DRONA BIR RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-11 -2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (S&W), Namchi in Criminal Case No. 3/2001 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC for committing murder by intentionally causing the death of his maternal uncle, Ran Bahadur Rai and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a defaulting clause of sentence.

(2.) The prosecution story emerging from the FIR and the evidence on record is as follows : Rah Bahadur Rai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his father Bartaman Rai (PW-10) were staying separately in village Dumi Gaon. Bartaman Rai (PW-10) had partitioned his landed properties amongst his son (deceased) and two daughters, one of them being Dhan Maya Rai, PW-4 (mother of the appellant). PW-10 had kept some land for himself. The deceased was not happy with this family arrangement and had been protesting to his father that he should not have given any share of the family properties to his daughters. This had given rise to frequent misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased. On 7-12-2000 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired about his whereabouts from PW-2 (widow of the deceased). She told him that he had gone to the Church and would be returning home very soon. After a short while the deceased came home and while sitting on his bed, the appellant who was awaiting his arrival suddenly took out a khukri from underneath hisjacket and with it inflicted several blows on different parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. PW-1 the Panchayat President on being informed reported about the incident to the police over telephone. On the basis of the above report the police registered a case at Jorethang P.S. and took up investigation and arrested the appellant and after completing investigation placed him on trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of its case. PW-22 (widow of the deceased) and PW-3 (daughter of the deceased) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The appellant had also made extra-judicial confession before his grandfather (PW-10). The learned Sessions Judge relying on the above evidence, held the appellant guilty of the charge.