Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Damber Singh Chettri vs The State Of Sikkim on 9 July, 2018

Padam Kumar Chettri vs State Of Sikkim on 11 September, 2019

2. On 16.10.2015 mother of the victim (PW 2) lodged First Information Report at Singtam Police Station stating therein that after coming from the School her youngest daughter told her that eldest daughter had rashes around her vagina. She immediately called her and removed her underwear, where she found that her daughter had rashes all over her vagina. When she enquired about the matter her daughter told her that Padam Dada (appellant) had sexually assaulted her. That day her son and daughter (victim) had gone to stay with the appellant for a 3 Crl. A. No.12 of 2018 (Padam Kumar Chettri v. State of Sikkim) night as his wife had gone to her parent's house. The victim also informed her that appellant told them to sleep with him in the same bed. Later at night when they were asleep, he removed his pant and tried to insert his penis inside her daughter's vagina and it was very painful. PW 2 stated that her kids used to go to her nephew's house to watch TV and due to this reason she had sent her kids to his home as his wife had gone to her parents' house. Next day the victim girl was fine and went to the school but on the third day, she had fever. Complainant gave her medicine and sent her to school. She came to know later i.e. on the day of FIR about this fact. She requested for taking strict legal action against the appellant.
Sikkim High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Lalit Chettri vs State Of Sikkim on 24 September, 2019

10. PW9, the Panchayat President has stated that the victim's mother came to her house and reported that the Appellant had sexually assaulted her minor daughter between Dussehra and Diwali 2016, whereupon she told PW10 that such incident should be informed to the Police. Although it was vehemently argued that the truth of the victim's evidence cannot be trusted, while differing with this argument it is relevant to point out that the evidence of PW1 and PW10 have Crl. A. No. 09 of 2019 7 Lalit Chettri vs. State of Sikkim been consistent on the said aspect. PW3 has supported the evidence of PW2. He has categorically stated that he witnessed the incident, therefore the question of PW1 concocting the incident does not arise nor is there any reason given by the Appellant for PW1 to have made an untruthful statement.
Sikkim High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - M M Rai - Full Document

Dhiran Chettri vs State Of Sikkim on 19 June, 2025

9. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the IO PW-10 admitted that she had not seized the Birth Certificate of the victim in this case. She also did not send a requisition to the Registrar of Births and Deaths for verification of the victim's date of birth. PW-8 was the teacher of the school where PW-2 was reading. He checked and verified the school admission register containing Crl.A. No.17 of 2024 Dhiran Chettri vs. State of Sikkim 13 the particulars of the victim and found that she was admitted in the school on 28-02-2011, in Class I and her date of birth was recorded as 18-06-2005. Admittedly, PW-8 was not the person who had made the entries in the school admission register. No effort was made by the Prosecution to verify as to who had made the entries in the victim's date of birth to enable the Court to reach a finding that the entries were genuine or that the person who gave the date had special means or the knowledge of the date and time mentioned therein. In the absence of unimpeachable documents to establish the victim's age, we are in agreement with the Trial Court that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was a child in terms of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.
Sikkim High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document

Hem Kumar Chettri vs State Of Sikkim on 10 December, 2021

Hem Kumar Chettri vs. State of Sikkim [9] Her evidence-in-chief withstood the cross- examination and could not be decimated. The evidence of P.W.2 regarding the occurrence of the incident is supported by P.W.4 and P.W.5 inasmuch as P.W.4 was told of the incident by the victim P.W.2 and P.W.5 had accompanied P.W.2 to the house of one "D.B. Police" after P.W.2 narrated the details of the incident to her. P.W.5 was the witness who woke up to the knock on her door by P.W.2 at around 1 a.m. of the night of the incident. When she opened the door the victim told her "Hem Kumar lay malai izzat bezzat garyo". The victim could not be more specific than this to describe the offence. Her rustic background on account of which she has used the above words cannot be disregarded or the offence reduced to one under Section 354 of the IPC merely on account of her inability to use the word „Rape‟. The evidence of P.W.5 remained undecimated in cross- examination. Exhibit 13 also lends credence to the evidence of P.W.2.
Sikkim High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document

Manju Chhetri vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 21 October, 2021

5. Clause 9 provides for termination. The 3rd respondent has reserved their right to terminate the petitioner's service by giving one month notice in writing or one month pay in lieu thereof. The order of termination sought to pay one month pay in lieu of the notice in terms of clause 9 of the appointment letter dated 15.07.2015. Clause 16 of the letter of appointment provided that in case the terms and conditions of the offer letter are acceptable to the petitioner, the duplicate copy duly signed as a token of acceptance shall be returned to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has signed on the duplicate copy of the offer letter dated 16.06.2015 as a token of acceptance of the offer which provided that the appointment letter with detailed terms and conditions would be issued subsequently on her joining. It is quite evident that the petitioner having served the 3rd respondent for a little more than 5 years had accepted the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions did not contemplate a hearing before issuance of the order of 5 W.P. (C) No. 34 of 2021 Manju Chettri vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.
Sikkim High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

State vs Rahul on 30 April, 2019

"13. Certain salutary principles of criminal jurisprudence in appreciating evidence must be noted from the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. The Court is mandated to perform the task of ascertaining the truth from the materials before it. The Court has to punish the guilty and protect the CRL.A. 496/2015 Page 20 of 30 innocent. The investigating agency is required to be fair and efficient. However, any lapse in investigation cannot per se be a ground to discard the prosecution case when overwhelming evidence is available to prove the offence. It is vital to examine evidence keeping in mind the setting of the crime. Appreciation of deposition of witnesses must be done keeping in mind this vital aspect. If the scene of crime is rural and the witnesses are rustics their behavioural pattern and perceptive habits are required to be judged as such. Very sophisticated approach based on unreal assumptions about human conduct should not be encouraged. Discrepancies and minor contradictions in narrations and embellishments cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony. However, a trained judicial mind must seek the truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. Overmuch importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. Witnesses' do not all have photographic memory and sometimes, more often than not, are overtaken by events. A witness may also be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination. Nervousness due to the alien surroundings may lead to the witness being confused regarding sequence of events. Witnesses are also susceptible to filling up details from imagination sometimes on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved activating the psychological defence mechanism. Quite often improvements are made to the earlier version during trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case. Discrepancies which do not shake the foundation facts may be discarded. Merely because there are embellishments to the version of the witness the Court should not disbelieve the evidence altogether if it is otherwise trustworthy. It is almost impossible in a criminal trial to prove all the elements with scientific precision. A Court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge. Doubt to be reasonable must be of an honest, sensible and fair-minded man supported by reason with a desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. While CRL.A. 496/2015 Page 21 of 30 appreciating the evidence of a witness the Court must ascertain whether the evidence read as a whole appears to be truthful. It is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court may discard his evidence. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 indicates that all inconsistent statements are not sufficient to impeach the credit of the witness. To contradict a witness must be to discredit the particular version of a witness. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Even if a major portion of the evidence is deficient, in case the residue is sufficient to prove guilt of the accused his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Exaggerating the rule of benefit of doubt can result in miscarriage of justice. Just because a close relative is a witness it is not enough to reject her/his testimony if it is otherwise credible. A relation may not conceal the actual culprit. The evidence can be closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is falsely implicated."
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Pema Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 22 April, 2022

12. The reliance by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on Damber Singh Chettri (supra) is misplaced. The facts and circumstances in that case and the instant case have to be distinguished as the evidence of the P.W.9 herein is changing randomly, besides being unsupported by medical evidence. It is now settled law that the evidence of the victim as a sole witness is required to be cogent, consistent and unwavering qualifying her as a sterling witness and her evidence as worthy of reliance. The evidence of P.W.9 fails on the three anvils reflected above.
Sikkim High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document
1   2 Next