WAIKHOM ANGAMBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal jail appeal is from 'he judgment and order of conviction Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life.

(2.) ON 7 -6 -1976 at about 12.30 A.M. one P. Ibomcha Singh, P.W. 2, lodged anejahar at the Lamphol Police Station alleging that on 6 -6 -76 at about 9.30 P.M. while he and his friend, Laishram Ibomcha Singh were coming home by the road in between Ahallup village and Don Bosco High School, the appellant, Shri1 Waikhom Angamba Singh and one W. Nandakishore Singh (acquitted) came from behind on one bicycle and all of a sudden the appellant assaulted Laishram Ibomcha Singh with one khukri as a result of which he fell down on the road and the informant, P. Ibomcha Singh, ran across a paddy field towards the house of Laishram Ibomcha Singh and informed the members of his family, who came to the spot and found Laishram Ibomcha Singh lying with multiple injuries and when asked he (Laishram) replied that the appellant, Waikhom Angamba Singh, assaulted him; and therefrom he was taken to The hospital but succumbed to his injuries on way. Lamphol police registered F. I. R. Case No. 168(6) 76, investigated the case, arrested the accused -appellant as well as W. Nandakishore Singh on 14 -6 -76, and a statement of the accused led to the discovery of the alleged weapon of offence, clothes worn by the appellant and the bicycle, and thereafter the appellant and his co -accused, Nandakishore Singh were charge -sheeted. At the trial Court charge Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against both/which they denied and alleged false implication. At the end of the trial, while the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I. PC. and sentence to imprisonment for life, the other co -accused. Nandakishore Singh, was acquitted of the charge, giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal.

(3.) MR . A. Nilamani Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the sole eyewitness, P.W. 2, is not so reliable as to base conviction Under Section 302 I. P. C; that the dying declaration was not admissible as it was not proved according to law; that the statement leading to the discovery was not recorded and discovery was not made according to the law; and that the evidence of the P. Ws. is materially discrepant and lastly that the offence Under Section 302 IPC was not proved according to the law.