NARENGBAM SHYAMKANHAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-8-92 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East, Imphal in Sessions Case No. 37/88/23/88/27/90 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11-9-82 at about 8.45 p.m. on receipt of information from a reliable source, P.W. 20 Chongtham Dwijamani Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police of Lamphel Police Station lodged an FIR (Ext. P/9) stating that at about 7 p.m. of the day, one Oinam Brojendro Singh was murdered by unknown person/persons in quarter No. 24, Type-II, Block-A, Lamphelpat. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Lamphal Police Station Case No. 300(9)82 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After registration of the aforesaid case, P.W. 20 visited the place of occurrence along with P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 (Constables on duty in the police station). It is the prosecution case that the place of occurrence namely, quarter No. 24, Type-II, Block-A at Lamphelpat near Nurses Hostel was occupied by the wife of the accused Smt. J. Pari Hmar. It is the further case of the prosecution that the police party headed by P.W. 20 entered the drawing room of the said quarter and found blood splattered on the floor and on the sofa in the room. On opening of the back door of the room, the deadbody was found lying on the ground. Inside the room, one cushion, one armed chair, one shirt of grey colour, one bottle of 750ml, two half bottles smelling of liquor, a pair of North Star Shoes, a piece of cloth, a small bucket of light green colour, one Identity Card and a sum of Rs. 81.00 was seized by the police vide Ext. P/2 at about 10.45 p.m. on 11-9-82 in the presence of the witnesses. All the aforesaid articles seized were found sprinkled with blood. The inquest was held over the deadbody in the presence of the witnesses and a Sketch Map was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the deadbody was sent to the morgue and subsequently , for postmortem examination. On 12-9-82 at about 10-30 a.m., P.W. 20 seized some quantity of blood specimen of the deceased as well as the stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. The aforesaid specimens were kept in two bottles. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 17-9-82, the accused surrendered at the police station whereafter he was arrested. The prosecution has also alleged that on 18-9-82 at about 6 a.m., the accused while in lock up, tried to commit suicide by inflicting certain injuries on himself with a broken glass. In connection with the aforesaid incident, Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306(9) 82 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The accused was hospitalised in the R.M.C. Hospital for abut 15 days and he was discharged on 1-10-82. It is the further case of the prosecution that after release from hospital on 2-10-82, the accused made a statement (Ext. P/6) in the presence of P.W. 16 Pukhrambam Kumar Singh and P.W. 18 Yangoijam Indrajit Singh to the effect that he had thrown out the weapon of assault, the knife, in a bush behind his house. In the aforesaid statement, the accused also stated that he had kept the trouser used by him at the time of occurrence at his paternal house and that he would be able to produce the same before him. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the accused and at his instance, a blood stained knife measuring 10 inches in length (Mat. Ext. 7) was recovered along with the trouser. Both the articles were seized vide Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of investigation, a large number of witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and sent for trial.

(3.) In the Court of Sessions, a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial of the case, as many as 23 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Two witnesses were examined by the defence. A large number of documents were exhibited. The articles seized at the place of occurrence vide Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8 were also produced in Court as Mat. Exts. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 6-8-92 convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved, the accused has filed the instant appeal. A brief resume of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence may be usefully set out at this stage. P.W. 1 Abdul Rashid Mia and P.W. 2 Nameirakpam Amuyaima Singh are the constable who had accompanied P.W. 20 to the place of occurrence in the evening of 11-9-82. Both the witnesses have narrated that on reaching the place of occurrence, they found the deadbody and they had witnessed the holding of inquest over the same. P.W. 3 V. S. Ramting at the relevant time was living in Quarter No. 21 near the quarter in question where the occurrence took place. According to this witness, at the relevant point of time, the wife of the accused was occupying Quarter No. 24. On the day of occurrence in the evening, the police personnnel came to her house and requested her to accompany there to Quarter No. 24. This witnesses has stated that inside the waiting room, she could see blood splattered on the floor, on the chair, cushion etc. Thereafter, she along with the police party went to the western side of the quarter and found one deadbody lying on the ground. According to this witness, the police party searched the deadbody and took out an identity card from the chest pocket of the shirt worn by the deceased. She was a witness to the inquest held over the deadbody and confirms that apart from other injuries there were stab wounds in the stomach and the chest of the deceased. She was also a witness to the seizure effected by seizure List, Ext. P. 2. P.W. 4 Lairanmayum Bhegujoy Singh was a witness to the taking of blood sample of the deceased as well as the sample of the stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. P.W. 5 Oinam Nomo Maitei is the younger brother of the deceased who confirms that the full shirt seized vide Ext. P/2 was taken by him early in the morning on the day of occurrence for ironing for being used by the deceased. P.W. 6 Kahetrimayum Ranjit Singh is a witness to the taking of blood samples as well as samples of stomach contents of the deceased vide Ext. P/3. P.W. 7 R. K. Kheda Singh was at the relevant time working as Section Officer of the Building Project Division No. 1 of P.W. D. In his evidence, he has stated that on 11-9-82 he along with P.W. 9 Laisram Kheda Singh, one Nebakanta Singh and Tyeb Ali and the deceased had gone to watch theatre. After the theatre was over, along with P.W. 9 and the deceased, he went to a hotel to have some drinks. This witness has stated that inside the hotel, he saw one Thangjam Shyam-kanhai Singh (P.W. 8), R. K. Manisana Singh (P.W. 10) and the accused seated in a table and consuming drinks. Though this witness did not know the accused, he knew the other witnesses as they were contractors. This witness has stated that while in the hotel after exchange of some conversation both the groups were busy with themselves and both the parties started moving out from the hotel at almost the same time. According to this witness, while coming out from the hotel, the accused and the deceased were talking and were together. From the hotel, they went to a panshop at a short distance and were waiting for about 10 minutes for the accused and the deceased to turn up. As they failed to turn up, this witness went home. On the following day at about 4 p.m., he heard that the deceased had been found dead. P.W. 8 Tangjam Shyamkanhai Singh in his evidence has stated that on one particular day, 5/6 years back, the accused along with R. K. Manisana Singh (P.W. 10) and some other persons went to Ukhrul on business. They other members of the party came back to Imphal on the same day. But, he alone with P.W. 10 and the accused stayed back at Ukhrul for about two days and thereafter, came back to Imphal. According to this witness, they reached Imphal at about 4 p.m. and thereafter, proceeded to have drinks. This witness has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 7 with regard to the events took place inside the hotel and also that both the groups had decided to leave hotel at about same time. This witness has also corroborated P.W. 7 that the rest of the party were waiting for the accused and the deceased the panshop but they failed to turn up whereafter, they left for their respective residences. P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 examined by the prosecution have given more or less similar version as P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 except that P.W. 10 in his evidence has stated that when he had left the panshop the accused and the deceased were present at the said shop. P.W. 11 Laisram Nandakumar Singh has been examined to prove the allotment of Quarter No. 24 in the name of the wife of the deceased. P.W. 12 Oinam Boro Singh is the father of the deceased and P.W. 13 Thoungojam Nabachandra Singh is a co-villager. Their evidence is not very material for the purpose of the present case. P.W. 14 Irungbam Chourajit Singh was at the relevant time Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East Division. This witness was sought to be examined by the prosecution to prove the statements made by the accused in the hospital after he had allegedly inflicted injuries on himself in the lock up on 18-9-82. This witness however, was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W. 15 Ningombam Ibohal Singh was the Officer-in-charge of Lamphel Police Station from December, 198 4/05/1989. This witness has been examined by the prosecution with regard to the aforesaid alleged incident of suicide by the accused. P.W. 16 Tombi Singh who was an alleged witness to the statement (Ext. P/6) made by the accused leading to discovery of the knife and trouser seized by Ext. P/7 and Ext. P/8. This witness, however, was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W. 17 Koijam Ibotombi alias Tombi Singh who is a relation to the deceased is not a very material witness for the purposes of the present case. P.W. 18 Yangoijam Indrajit Singh has been examined by the prosecution to prove Ext. P/6 i.e. the statement of the accused leading to discovery of knife as well as the facts and events leading to such discovery. According to this witness, on 2-10-82, he was called by police along with P.W. 16 to the police station and there, in his presence, the police asked the accused whether he would be able to produce articles used by him in the offence. According to this witness, the accused replied in the affirmative and the police recorded the statement of the accused in his presence and he signed the said statement Ext. P/6 as a witness. According to this witness, he along with the police party, the accused and P.W. 16 went to the quarter of the accused at Lamphelpat. The accused pointed out the knife (Thang) which was lying at the northern side of the said quarter. The police picked up the said knife and seized the same vide Ext. P/7 in which exhibit he put his signature. Thereafter, according to this witness, the party proceeded to the house of the accused at Lalambung-makhong and recovered a pair of trouser which was seized vide seizure Memo Ext. P/8. P.W. 19 Huidrom Bhubon Singh was the Officer-lin-charge of Lamphel Police Station on the date of occurrence. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 20 (to be discussed subsequently) on the point of filing of FIR and the registration of Police Case No. 300(9) 82 against the accused. This witness has also deposed that in the month of September, 1982 when he was engaged in the Morning Roll Call, he was reported by one Police Constable that the accused who was in the lock up of the police station had locked himself in the latrine. This witness has stated that the door of the latrine was forced opened and the accused was found with some injury marks caused by a sharp weapon in the region of the neck. A piece of glass was found at the place and thereafter Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306(9) 82 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. This witness has further stated that the accused was in the lock up in connection with Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300(9)82. In cross-examination, P.W. 19 has stated that it was not within his knowledge whether the charge-sheet was submitted in Lamphel Police Station Case No. 306(9)82. He also stated that at the relevant time, there was no other accused in the lock up. P.W. 20 Chongthom Dwijamani Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness has deposed that at about 8.45 p.m. on 11-9-82, he on receipt of an information from a reliable source lodged a FIR, Ext. P/9. After Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300(9)82 was registered, he visited the Quarter No. 24, Type-II, Block-A near Nurses Hostel and on entering the drawing room, he found blood splattered on the floor as well as on the cushion. Only the wife of the accused was present in the house at that time. This witness, has also deposed that on opening of the back door of the room, he found the deadbody on the ground. This witness has stated that vide Ext. P/2 he seized one blood stained cushion, one armed chair stained with blood, one shirt of grey colour stained with blood, one bottle of 750 ml stained with blood, two half bottles smelling of alcohol, a pair of shoes, a piece of cloth, a small bucket, the identity card of the deceased and a sum of 81 rupees in different denominations stained with blood. The aforesaid articles which were exhibited in Court as Mat Obj. were duly identified by this witness. The knife seized vide Ext. P/7 was also identified as M.O. No. 7 by this witness. This witness has also deposed as to the injuries found on the deadbody of the deceased at the time of inquest and that after the inquest was over, a sketch Map was prepared and the body was sent to the morgue for postmortem examination. This witness has also taken some quantity of blood sample as well as the stomach contents of the deceased in two small bottles vide Ext. P/3. P.W. 20 examined by the prosecution has also narrated the circumstances in which Ext. P/6 was recorded and the discovery of the knife and a pair of trouser on the basis of the statements of the accused recorded in Ext. P/6 and at his instance. P.W. 20 has also proved the relevant portion of the statements of the witness including P.W. 16 who had turned hostile, as recorded in the course of investigation. P.W.21 Dr. Khundrakpam Narendra Singh was at the relevant time the District Medical Officer, Central Imphal. He has proved the handwriting of late Dr. Moirangthem Saratchandra Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deadbody. He has also proved his counter signature on the said postmortem report. This witness has stated that the incised and perforated wounds as described in the postmortem report as well as other penetrating wounds as described in the postmortem report could be caused by the sharp weapon i.e. the knife exhibited as Mat. Obj No. 7. This witness has also stated that the injuries described in the postmortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the result of the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report would be instantaneous death and that the injured would not be able to walk after receiving the said injuries P.W. 22 R. K. Khomdon Singh was examined with regard to the attempt to commit suicide by the accused while in lock-up. P.W. 23 Sangjenbam Chaoba Singh examined in the case was the Investigating Officer of Lamphel Police Station Case No. 300(9)82 after P.W. 20. This witness has deposed that the articles seized vide Ext. P/2 and Ext. P/7 were sent for examination to the Directorate of Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Calcutta and the opinion of the expert was received which has been exhibited as Ext. P/21. On cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the relevant time, in Quarter No. 24, the younger brother of the accused Narengbam Aken Singh was also living.