SANTA MAYA RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the quest for truth there is a delicate balance which is required to be maintained by the Court to examine the criminality of the offender. A criminal mind is a mind of its own. What compels a criminal to commit the crime is a question for which one still searches for answers. How a criminal commits a criminal act is a matter of investigation that is required to be cogently proved. Direct evidence may not always be available and sometimes the Courts have to examine circumstantial evidences. When a criminal commits a crime against unsuspecting rustic villagers the evidence produced may not be as perfect as we desire it to be. The task of the Court in such circumstances becomes heavier. As the Language of the Court is English and most of the rustic villagers would communicate in vernacular sometimes the correct statement may get lost in translation. The Court is then required to sift minutely through the evidence in search of the truth. Truth alone can render justice.

(2.) This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant, Santa Maya Rai, wife of Bir Kumar Rai, under section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2016 and order of sentence dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok (Learned Sessions Judge) in Sessions Trial Case No. 26 of 2014. The Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted Bir Kumar Rai who was Accused No.1 but found cogent evidence against the wife, the Appellant herein, for commission of offence under Sec. 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

(3.) The Prosecution case is that on 204.2014 the Appellant along with her husband travelled from Gangtok towards Dikchu in a vehicle bearing registration No. SK-01T/1171. On the way, they stopped at various places and used the counterfeit currency-notes of Rs. 500.00 denomination to purchase small items and receive substantial change of genuine currency notes in return. It was alleged that the modus operandi of the Appellant and her husband was to make purchases and tender counterfeit currency-notes of Rs. 500.00 denomination to the unsuspecting shopkeepers, who in turn returned genuine currency notes as change besides partying with property.