The Gauhati High Court, in a case involving homicide where conviction rested primarily on a child witness, converted the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) by invoking Exception 1 to Section 300, after finding sufficient evidence of grave and sudden provocation. The judgment clarifies the precedential standards for relying on child witness testimony and the application of sustained and cumulative provocation as laid down in recent Supreme Court rulings. This clarification is binding authority within its territorial jurisdiction and holds persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL.A(J)/23/2025 of Sh. Lolit Kumar Vs The State of Mizoram |
| CNR | GAHC030002822025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Applies and clarifies Supreme Court precedent; does not overrule any prior decision |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The testimony of a competent, reliable child witness can form the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, is free of embellishments, and there is no evidence of tutoring. Where sustained provocation, including continuous acts and a final immediate trigger, is established, Exception 1 to Section 300 may apply, converting murder to culpable homicide. In this case, both child witness testimony and the accused’s confession, corroborated by medical and other evidence, proved guilt. However, evidence of grave and sudden provocation justified converting the conviction from 302 to 304 Part I IPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The competence and reliability of child witnesses under Section 118 Evidence Act; corroboration of child testimony; definition and scope of “grave and sudden provocation” under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC; evidentiary value of confessions under Section 164 CrPC; principles governing conversion of 302 to 304 Part I. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accused was convicted for murdering his wife based mainly on the evidence of their 6-year-old son (PW-3), who witnessed the crime and sustained injuries. Medical, forensic, and confession evidence corroborated this. The defence contested the reliability of the child witness and claimed the accused acted under grave provocation due to ongoing domestic issues and an immediate assault by the deceased. The High Court found the witness credible and the provocation established. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts within Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court of India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Credible and competent child witness testimony, if unshaken and inspiring confidence, can be the sole basis for conviction.
- Sustained provocation followed by an immediate trigger may attract Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, permitting conviction under Section 304 Part I instead of Section 302.
- Confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, if voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, are reliable for conviction and sentence determination.
- The ground of lack of language understanding raised for the first time on appeal, without basis in trial court records, will not succeed against contemporaneous judicial findings.
- The judgment provides frameworks for assessing both the weight of child witness evidence and the doctrinal boundaries of “grave and sudden provocation” in domestic homicide cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Child Witness Testimony: The Court closely examined whether the sole eyewitness, a 6-year-old child (PW-3), was credible and competent. Guided by Supreme Court precedents, it reaffirmed that evidence from a competent child, if clear, specific, and not demolished in cross-examination, can be the foundation of a conviction even without corroboration, provided the witness is free from tutoring and his testimony inspires confidence.
- Assessment of Corroboration: The Court found that PW-3’s account matched medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence (including injuries, cause of death, and seized weapons), and was immediately consistent with other witnesses’ accounts after the event.
- Confessional Evidence: The accused’s confession under Section 164 CrPC, recorded according to due process and without evidence of coercion or misunderstanding, reinforced the prosecution story.
- Provocation Exception: Applying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, the Court found proven circumstances of sustained and final immediate provocation: long-term domestic disputes, alcohol use, and a triggering act (assault by wife immediately before the homicide). The Court applied principles requiring both sustained and immediate provocation, distinguishing the case from planned or cold-blooded murder.
- Conversion of Conviction and Sentence: As a result, the conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, with the sentence reduced accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sole reliance on child witness (PW-3) without corroboration contravenes prudence and increases risk of error.
- Absence of other eyewitnesses should require additional evidentiary support before conviction.
- The accused acted under grave and sudden provocation, as the deceased attacked him first with a knife, justifying conversion of the charge to Section 304 IPC.
- Accused was illiterate, did not understand Mizo language, and was unable to comprehend proceedings or statements, challenging the fairness and voluntariness of confessional evidence.
Respondent (State)
- The child witness was present and competent; nothing suggests coaching or motive for false testimony.
- Child’s account is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence (injuries, DNA, weapons).
- Voluntary confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC aligns with other evidence, further confirming accused’s guilt.
- There was no valid circumstance of grave and sudden provocation negating murder; evidence supports conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Factual Background
On 10 April 2023, the accused allegedly murdered his wife in their home, slashing her with a dao (machete) and injuring their 6-year-old son, who attempted to intervene. The crime was discovered after neighbors responded to the child’s cries for help. The accused surrendered at the police station that night. Investigation included statements from 14 witnesses, post mortem and forensic analysis, and recording of the accused’s confession. The trial resulted in conviction under Section 302 IPC, with the appellate challenge centering on child witness reliability and claim of grave and sudden provocation by the deceased.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Original conviction for murder.
- Section 304 Part I IPC: On appeal, conviction converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the court’s finding of grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1 to Section 300).
- Section 300 IPC Exception 1: Extensively interpreted, citing Supreme Court authorities, to encompass cases of sustained provocation with an immediate triggering act.
- Section 118 Evidence Act: Discussed as to competency, reliability, and admissibility of child witnesses.
- Section 164 CrPC: Judicial standards for admissibility and corroborative use of confessional statements.
- Section 313 CrPC: Right of accused to explain circumstances; allegations of language barrier adjudged meritless.
- Section 357A CrPC / 396 BNSS: Victim compensation; directed to be expeditiously processed in this case for the deceased’s minor son.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded; both judges reached a unanimous decision on all issues.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court gave explicit directions to the District Legal Service Authority for expeditious compensation to the victim’s minor child under Section 357A CrPC / 396 BNSS.
- No new innovations in evidence or procedure are reported beyond standard practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law reaffirmed and clarified, not overruled.