SONAM DORJAY Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 17.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 18.09.2012 pronounced by the Principal Sessions Judge, Leh (Ladakh) in connection with FIR No. 26/2002. By virtue of the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 RPC for having committed the murder of Tashi Namgyal and his wife Mst. Potshi Dolma and has been sentenced for life imprisonment by virtue of the order dated 18.09.2012. The said incident is supposed to have occurred in the night between 4th and 5th March, 2002 in the house of the deceased couple who were tenants of PW-1, Tsering Tundup. The facts relevant for the purpose of considering this appeal are that Tashi Namgyal and his wife Potshi Dolma were found dead in the premises on 07.03.2002. Both died due to strangulation. This is an admitted fact. Tashi Namgyal's body was found lying on the cot and Potshi Dolma's body was found hanging from the sealing. The doctor, PW-9 (Dr. Iqbal Ahmad), who conducted the autopsy was of the opinion that both the deaths were caused by asphyxia. Therefore, there is no denial that the deceased died due to strangulation. However, the doctor was of the view that it cannot be said as to who died first. In the opinion of the doctor Tashi Namgyal's death could not have been a case of suicide and was clearly a case of homicide. However, in so far as Potshi Dolma's case is concerned, her death could be suicidal. Of course he also remarked in his cross-examination that Potshi Dolma had an ante-mortem injuries, inasmuch as, one of her ribs had been fractured.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the appellant was a habitual thief and that with the intention of committing theft he entered the premises in which the deceased couple was residing on the night intervening the 4th and 5th March, 2002. In order to fulfill his intention of his theft, the appellant committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating them. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, the appellant left the premises and locked the same from outside.

(3.) The prosecution case also rests heavily on a purported disclosure statement (Exhibit-PW 4/3) which the appellant is said to have made on 26.09.2002 in connection with another case when he was arrested and was in the police station. As per the alleged disclosure statement, the appellant is said to have stated that he had concealed a pair of shoes underneath a tree in an orchard and he had concealed a bag under his bed in his house. It is the case of the prosecution that, both, the pair of shoes and the bag, were recovered from the places indicated by the appellant. The prosecution also relies heavily on foot prints outside the house of the deceased of which a plaster of paris mould was taken and was submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its scientific report. Finger prints were also allegedly lifted from the lock outside the house, a liquor bottle inside the house and an empty glass. However, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to these finger prints were that the same were in a very smudged condition and in any event did not bear any resemblance with the finger prints of the appellant. In so far as the foot prints are concerned, it appears that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was that the same resembled the foot prints of the left shoe of the pair of the shoes which had been allegedly recovered at the behest of the appellant.