LAWS(GAU)-1997-12-11

O KULLABI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

Decided On December 05, 1997
O.KULLABI SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed and arose out of the judgment dated 30-12-1991 as delivered, by the Sessions Judge, Manipur (West) in Sessions Trial Case Nos. 46189, 1/89, 30190, 11/90 and 80/90 holding the appellant Oiham Kullabi Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to under imprisonment for life. The accused appellant was tried along with two others namely. Oinam Chandra Kumar Singh, and Oinam Chandrajit Singh who have been acquitted by the trial Court against which an appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the State of. Manipur. Since both these appeal arise out of the same judgment. They are been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Prosecution story stated in brief was that on 8-10-1985 in the morning around 9/10 a.m. there was a scuffle between S.L of Police Meidonlung Kabui and accused appellant a constable who refused to join fatigue duty. They were about to come close. The accused appellant having made it dear that he would take no order except from Chandra Kumar Singh the acquitted accused who sided the appellant. This fatigue duty had become necessary in order to make preparation for the coming visit of the. Inspector. General of Police to Tamenglog H.Q. on 13-10-1985. After 119 the above incident everybody was in their own quarters in the Reserve line. It is alleged that accused Ibomcha Singh (deceased) came to S.I. Meidonlung to obtain his signature on a Command certificate which he refused for want of Command book and for not following the procedure. It was at this point that Ibomcha Singh challenged S.I. Meidonlung for a physical bout and both of them came out in the open but some constables intervened. Around 7 P.M. on the same day S.I. Meidonlung and the accused appellant Kullabi Singh along with one constable Maicharung had drinks and some pork. While sharing drinks it was proposed that the incident of quarrel which took place in the morning better be compromised to which the accused appellant replied that compromise can only be made only at the place of Chandra, Kumar Singh where a drink party was going on at that time. So, both of them Meidonlung and Kullabi Singh left for the room of Chandra Kumar Singh. Around 8.30 p.m. in the night PW 15 Bathumang. Pongmei a video opera to at the club while returning after a video Show saw 4 accused persons carrying another in their hand near the police line. On making enquiry accused persons threatened him with a stick. So, he fled away. Hearing a screaming sound. Asha Mao PW 7. Anna Rongmei PW 1. Samual Tangkhul PW 20, and Benoy Singh. a Rifleman went out to see as to what happened. They moved in the direction wherefrom the Screaming was heard. They saw Meidonlung S.1. was lying in the Nullah on the foot-hills near the Reserve Line. He could not speak. He was brought to the varandah of Constable Meicharung Kabui PW 6. They attended him on the night and on the morning he was carried to the District Hospital and on the following day he was taken to the Regional Medical College hospital for better treatment but he expired without gaining consciousness. The Medical examination reveals that a number of ribs were broken and his death was quite unnatural. The matter was reported to the. Police. Initially the S.D. IP.O. Tamenglong invigorated the case under FIR 58 (10) 85 registered under Section 302 IPC. It was thereafter transferred to D.S.P. Crime Branch. A test identification parade was held. During investigation the accused persons are claimed to have been identified by the witnesses. On completion of investigation accused appellants along with two others were charge-sheeted and tried for the above offence. The trial Court while acquitting other two accused, has convicted the present appellant.

(3.) I first take up the appeal against conviction preferred by accused Kullabi Singh as decision in this appeal, would substantially cover the evidence part of the case against each of the accused and would facilitate disposal of the State Appeal against acquittal as well.