THANGBUL AND ORS. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused Thangbul alias Thangyang Baite, Songam Baite, Chongkhulet alias Chongkhu Baite, Ngamkhai Baite, Nemjatong Baite, Jilkhothang alias Jilkho Baite, Ngulyang Baite and Ngamsei Baite, who were accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 respectively in Sessions Trial Case No. 17/4 of 1964 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, against their convictions under Sections 148 307 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences that they should undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, 7 years and 5 years under each count. The Additional Sessions Judge directed that the sentences should run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that since the Government of Manipur did not recognise the Matte tribe, the appellant and three other accused, who belong to Maite tribe and some other Maites, about 30 persons in all, attacked the police outpost in Sugnu and the quarters of M. Netra Singh (P.W. 16), who was the officer -in -charge of the Police Outpost, armed with firearms, daos and knives at about 11.30 p.m. on 26.1.1963 (Republic day), that there was exchange fire for about one and half hours between the armed Police on duty and the attacking party and that, as a result of the attack, one of the assailants died on account of injuries caused by bullets. P.W. 16, the officer -in -charge of the Police outpost received an injury in his cheek. He was treated by P.W. 3. a compounder and subsequently by P.W. 17 Medical Officer in Imphal Police Hospital. P.W. 2, Head Constable (Th. Pishak Singh) sent a report Ex. A -3 to the Mayang Imphal Police Station in the morning of the next day viz., 27.1.1963 through a Constable P.W. 18, who was the scribe of Ex. A -3. P.W. 34, the S.H.O. of the Mayang Imphal Police Station registered the case as F.I.R. Case No. 8(1)63 under Sections 148 149 449 307 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act as per Ext. A -3(l). P.W. 34 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and inspected the same.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on Ext, A/21 evidence of P.W. 22, the approver in the Committing Magistrate's Court and also the confessional statements of A/3, A/4, A/5, A/6, A/8, A/10 and A/11. He relied on other circumstantial evidence corroborating the evidence of P.W. 22 approver and the confessional statements. However, he acquitted A/1, A/7 and A/9 and convicted the other accused as mentioned in para one supra.