Sikkim High Court
Ran Tshering Lepcha vs State Of Sikkim on 21 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ511
Author: Anup Deb
Bench: Anup Deb
JUDGMENT Ripusudan Dayal, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1998 by the learned Sessions Judge (East and North), Sikkim convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and, in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for having committed the murder of one Tekbir Bhujel of Samthar busty, Kalimpong, West Bengal at Namli Bhir near 9th Mile within the jurisdiction of the Ranipool Police Station on 18th May, 1998.
2. Constable C.K. Ranapaheli (Darji), P.W. 4 was attached to Sadar Police Station at the relevant time. He is a resident of Singtam Bazaar. On the date of the occurrence, he came from Singtam Bazaar to Gangtok to attend to his duties as usual and on the way saw a person lying with his face downwards in a pool of blood near the rest house at Namli Bhir. He did not stop there and proceeded to Ranipool Check-Post where he made a verbal report of the matter to the second Officer-in-Charge. C.P. Basent, P.W. 2, who was attached to the Ranipool Check-Post as Second Officer-in-Charge was on duty on 18-5-1998 when P.W. 4, Chandra Kumar Darji arrived at about 10 a.m. to inform him that a person was lying with multiple injuries near 9th Mile Hawa Ghar, Namli Bhir, 31A National Highway. Immediately, thereafter, he rushed to the spot along with the writer Constable Dharma Raj Chettri. He found that the victim had cut injuries on his head, neck and hands, but was alive. The witness asked the victim about his identity. The victim thereupon gave his name as Tekbir Bhujel, resident of Samthar, Kalimpong, West Bengal. The victim informed him that one Ran Tshering Lepcha i.e., the appellant, knows everything about the incident. Thereafter, he removed the victim to S.T.N.M. Hospital where he, died. After the death of the victim, the witness lodged a written information Exhibit P-1 at the Ranipool Police Station. At another place, in the cross-examination-in-chief itself, the witness has stated that the victim had informed him that the appellant was responsible for the incident. D.R. Chettri, P.W. 3 who accompanied C.B. Basnet, P.W. 2, and Frederick Lucksum, P.W. 1 who also saw the victim lying by the side of the road also stated that the victim told them that the appellant knew everything about the incident.
3. Though twenty eight witnesses were produced at the trial, none of them is an eye-witness. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. relying on the following four circumstances as having been established at the trial :
(i) victim gave the name of the appellant before his death;
(ii) the appellant had the motive behind the crime;
(iii) recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant; and
(iv) the victim and the appellant were last seen together.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we are of the view that the charge against the accused has not been brought home beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence shows that the accused can only be suspected to have committed the crime. As we have already pointed out, witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 did not state that the victim told any of them that the appellant had assaulted him. They only stated that the victim had told them that the appellant knew about the incident, which is very much different from saying that the victim had made the assault. It is true that P.W. 2, C.B. Basnet has, at another place in the examination-in-chief itself, has also stated that the victim had informed him that the appellant was responsible for the incident. Thus there are two versions made by this witness : one that the victim informed him that the appellant knew everything about the incident, and, the other that the appellant was responsible for the incident. There is no reason for us not to accept the version which favours the appellant.
5. Regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence, the Investigating Officer, K.B. Gurung, P.W. 28 has deposed that he seized one khukri, that is, the weapon of offence from the person of the accused. On the other hand, the other witness Umesh Subba, P.W. 7, who is a contractor and under whom the appellant used to work as a labourer, has deposed that the Khukri was recovered from the labour shed of the appellant at the instance of the appellant. Evidence of both these witnesses is so contradictory that it is difficult to believe that recovery of the khukri was made at the instance of the appellant. Besides, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed with the khukri which has been allegedly seized from or at the instance of the appellant. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. K.B. Gurung, P.W. 22 who has after mentioning the seven injuries suffered by the deceased opined that the death was caused due to shock as a result of haemorrhage produced by multiple injuries and the type of weapon was a sharp cutting weapon. No question was put to him as to whether the injuries could have been caused by the khukri by which the offence was allegedly committed.
6. As regards the circumstance that on the date of the occurrence, the accused and the deceased were seen last together, evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 is relevant. P.W. 5 Lalit Subba, is a student residing at 9th Mile, Namli. He has deposed that near about the time of the incident, he was sitting near the road talking with Dhanihang Subba and Roshan Subba when he saw the appellant walking along with the other person whom he did not know towards Rangpo side and after about ten, fifteen minutes one Tata Truck and a Jeep came from Rangpo side and the drivers of these vehicles told them that a man had been cut. The witness has further deposed that thereafter, he along with Roshan Subba rushed to the spot where he saw a man in a sitting position with his head downwards but, since there were a lot of people in front of him and the persons accompanying him, they could not see very clearly. Thus, his statement falls short of saying that he had seen the appellant walking along with the deceased. Roshan Subba, P.W. 6 is also a resident of 9th Mile, Namli. He has deposed that he along with his sister Dhanihang Subba and Bikash Subba was sitting near his house when he saw the appellant and the deceased walking towards Singtam side and after about half an hour they saw the appellant returning alone and proceeding towards Ranipool side and thereafter a truck driver told him that some body had been cut. Thus, his evidence shows that prior to the occurrence the deceased and the appellant had been seen together. Even if the evidence of this witness regarding both the deceased and the appellant having been seen together is believed, nothing much turns on it, as even if both were seen together, that only brings the appellant within the sphere of suspicion. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, the deceased himself had told them that the appellant knew about the incident which falls short of saying that the appellant had made the assault.
7. As regards the motive, the learned Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence of P.W. 15 Jit Lephca, P.W. 16 Man Bahadur Bhujel and P.W. 17 another Man Bahadur Bhujel. All of them are co-villagers belonging to the same village to which the deceased and the appellant belonged. Their evidence is to the effect that about one month prior to the date of the incident the appellant had admitted to have stolen ginger belonging to the deceased and the matter was then settled by the appellant by agreeing to pay Rs. 800/- as price of the stolen ginger.
8. Reference has also been made to the evidence of Shri Purna Bahadur Bhujel (P.W. 25) who also belongs to the same village. According to his evidence, one night before the date of the occurrence, the deceased had told him that the appellant had smelt the mouth of the deceased and then the deceased had given the appellant one slap.
9. The evidence of these four witnesses that is P.W. 15, P.W. 16, P.W. 17 and P.W. 25 shows that the appellant might be having some grudge against the deceased but that by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant.
10. In the result, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. As such, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
11. Therefore, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge and acquit the appellant of the offence with which he has been charged. We direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.