LAKPA LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question the conviction handed out to the Appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'IPC'), in S.T. Case No. 20 of 2015 and assailing the Sentence of imprisonment for life, with fine and a default clause of imprisonment, the instant Appeal has found its way to this Court.

(2.) The facts that culminated in the aforesaid Conviction and Sentence commenced with a written report submitted by Sub Inspector Avinash Lamichaney of Singtam Police Station PW-14, on 27.04.2015 in connection with Singtam P.S., U.D. Case No. 11/2015, dated 25.04.2015, under Sec. 174 Crimial P.C. 1973 on account of the unnatural death of the deceased, Mingma Tshering Lepcha. The report after investigation, detailed that the cause of death was asphyxiation. Suspecting foul play, the Sub Inspector sought further necessary action. In pursuance thereto, the U.D. case was converted to Singtam P.S. Case No. 35/2015 dated 27.04.2015, under Sec. 302 IPC, against the Appellant Lakpa Lepcha and endorsed to the Investigating Officer (for short "I.O.). Investigation would unravel that the deceased, Mingma Tshering Lepcha, was married to Hizing Lhamu Lepcha PW-1 and they had two children from the wedlock, Lakit Lepcha, PW-2 aged about 14 years and Dawa Ongchen Lepcha, PW-10 aged about 8 years. The Appellant, Lakpa Lepcha, the younger brother of the deceased Mingma Tshering Lepcha, resided alone while Phurkit Lepcha PW-11, the sister of the deceased, lived close to the house of the deceased. On the fateful evening, the Appellant along with his friend Bal Bahadur Chettri PW-3, stopped by at the house of the deceased where they all drank some liquor. An argument and a physical fight thereafter ensued between the brothers on account of the deceased asking his wife, PW-1, to wash his clothes which evidently did not find favour with the Appellant on which he protested by throwing a plate of food at the deceased. On the intervention of PW-1, the fight ended with the enraged Appellant leaving the house of the deceased. He then started throwing splintered bamboo on the courtyard of the house of the deceased. On the request of PW-1 and the deceased to desist from the act, he verbally abused and threatened them with dire consequences. P.W.1, who in the meanwhile was pushed by the deceased, fell into a drain injuring her right hand. She was taken to a nearby bamboo groove by her children, who on returning to their house witnessed the Appellant physically assaulting their father, the deceased, with fists and blows in the balcony of their house. When PW-2 attempted to intervene, the Appellant threatened her as well. Consequently, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 ran to the house of Phurkit Lepcha PW-11. On the request of PW-1 to accompany her to the hospital to treat her injured arm, PW-11 advised her to go the next day as night had fallen. Leaving her children in the house of PW-11, she returned to her home, where en route at a place known as "Bhulkay forest", she saw the Appellant holding the deceased by his neck and strangulating him. When she shouted out enquiring as to what he was doing, he threatened to annihilate her and her entire family if she related the incident to anyone. Afraid, she returned to the house of PW-11 but did not disclose the incident to either PW-2, PW-10 or PW-11. Thereafter, she along with her children returned home via a different path. Finding the Appellant in the balcony of their house she enquired into the whereabouts of the deceased to which he feigned ignorance and returned to his home. On a search of the deceased the next morning, the children found their father lying dead at "Bhulkay forest". It emerged during investigation that the deceased used to physically assault his wife who he suspected of having illicit relations with the Appellant. Investigation thus concluded that the deceased met his fate on account of the physical assault on him due to his suspicion of illicit relations between the Appellant and PW-1. The post mortem report revealed that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Hence, charge-sheet was submitted under Sec. 302 of the

(3.) On hearing the rival submissions of the Prosecution and the Defence, the learned Trial Court framed charge against the Appellant under Sec. 302 of the IPC. On his plea of "not guilty", the witnesses of the Prosecution numbering fifteen were examined, followed by the examination of the Appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') and arguments. The examination and consideration of the evidence on record, concluded in the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence.