CHUDEN TAMANG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Sessions Judge, North Sikkim, at Mangan, dated 28-08- 2014, in S.T. Case No.01 of 2013, convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, the instant Appeal has been preferred.

(2.) While assailing the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, it was contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per the evidence of P.W.2, the Appellant had slit the throat of the deceased, to the contrary in the Autopsy Report, Exhibit 8, does not reveal this aspect. The FIR, Exhibit 2, does not disclose the name of the Appellant and that evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 allegedly eyewitnesses, do not corroborate. It was urged that no finger prints were lifted from M.O.IV, the alleged weapon of offence, to substantiate that it was the Appellant who had used it for committing the offence. That, for want of sufficiency of evidence, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the Appellant hence the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence be set aside.

(3.) Repudiating the stance of the Appellant, it was submitted by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that P.Ws 2, 3 and 4, the ocular witnesses to the offence have corroborated each other's evidence. Laying stress on the evidence of P.W.19, the CFSL Expert, he contends that on examination of the blood sample of the deceased, M.O.II, for blood grouping the sample was found to be of the Blood Group 'A' thereby establishing the Blood Group of the deceased. Blood Group 'A' was detected in Exhibit 'C' (M.O.IV) the weapon of offence used by the Appellant to murder the victim. The clothes of the victim M.O. VIII, M.O.IX and M.O.X also contained blood of the Group 'A' confirming the fact that her Blood Group was 'A'. The same blood was found not only on the weapon of offence M.O.IV but also on the wearing apparels of the Appellant, being M.O.V and M.O.VI, the Jeans and T-shirt worn by him at the time of the incident, leading to the inevitable conclusion that the Appellant had committed the offence. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence brooks no interference.