RAN TSHERING LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1998 by the learned Sessions Judge (East and North), Sikkim convicting the appellant under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undrego rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand) and, in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for having committed the murder of one Tekbir Bhujel of Samthar busty, Kalimpong, West Bengal at Namli Bhir near 9th Mile within the jurisdiction of the Ranipool Police Station on 18/05/1998.

(2.) Constable C. K. Ranapaheli (Darji), P.W. 4 was attached to Sadar Police Station at the relevant time. He is a resident of Singtam Bazaar. On the date of the occurrence, he came from Singtam Bazaar to Gangtok to attend to his duties as usual and on the way saw a person lying with his face downwards in a pool of blood near the rest house at Namli Bhir. He did not stop there and proceeded to Ranipool Check-Post where he made a verbal report of the matter to the second Officer-in-Charge. C. P. Basent, P.W. 2, who was attached to the Ranipool Check-Post as Second Officer-in-Charge was on duty on 18-5-1998 when P.W. 4, Chandra Kumar Darji arrived at about 10 a.m. to inform him that a person was lying with multiple injuries near 9th Mile Hawa Ghar, Namli Bhir, 31A National Highway. Immediately, thereafter, he rushed to the spot along with the writer Constable Dharma Raj Chettri. He found that the victim had cut injuries on his head, neck and hands, but was alive. The witness asked the victim about his identity. The victim thereupon gave his name as Tekbir Bhujel, resident of Samthar, Kalimpong, West Bengal. The victim informed him that one Ran Tshering Lepcha i.e., the appellant, knows everything about the incident. Thereafter, he removed the victim to S.T.N.M. Hospital where he died. After the death of the victim, the witness lodged a written information Exhibit P-1 at the Ranipool Police Station. At another place, in the cross-examination-in-chief itself, the witness has stated that the victim had informed him that the appellant was responsible for the incident. D. R. Chettri, P.W. 3 who accompanied C. B. Basnet, P.W. 2, and Frederick Lucksum, P.W. 1 who also saw the victim lying by the side of the road also stated that the victim told them that the appellant knew everything about the incident.

(3.) Though twenty eight witnesses were produced at the trial, none of them is an eye-witness. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under S. 302, I.P.C. relying on the following four circumstances as having been established at the trial :