. 21. The PW-2 in his cross examination stated that the accused person is a habitual drinker and that on various occasions he would come home drunk. He also deposed that during the instant incident, the accused person was drunk and he further deposed that the accused maintained well behaved character when he was not drunk. He also accepted the suggestion that if he was not under the influence of alcohol, the incident might not have happened. PW-2 also stated that the accused person took out the pestle (Mizo Suk) out of anger after the PW-3 had passed the remark telling him not to eat alone otherwise the food would not be enough. 22. PW-3 in her cross examination also stated that the accused is a habitual drinker and even during the instant incident, the accused person was drunk and she also accepted the suggestion that if he was not under the influence of alcohol the incident might not have happened. She also accepted the suggestion that if she had not told him not to eat because the food will not be enough, the Page No.# 12/16 instant incident might not have happened. 23. The PW-1/complainant also stated in his cross examination that the accused used to assault their parents under the influence of liquor. The accused in his 313 CrPC statement stated that when he get drunk, he usually does not know what he does or what he says and he stated that he used to get all crazy when he is drunk and deeply regretted his action. He further stated that he deeply regretted what he did to his parents and made up his mind not to drink alcohol when he gets out of prison. The Supreme Court in the case of Nanhe (Supra) has stated that in the celebrated case of R Vs. Meade reported in 1909 (1) KB 895, it was opined that the person charged with a crime of violence may show or rebut the presumption that he intended the natural consequences of his acts, that he was drunk and that he was incapable of knowing what he was doing was dangerous. The law was thus summed up as under: (i) The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a defence in a crime; (ii) The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming any opinion or intention ought to be considered with the surrounding facts and circumstances so as to come to the conclusion Page No.# 13/16 whether or not he had intention to do the said act; and (iii) The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the crime. 24. In the present case, there is enough evidence to prove that the accused/appellant was intoxicated/drunk at the time of the incident and incapable of thinking properly. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the accused/appellant to cause the death of his parents/PW-2 and PW-3. Therefore, the conviction under Section 307 IPC is interfered with and quashed and set aside. 25. As far as the conviction under Section 326 IPC is concerned, the medical report of the PW-2 and PW-3 coupled with the evidence of PW-6/Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer/PW-7, goes to show that none of the ingredients of Section 320 IPC are present in the injury report. As per Section 320 IPC, only the following kinds of hurt are designated as ‘grievous’: “First.-Emasculation. Secondly.-Permanent privation of the sight of either ear. Thirdly.-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly. – Privation of any member or joint. Page No.# 14/16 Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly. – Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.” 26. A bare perusal of the injury report of PW-2 and PW-3 and the evidence of PW-6 goes to show that the injuries were simple in nature and none of the ingredients in Section 320 IPC are present. The Medical Report is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-7/I.O, who stated in his cross examination that the victims were not admitted in the hospital, and they were discharged after they were given first-aid. Further, the seized weapon/wooden pestle in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot constitute a dangerous weapon as it would be a round instrument without any sharp edges and cannot be a weapon which is likely to cause death. 27. The Supreme Court in the case of Mathai Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2005) 3 SCC 260 held that what would constitute a ‘dangerous weapon’ would depend upon the facts of each case and no generalization can be made. 28. Accordingly, this Court is further of the view that the conviction under Page No.# 15/16 Section 326 IPC also cannot be sustained. 29. As far as the conviction under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae has also not disputed the same and the evidence of the PW- 6/Medical Officer and PW-7/I.O and the injury report of the PW-2 and PW- 3/Exhibit P-9 and Exhibit P-10 have already proved the ingredients of Section 324 IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 324 IPC is upheld. 30. In the back drop of the discussions made above and upon taking an overall view, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2024 and the Sentence order dated 12.06.2024 are quashed and set aside as far as conviction Section 307 IPC and Section 326 IPC are concerned. 31. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC is upheld. 32. It is stated at the bar that the accused/appellant has already undergone 2 years 1 month and 22 days of his sentence period. Therefore, the sentence under Section 324 IPC is also reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed under Section 324 IPC is maintained. The accused/appellant is directed to be released forthwith and the bail bond shall stand discharged, if any. 33. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 34. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Record expeditiously. 35. The Court also appreciates the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Page No.# 16/16 Curiae and he is entitled to the fees prescribed to be given by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. JUDGE Comparing Assistant