SONAM DORJAY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 3/12/2012 and order dtd. 4/12/2012, whereby the appellant Sonam Dorjay @ Jamwang Tashi has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 376 RPC and sentenced to death by the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge Leh (hereinafter called 'trial court'), holding that the appellant was proved to have, during the night of 27/28/8/2002, raped the deceased Mst. Tsomo and thereafter strangulated her to death, which amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder. The trial court also made Reference in terms of Sec. 374 J&K Cr.PC to this Court for confirmation of sentence.

(2.) It appears that the appellant had not filed appeal against the judgment whereby he was convicted and with the intervention of J&K Legal Services Authority, the instant appeal was filed on his behalf in the year 2017 against the impugned judgment/order.

(3.) The impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that the appellant has been convicted on a weak evidence of circumstantial nature, as it was stated that there was no eye-witness to the crime; that there was no attribution of direct motive behind the crime; that the recovery of the fact of alleged confessional statement did not relate to the commission of offence; that the trial court had not appreciated the fact that both the PWs i.e., PW-3 Chuchot and PW-5 Skarma Stanzin who had been employed by the deceased as shepherds for grazing her live-stock and who claimed to be the first persons to have the knowledge about killing of the deceased were just 50 fts. away from the deceased that night, and why they had not heard her shrieks and the barking of dogs; that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution was very shaky with missing chain of links connecting the appellant with crime, as many circumstances virtually remained unexplained and inconclusive; that the version of PW-2 Tundup Namgyal regarding the last seen of the appellant around the scene of occurrence had not been corroborated by any other witness as the star witnesses PW-1 Sonam Ringbo (village headman), PW-3 Chuchot and PW-5 Sharma Stanzin denied that they had seen the appellant around the scene of occurrence; that in absence of complete chain of circumstances which remained unexplained, the appellant-accused was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt; that the medical evidence also did not suggest any inference towards the guilt of the appellant, as the semen and the blood samples of the appellant had been taken, however, report of those samples had not been shown to the trial court and this matter has also remained unexplained; that the examination of the appellant in terms of Sec. 342 of J&K Cr.PC was not conducted as per the requirement of law and the incriminating evidence had not been put to him properly so as to seek explanation thereof.