Sorokhaibam Yaima Singh vs State of Manipur

N.G. Das, J.—The Appellant Yaima Singh along with three other accused were tried on the charge u/s 342 and 302 of IPC for wrongful confinement of R.K. Gunisana and for his murder. The trial court acquitted the other accused but convicted the Appellant u/s 342 IPC and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for a period of four months only, He also convicted the Appellant for commission of the offence u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of which to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months, It was further ordered that the fine money, if realised, would be paid to the wife (P.W. 1) of the deceased. The sentence-have however been ordered to run concurrently.

The material fact of the prosecution case were that on 8.3.81 Sanatomba the youngest son of the deceased eloped with Bilashini Devi the daughter of the accused-appellant. As a matter of custom prevailing in the Manipuri community, the deceased along with Angom Damu Singh (P.W. 2), O. Rabei Singh (P.W. 3) and S. Laiphon went to the house of Appellant to pass the information about the elopement. But it was alleged that on receiving the information of elopement the Appellant asked the deceased and his associates that his daughter must be produced with a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as ransom, the deceased agreed to this but while he along with his companions was about to leave the house, the Appellant detained the deceased saving that he would not be allowed to go until his daughter was produced with the sum of Rs. 3,000/- as ransom. So, the companions of deceased left the house of the Appellant leaving the deceused there and informed the wife (P.W. 1) of the deceased about the confinement of the deceased and also informed her that the Appellant told them that the deceased would be released in case his daughter was produced with a sum of Rs. 3,000/-.

On receiving this Information the wife of the deceased informed some of her neighbours and at 2 P.M. she went to the house of the Appellant and asked the latter to release her husband. But the Appellant turned a deaf ear to that request. In the evening the wife of the deceased again went to the house of the Appellant when deceased told her that he might be assaulted by the Appellant. The wife of the deceased then came back to her house and called some persons, namely, S. Ibomcha (P.W. 5), Y. Munal Singh (P.W. 6) and a few others and requested them to go to the house of the Appellant. The aforesaid persons accordingly went to the house of the Appellant in the evening and as they requested the Appellant to release the deceased the Appellant turned a deaf ear to that request and on the other hand started him beating and as a consequence of that beating the deceased fall on the court-yard with bleeding injuries on his person. They therefore hurriedly came back to the house of the deceased and informed P.W. 1 Sakhi Devi of what they had seen. Smt. Sakhi Devi the wife of the deceased again requested some of her neighbours to go to the house of the Appellant to rescue her husband. After some time the neighbours came back and informed her that they had seen her husband lying on the court-yard of the Appellant with bleeding Injuries on his person, They also informed her that as the accused and his associates threatened them with dire consequences, they left the house out of fear.

By this time it was dark, so on the following morning at 4 A.M. Sakhi Devi (P.W. 1) along with Y. Munal Singh (P.W. 6) (eldest son of the eldest sister of her husband) vent to Sugnu Police Station on a bi-cycle to pass the information to the O/C. But as the O/C was not available in the P. S. they wailed for him. In the meantime S. Samu Singh and Ratan Singh elder brother of the husband of Sakhi Devi came to the P.S. and informed her that her husband already passed away in the house of the accused-Appellant, At about 10 A.M. ASI Raghumani Singh the Incharge O/C of the P. S. came to the P.S. Smti Sakhi Devi wife of the deceased then lodged the ejahar with him stating that her husband who went to the house of Appellant for giving the information about the elopement of his daughter confined him there and subsequently killed him.

On receipt of this ejahar ASI Mr. N. Raghumani Singh, the incharge O/C of Sugnu P.S. registered a case under Sections 342/302 read with Section 34 of IPC being Sugnu P.S. case No. 7(3)/81. After registering the case ASI Raghumani Singh went to the house of the accused and on finding the dead body of R.K. Gunisana lying inside the house of the accused he held inquest and prepared the inquest report Ext. P/11 in presence of the witnesses. After preparing the inquest report Shri Raghumani Singh sent the dead body of R.K. Gunisana Singh to Imphal Civil Hospital, Lamphelpat with dead body challan for p.m. examination. But the p.m. examination could not be held on that day as it was already 9 P.M.

On the following day (11.3.81) Dr. W. Navachandra Singh (P.W. 8) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased R.K. Gunisana Singh and found the following injuries;

One incised wound 2", 1/2", scalp deep on the occipital region of the head longitudinally.

One incised wound on the frontal region of the head 2" x �" scalp deep, transversely.

One abrasion on the left leg V2" x V2" x 3" above the left ankle joint and

One abrasion 1" x 3/4" on the left leg 4" being the left knee joint. After disection Doctor found the following injuries:

Commuted fracture of scalp transversely on the right parietal region to the left parietal region of head.

Depressed fracture on the frontal bone in the right side of the head.

Rupture of the middle meningeal artery on the right side.

There was full of haematoma inside the skull cavity.

The Doctor stated that all the internal injuries were fatal injuries which were sufficient to cause the death of the person in the normal course of thing. It was also stated by him that the external injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were also fatal injuries and if they were left unattended and allow to bleed for a long period of 2 to 12 hours. It was opined by the Doctor that the external injuries Nos. 1 and 2 might have been caused by a sharp and heavy weapon and external injuries Nos. 3 and 4 might have been caused by blunt object. The Doctor opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and age of the injuries would be within about 36 hours preceding the time of the post mortem examination.

O/C H. Achou Singh (P.W. 15) took up the investigation of the case on 11.3.81. In course of investigation O/C Achou Singh visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused-Appellant, seized the incriminating weapons, wearing apparels of deceased etc., recorded the statements of witnesses and thus after completing investigation charge-sheeted the Appellant for his prosecution u/s 342 and 302 of IPC.

In due course the case came to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who after perusal of the materials on record framed two distinct charges one u/s 345 and another u/s 302 of IPC against the Appellant who on hearing charges being explained to him pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all and also took the aid of documentary evidence, namely FIR, seizure list inquest report, dead body challan, charge-sheet etc. The Appellant adduced no evidence in support of his defence, however his defence as would appear from the trend of cross-examination as well as the statement he gave at the time of examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, is that he is innocent and he did not commit the offence charged for. After recording of evidence was over learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed an application that the evidence unclosed that other persons namely, Kumar, Thouding and Kwaklel also participated in commission of the offence. So, learned Addl, Session Judge alter hearing, learned Counsel of the parties took cognizance of the offence of murder against the three accused and also framed charge u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against them. The charge was readover and explained to these three accused and they pleaded not guilty Learned Addl. Sessions Judge therefore examined the witnesses afresh to enable all the, accused to cross-examination the witnesses. Thus after conclusion of the trial he convicted the Appellant only as stated above and acquitted the other three accused persons,''

Now it would be apparent from the facts stated above that the first thing sought to be utilised by the prosecution as a background of the case is that R.K. Sanatomba Singh, the youngest son of the deceased eloped with Bilashini Devi, the daughter of the Appellant on 8.3.81. This apart of the prosecution story was not challenged during arguments made by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the learned Counsel who conducted the case on behalf of the Appellant as amicus curiae. In course of his arguments Mr. Nilamani submitted that it is the prevailing custom in the Manipuri Community that whenever such elopement takes place the father of the son is to passed the information to the father of the girl.

The prosecution case in this regard is that in the morning of 9.3.81 the deceased came to know about that elopement he along with Angom Damo Singh (P.W. 2), O. Rabei Singh (P.W. 3) and S. Leiphon went to the house of the Appellant and informed him about this elopement when, it is alleged, the Appellant confined the deceased in his house and asked him to produce his daughter with a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as ransom and that deceased would not be allowed to go away until the demand was fulfilled. Mr. Nilamani Singh has argued that the Appellant never detained the deceased in his house as it would be apparent from the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 that deceased remained in that house willingly. It is true that P.W. 2 in his cross-examination suited that deceased agreed to remain in the house of the Appellant. But in the same breath he also stated the Appellant told them to leave the deceased in his house until his demand was fulfilled. Similarly P.W. 3 also stated in his cross-examination that the Appellant asked them to leave the deceased in his house until his demand was fulfilled. Both P.Ws 2 and 3 also quite categorically stated in their cross-examination in chief that when they were about to leave the house of the Appellant, the latter told them that deceased must remain in his house until the demand was met. So, they had to leave the house of the Appellant leaving the deceased in that house. It is also found in the evidence of these two witnesses that as soon as they informed the Appellant that son of the deceased had eloped with his daughter, the Appellant asked them to produce his daughter and pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as ransom. These two witnesses further stated that as the Appellant did not allow the deceased to come back with them they came to the house of the deceased and informed his wife that the Appellant detained her husband in the house and that he would not be released unless his daughter was produced with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as ransom. P.W. 1 Smti Sakhi Devi who is the wife of the deceased also deposed to me effect. It would also appear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that on that day at about 2 p.m. she along with Apabi Devi went to the house of the Appellant and entreated the Appellant to release her husband but the Appellant laughed at her and refused to release.

P.W. 5 S. Ibomcha whose house is at a distance of about 600 or 700 metres from the house of the deceased deposed that on being asked by P.W. 1 he along with Munal P.W. 6 went to the house of Appellant and found the deceased Gunisana Singh seated near the bad of the house of the Appellant. He deposed that they requested the Appellant to release the deceased, but as soon as they made the request the Appellant started beating the deceased. P.W. 6 Y. Munal Singh also deposed to the same effect. These two witnesses were also thoroughly cross-examined. But we do not find that the defence could elicit any favourable circumstance for discrediting their version. P.W. 9 and 16 who visited the house of the Appellant soon after registration of the case stated in their deposition that they found the deceased lying prostrate inside the verandah of the house of the appellant.

So, on a careful analysis, of the evidence and circumstances discussed above we hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving this pact of the prosecution story quite convincingly. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the submission of Mr. Nilamani that the deceased remained in the house of the Appellant willingly. Therefore, we find that learned trial court arrived at the right conclusion that the Appellant confined the deceased in his house on 9.3.81 illegally.

Coming now to the story of the murder of deceased Gunisana Singh it will appear from the evidence of P.W. 9 N. Raghumani Singh that on 10.3.81 after registering the case he along with ASIL. Ahongjao Singh (P.W. 16) went to the dwelling house of the Appellant and found the dead body of R.K. Gunisana, lying inside the verandah of the house covered by a white chaddar. So, on seeing the dead body of R.K. Gunisana he asked ASI L. Ahongjao Singh (P.W. 16) to hold the inquest over the dead body of R.K. Gunisana, Accordingly, P.W. 16 deposed that on being instructed by P.W. 9, he prepared the inquest report marked as Ext. P/11 of the deceased in presence of the witnesses. He also deposed that alter preparing the dead body challan he sent the dead body or R.K. Gunisana to Imphal Civil Hospital for p.m. examination and accordingly on the following day p.m. examination was held on the dead body of deceased R.K. Gunisana Singh. It has already been stated that Dr. W. Nabachandra Singh (P.W. 8) who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased R.K. Gunisana found as many as 4 external injuries and he also found 4 internal injuries after disection. Doctor opined that the injuries he found were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature.

Mr. Nilamani Singh, the learned Counsel was however quite critical about the p.m. examination report. According to him the internal injuries found did not correspond to the external injuries as described by the doctor, It is true that the doctor P.W. 8 stated in his evidence that the internal injuries found on the head of the deceased did not show any external corresponding injuries, But simultaneously the doctor also stated that the said internal injuries could be caused by a blow of blunt and heavy weapon and on that particular part without causing corresponding; external injuries. Doctor also stated that the internal injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 might have been caused by blunt and heavy object like Ext. M.O. 3. In this context we have also examined the inquest report. The inquest report shows that two bleeding cut. injuries were found on the overhead of the dead body. So, the first two injuries found by the doctor also corresponded with the inquest report, Therefore, we do not find much infirmity in the evidence of doctor us to the description of injuries he found.

Mr. Nilamani Singh has however (sic) that the two eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5 and 6 cannot be relied on as both these witnesses are related to the deceased and as such they are highly interested, In support of his contention Mr. Nilamani, the learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Bheemappa and Others, In this decision Their Lordships under para 17 of the judgment observed that P.W. 3, P.W. 6, P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 are interested witnesses and belonged to the party of the deceased and that is why it put them on their guard to carefully scrutinise their testimony. It was also held by Their Lordships that in the state of evidence which is on the record it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence of these witnesses, without finding independent corroboration for their testimony. But as regards P.W. 3 it was held by Their Lordships that although there were discrepencies and improvements in his testimony at different stages, on their independent analysis of his evidence it was found that the manner of the occurrence was correctly described by him and that is why according to them there is no reason to take a view different from that of the court below. In this context it may be useful to refer to another decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, In this decision Their Lordships made the following observation about the interested and related witnesses.

Related is not equivalent to interested. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a Civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested.

In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhupendra Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, Their Lordships held that although sons and daughters of the victim are the witnesses their evidence cannot be discarded on the mere ground of their close interest in the deceased, It was held that in fact their feeling will be strongest against the real culprits.

So, in view of the decisions referred to above we are of the view that all that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses would be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable it may by itself be sufficient in the circumstance of the particular case to base a conviction thereon.

Keeping the above principle in view we shall now proceed to examine the evidence of the eye witnesses namely, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. P.W. 5 S. Ibomcha Singh deposed that on the date of occurrence P.W. 1 came to his house and informed him about the elopement of Bilashini Devi with her son and subsequent confinement of her husband in the house of Appellant and the demand of the Appellant. He stated that on being requested by P.W, 1 he along with Munal Singh (P.W. 6) went to the house of the Appellant at about dusk and found the deceased seated beside the bad of the house of the Appellant, So, they requested the Appellant to release the deceased and told him that they would produce the girl and money as soon as the girl was traced out and they money arranged. According to him as soon as they made the request to the Appellant the latter became angry and boasted saying that no further time would be given and on saying this he started assaulting the deceased by means of an axe handle. According to this P.W. 5 the Appellant struck blows by means of that are handle on the back side of the head of Gunisana Singh and as Gunisana moved towards the court-yard to save himself the Appellant chased him and also assaulted the deceased by means of that axe handle and as a result of that beating Gunisana fell down on the ground. He also stated that brother and son of the Appellant alto joined in assaulting Gunisana.

P.W. 6 Y. Munal Singh also corroborated the version of P.W. 5. Both the witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined but we do not find that defence could elicit any material circumstance to discredit their version. Mr. Nilamani has however argued that during cross-examination of P.W. 5 some statements were brought on record for the purpose of contradiction and those statements will show that their evidence is inconsistant with the medical evidence.

It is true that during cross-examination of P.W. 5 his attention was drawn to some statements marked as Ext. Y-1 and Y-1/1 which were recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 of Code of Criminal procedure. These statements Y-1 and Y-1/1 were put to the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 who also admitted that the witness made such statements to him. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge marked the statement Y-1/1 as Ext. B/1. The English translation of the statement of this witness has been made available in the paper book as Ext. D/1. But in the English rendering of his statement we find that the witness substantially made the same statement of assault. Similarly while cross-examining P.W. 6 learned defence counsel put some statements to the witness for the purpose of contradiction. Those statements were marked by the learned Sessions Judge as Y-2/1 and Y-2/2. These statements were also put to the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 and as the Investigating Officer also stated that the witness made such statements to him those statements were marked as Ext. D/2 and D/3. But on perusal of those statements we did not find any material discrepancies to throw away the evidence of the witness.

While Mr. Nilamani was arguing about this contradiction it was pointed out to him that the contradictions were not properly brought on record as it did not appear drat the procedure was followed.

Section 145 of the Evidence Act does not say that writing must be shown before the cross-examination. The procedure to be followed is that the witness has to be asked whether he made the previous statement. If the witness returns the answers in the affirmative the previous statement in writing need not be proved and the cross-examiner may, if he so chooses leave it to the party who called the witness to have the discrepancy if any explained in the course of re-examination. If on the other hand, the witness denies having made the previous statement attributed to him or suites that he does not remember having made any such statement and it is desired to contradict him by the record of the previous statement the cross-examiner must read out to the witness the relevant portion or portions of the record which are alleged to be contradictory to his statement in court and give him an opportunity to reconcile the same if he can. It is only when the cross-examiner has done so that the record of the previous statement becomes admissible in evidence for the purpose of contradicting the witness and can then be proved in any manner permitted by law.

But on examination of the statement recorded by the teamed Addl. Sessions Judge we find that while marking some portion of the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Code of Criminal procedure. as exhibits the learned Sessions Judge did not follow the prescribed procedure laid down u/s 145 of Evidence Act However, on our careful scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses we find that their evidence actually does not suffer from any material infirmity to disregard or brush aside their evidence lightly. We have also gone through the original statement that was recorded by the Investigating Officer and we find that the statement of these witnesses were recorded on 11.3.81. It cannot therefore be said that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of these witnesses within a reasonable time.

Mr. Nilamani has however argued that even though the FIR was lodged alter a considerable length of time the informant namely, P.W. 1 did not mention the names of eye witnesses in the FIR and hence evidence of these two witnesses cannot be relied on for making a finding of conviction against the Appellant. In support of his contention Mr. Nilamani placed reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur Vs. State of Karnataka, What happened in that case was that P.W. 10, the son of the deceased along with his wife came to the place of incident and thereafter accompanied by P.W. 1 went to the shop of P.W. 8 Parisa at Harugari and got a complaint written for being given to the Police Station, at Kudachi. But in the present ease it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 that she got the information of the death of her husband when she was waking in the P.S. That she is an illiterate village woman is not disputed. Moreover, she did not file any written ejahar. The ejahar was written by P.W. 9 the incharge Officer of Sugnu P.S. P.W. 1 stated that as per her statement P.W. 9 wrote out the ejahar and after it was readover to her she put her thumb impression on the said report marked as Ext. P/1 P.W. 9 also deposed to the same effect. The facts of the case referred to above by Mr. Nilamani are therefore distinguishable from the present one.

As regards delay of 16 hours in lodging the ejahar it is stated by P.W. 1 that on that night none of her sons was in the house and as the P.S. was at a distance of about 8 K.M. from the house, she being an woman it was not possible on her part to go to the P.S. at such a distance, It is in her evidence that on the following morning at about 4 A. M. she left for the P.S. and this part of her evidence has not been shaken in any manner. We are of the opinion that this delay cannot be considered to be an inordinate because of the reasons assigned.

Mr. Nilamani the learned Counsel for the Appellant has however submitted that the evidence of these eye witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence and hence their evidence cannot be accepted. But on our careful scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses we find that both the witnesses have quite categorically stated that the Appellant struck blows on the head of the deceased by means of the handle of an axe marked as Ext. M.O. 10. P.W. 9 deposed that on 10.3.81 after registering the case he visited the house of the Appellant and on finding the dead body of R.K. Gunisana lying on the varandah he prepared the inquest report and thereafter he also recovered this Ext. M.O. 10 handle of the axe from the house of the Appellant and seized the same by means of a seizure list marked as Ext. P/2 in presence of the witnesses. P.W. 5 identified this Ext. M.O. 10 axe handle. P.W. 9 also deposed that during his investigation he recovered the Ext. M.O. 3 Bamboo stick from the house of the Appellant and he seized the same in presence of the witnesses by means of a seizure list Ext. P/2 Dr. P.W. 8 deposed that the external injuries Nos. 3 and 4 might be caused by blunt weapon and that internal injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 might have been caused by blunt and heavy object like Ext. M.O. 3.

So, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances discussed above we are of the view that the Appellant struck blows on the person of the deceased by means of Ext. M.O. 10 handle of an axe. But Mr. Nilamani, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that although learned Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty on accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses he acquitted the other 3 accused persons of the same offence by rejecting the evidence. Hence, according to him the Appellants entitled to be acquitted of the offence u/s 302 as it has not been affirmatively proved the exact nature of the injuries caused by each accused, It is true that learned Sessions Judge acquitied the other 3 accused persons in the benefit of doubt but on perusal of the judgment we find that learned Sessions Judge has given coge it and convincing reasons for acquitting the other 3 accused persons. It may however be argued that in the present case the prosecution could not prove who actually caused the incised injuries. In this regard the Supreme Court in the case of Baul and Another Vs. State of U.P., held:

When two accused are convicted by Sessions Judge u/s 302 read with section 34 and one of the accused is acquitted by the High Court in appeal, the other accused cannot be convicted u/s 302 simpliciter in the absence of proof of exact nature of injuries caused by each accused. It cannot be postulated in such circumstances that the other accused can safely be convicted u/s 325 instead of section 302. Where common intention is not proved the prosecution must establish the exact nature of injuries caused by each accused and more so when one of the accused has got the benefit of doubt.

In the instant case learned Session; Judge acquitted the accused. Touding, Kumar and Koakley of the charges u/s 302 read with section 34 of IPC in the benefit of doubt. So. applying the above principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the Appellant for commission of the offence u/s 325 of IPC.

We have already made our finding that trial court rightly convicted the Appellant u/s 342 IPC. Accordingly, we maintain the conviction of the Appellant u/s 342 of IPC. But as regards the offence of murder, we in view of our finding recorded above, convict the Appellant instead of section 302, for an offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the imprisonment for life and fine and instead sentence him to R.I. for 7 years 20th the sentences shall run consecutively. Period of detention undergone during investigation, enquiry or trial shall, however be set off against the term of imprisonment. The Appellant is on bail and hence he is directed to surrender to the court of learned Sessions Judge No. 11, Manipur to serve out the period of sentence. Learned Sessions Judge may, if necessary, take necessary steps to secure the attendance of the appellant.

The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.