Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 425 (GAU)

State of Manipur v. Keisham Mani Singh

2006-05-08

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West dated 02.06.1998 in his Session's Trial No. 22 of 1992. 2. Heard Mr. A. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Sr. P.P. for the appellant-State and Mr. I. Lalitkumar Singh, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Niranjan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The respondents/accused, namely Shri K. Mani Singh, Shri K. Ibochabi Singh and Shri K. Opendro Singh, were charged Under Section 459 / 34 l.P.C. and Under Section 460 / 34 I.P.C. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.1998 had acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges and they were set at liberty. 4. Prosecution story as revealed from the record are that Shri Nameirakpam Iboton Singh, S/o N (late) Gulamjat Singh (PW-3) lodged and ejahar/F.I.R. before the O.C., Bishnupur Police Station alleging that on 08.11.1987 at about 11.30 P.M. he and his son, Shri N. Ningthem Singh of Thinungei Awang Leikai had been assaulted with deadly weapons by the respondents-accused K. Mani Singh, K. Ibochabi Singh and K. Opendro Singh at his house at Thinungei Awang Leikai thereby causing serious bleeding injuries on his left check. The said original ejahar was registered as FIR No. 123 (11)87 Under Section 447 / 307 / 326 / 34 I.P.C. PW-6, Shri K. Senapati Singh, S.I. of Manipur Police Deptt. and attached to Bishnupur P.S., took up the case for investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared the sketch map, seized the incriminating articles, recorded statement of the witnesses and referred the victim, Shri Nameirakpam Iboton Singh (PW-3)/informant and Shri Nameirakpam Nighthem Singh (PW-4)/victim to the Medical Officer of Bishnupur Primary Health Care Centre for medical examination in connection with the present case under his letter initials Ext. P-10. Eventually, on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. 5. On receipt of the case of commitment the learned Session's Judge, Manipur West framed the charge against the respondents-accused Under Section 459 / 34 I.P.C. and also framed the charge Under Section 460 / 34 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the respondents-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. On receipt of the case of commitment the learned Session's Judge, Manipur West framed the charge against the respondents-accused Under Section 459 / 34 I.P.C. and also framed the charge Under Section 460 / 34 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the respondents-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution case as revealed from the record is that on 08.11.1987 at about 11.30 P.M. the respondents-accused by holding deadly weapons like axe, dau (lathi) had entered the house of the informant Shri N. Iboton Singh (PW-3) by breaking the house door and assaulted the informant Shri N. Iboton Singh (PW-3) and his son, Shri N. Ningthem Singh (PW-4). There is no dispute to the fact that the night of 08.11.1987 was dark at about 11.30 P.M. and also that there was neither electrification in the house of the informant, Shri N. Iboton Singh (PW-3) nor any light inside and outside the house of the victim/informant. 7. The starred witnesses for the prosecution are PW-3, Shri N. Iboton Singh and PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh. Both were the alleged victims. PW-3, Shri N. Iboton Singh, deposed that he was awaken on hearing the alarm stating 'Mi Hatnere, Mi Hatnare' but he recognized/saw that some persons running away from house through gate which was opened to the north of his ingkhol (home stead land) but he could not see very distinctly those persons running away through his gate. He rushed up to the said gate. It was a dark night. He also stated in his in chief that after the offence they lit up podon type of lamp, i.e., small lamp, as no electric was connected to that house and nearby village by that time after the offence. He also stated that as soon as he rushed out from the main door on hearing the alarm some unknown persons assaulted him with a stick but he was shaken in the cross-examination and in the cross-examination he stated that he did not mention the names of the respondents-accused persons in the ejahar/report before the O.C. on which the whole prosecution case is started. He also stated that he asked the Police to write down the ejahar as he was not able to see distinctly in the night. He also stated that he asked the Police to write down the ejahar as he was not able to see distinctly in the night. PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh corroborated the statement of the PW-3, Shri N. Iboton Singh that in the night of the occurrence at the relevant time there was no light and also in the verandah there was no light. In the portion of his examination in chief he stated that he was suddenly awaken by the sounds of noises and he awaked from his bed and accused was found inside his house. At the verandah at the house he was assaulted by the accused with a stick, but he did not say who assaulted him. PW-3 who was residing with the PW-4 in the same house and also who wake up simultaneously with the PW-4 did not say anything about the assault of the PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh at the verandah at their house. From the fact of the prosecution case, the accused-respondents and victims are from the same locality and acquainted to each other but the PW-3 in his statement stated in the very clear term that he could not identify the assault due to dark night and also he could not recognized the voice of the assailant. 8. PW-7, Shri K. Babu Singh, deposed that at about 11 or 10 PM of the mid-night of the day of the occurrence, Shri N. Chandras Singh (PW-2), who is none other than the younger brother of the victim, Shri N. Ningthem Singh (PW-4) and son of the informant/victim (PW-3), Shri N. Iboton Singh, came to his house and informed him that a quarrel is occurred at his, (Shri N. Chandras Singh-PW-2) house. On getting that information, he alongwith some other members of his family went to the house of Shri N. Chandras Singh, PW-2 by holding a torch light. He was informed by the PW-2, Shri N. Chandras Singh who already went ahead of him that the accused informant had a fight with his father PW-3, Shri N. Iboton Singh and his elder brother, PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh. He was informed by the PW-2, Shri N. Chandras Singh who already went ahead of him that the accused informant had a fight with his father PW-3, Shri N. Iboton Singh and his elder brother, PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh. PW-2, Shri N. Chandras Singh, S/o N. Iboton Singh, PW-3 and younger brother of the victim PW-4, Shri N. Ningthem Singh who was residing along with the victim in the same house stated that he was not at home at the time of the alleged occurrence as he had been at Imphal for his studies. He did not corroborate the statements of PW-7, K. Babu Singh who stated that PW-2, N. Chandras Singh came to his house on the day of the occurrence and also that PW-2, Shri N. Chandras Singh informed him at the house of N. Chandras on the date of the occurrence that there was a fight between the respondents-accused on one side and his father and brother on the other side. PW-1 was the only an attesting witness for the seizure of one X-ray negative film on the production of Dr. Gulapi Singh at Bishnupur at Primary Health Centre in connection with FIR 123(11)87 Bishnupur P.S. He has no knowledge about the alleged occurrence except that he is one of the attesting witnesses in the seizure of the said X-ray negative. PW-9, Shri Kh. Harilal Singh who said to be one of the attesting witnesses in seizing the wooden stick from the possession of the respondents-accused, K. Ibochabi Singh but the PW-9, Harilal Singh deposed that he was attached to the Bishnupur Police Station as Home guard personnel. When he entered the office room of the S.I., K. Senapati Singh (PW-6), he saw one wooden stick lying on the table near him. He was asked by the PW-6, K. Senapati Singh, to put his signature on the seizure memo for the seizure of the wooden stick. P.W.-9, Harilal Singh never deposed that the wooden stick was seized by the PW-6, K. Senapati Singh from the possession of the respondents-accused, Shri K. Ibochabi Singh. PW-8, K. Kumar Singh is not the eyed witness. He had no direct knowledge about the incidence. P.W.-9, Harilal Singh never deposed that the wooden stick was seized by the PW-6, K. Senapati Singh from the possession of the respondents-accused, Shri K. Ibochabi Singh. PW-8, K. Kumar Singh is not the eyed witness. He had no direct knowledge about the incidence. The trial Court after appreciation of the witnesses and DWs had come to the findings that the prosecution had not been able to prove the most important evidence of the offence punishable Under Section 459 and 460I.P.C. which are like lurking house trespass by night offence against the respondents-accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and thereby acquitting the respondents-accused from the charge by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 02.06.1998. 9. It is fairly well settled that the principle to be followed by the appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. Reference may be made to: i) Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra; ii) Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat; iii) Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana; iv) State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Crl) 135 : 2003 AIR SCW 4065. 10. Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because of the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthen by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused shall be adopted. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Phola Singh and Anr. held that there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because of the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthen by acquittal. The Apex Court had also taken the similar view in Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because of the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthen by acquittal. The Apex Court had also taken the similar view in Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors. The Apex Court in Bihari Nath Goswami (Supra) held that in a case where admissible evidence is ignored a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to appreciate the evidence even where the accused had been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed offence or not. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh and Ors. the conviction of the accused by the trial Court had been set aside by the High Court as the High Court doubted the prosecution case as it was of the view that defence version may be reasonably possible. In appeals against the judgment of the High Court for acquittal, the Apex Court held that if the two view were possible, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with as it is well settled that if the two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the order of the acquittal, 11. In the present case this Court is of the considered view that there is no compelling or substantial reasons for interfering with the impugned order for acquittal dated 02.06.1998 inasmuch as the findings of the trial Court after appreciation of the prosecution witnesses and also perusal of the exhibited documents and materials exhibit that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges against the respondents-accused is quite reasonable. The appellant has failed to make out any compelling reasons such as admissible evidence had been unreasonably and unjustifiably ignored by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order for acquittal dated 02.06.1998 for acquittal. Accordingly the present appeal is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.