LAWS(SIK)-2002-8-3

MAN BAHADUR GURUNG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

Decided On August 21, 2002
Man Bahadur Gurung Appellant
V/S
STATE OF SIKKIM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 8 -2 -2002 and order of sentence dated 18 -2 -2002 by the learned Sessions Judge (East and North), Gangtok convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part I and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in case of failure to pay fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 304 Part I and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/ - and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution case, the appellant with his family consisting of his wife and three minor sons used to reside in Ranipool 'Haat' Shed. Near the 'Haat' shed one unknown person had started spending the night in an open house under construction. On 17 -11 -2000 while the appellant and his family were sleeping in a row the accused woke up to the sound of scream of his wife and noticed that an unknown person was committing rape on his wife. Thereupon, the appellant pulled that unknown person by the neck and after taking out a knife from a basket struck him causing his death and then with the intention to screen himself disposed of the dead body into river by cutting the body into several pieces. He further cleaned the weapon of offence so that no bloodstain remained. The accused has pleaded not guilty and has asserted that he has been falsely implicated by the police.

(3.) SHRI N. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the disclosure statement is of no help to the prosecution in as much as the knife was not found to be stained with blood and the T -shirt which was recovered was also not found to have the blood stain of the deceased. Further, he has submitted that the confessional statement under Section 164 was not voluntary.