SUDEEP RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing (the learned Sessions Judge) under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) seeks to challenge both the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 23.09.2019, in Sessions Trial Case No. 07 of 2018 (State of Sikkim v. Sudeep Rai). The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) Heard Ms Tshering Palmoo Bhutia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no eye witnesses in the present case and therefore, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. She submits that the circumstantial evidence has not been proved in the manner required and there are broken links in the chain of circumstances. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have taken note of the examination-in-chief but ignored the cross-examination. It is further submitted that even the learned Sessions Judge has discarded the purported disclosure statement (Exhibit-3). The learned counsel took this Court through the various depositions of the prosecution witnesses pointing out various discrepancies which would, according to her, seriously dent the prosecution case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vithal Tukaram More and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 20 and Umakant and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh (2014) 7 SCC 405 were relied upon. The judgment of this Court in Binod Pradhan and Another v. State of Sikkim (2019) SCC online Sik 227 was also referred to.