MAIBAM BIRAHARI SINGH Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal 14 of 1966 is an appeal filed by the accused in Sessions Trial 1 of 1966 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Manipur, at Imphal against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of death.

(2.) CRIMINAL Reference 40 of 1966 is a reference made by the Sessions Judge under Section 374 Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the sentence of death. The case of the prosecution, according to the charge sheet and as brought out in the evidence, is that the deceased Nodia Singh of Keirao Pitra village was the paternal uncle of the appellant, that both of them lived in the same "ingkhol" (homestead land) but in different adjoining houses in Keirao Pitra, that there were disputes between both of them, that at about 7 -00 p.m. on 13 -8 -1964 the deceased went out of his house and did not return, that P.W. 9 (his wife Barni Devi) and others went in search of him and found him at about 10 p.m. lying dead with various cut injuries on his body in his paddy field at a distance of about 150' to the east of the "ingkhol" and that the appellant, the next door neighbour, was not seen in that night. P.W. 10 (M. Nageswar Singh) the son of the deceased lodged Ext. A/8 (Complaint) before P.W. 14, the station house officer of Lamphel Police Station, which is about 7 miles from the village, in the same night at about 3 A. M. alleging that the appellant, who was inimically disposed towards the deceased might have murdered the deceased.

(3.) THERE is no direct evidence in this case. The learned Sessions Judge held that there is the following circumstantial evidence against the appellant. Firstly, the appellant had a motive to murder the deceased on account of enmity. Secondly, he absconded after murdering the deceased and surrendered himself in the Police Station before P.W. 14 (W. Borobi Singh), its station house officer. Thirdly, Ext. M/1 (dao) was discovered on the information -given by him, which was stained with human blood. Fourthly, the evidence of P.W. 7 (Dr. K. Gopal Singh) shows that the injuries of the deceased could be caused with Ext. M/1. Then the learned Sessions Judge relied on the admissions made by the appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C. Ext. A/17 is the statement of the appellant recorded by the committing Magistrate under Section 342 Cr.P.C., which was treated as evidence under Section 287 Cr. P.C., in which the appellant admitted having killed the deceased. In the statement of the appellant before the Sessions Judge recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., he stated that the deceased fell down on the ground, probably, because he received injuries on account of the dao Ext. M/1, which the appellant used to ward off the assault attempted to be made by the deceased with a big wooden log. He however negatived the plea of the appellant regarding his right of private defence. So, he found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death.