Research › Search › Judgment

Sikkim High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 86 (SIK)

Pankaj Thakur v. State of Sikkim

2014-11-18

S.K.SINHA, S.P.WANGDI

body2014
JUDGMENT Wangdi, J. 1. The Appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 30-11-2012 passed in S. T. Case No.14 of 2010 by the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi by which he was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred) and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. For the offence under Section 353 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months with both the sentences running concurrently. 2. The genesis of the case is a First Information Report dated 16-04-2009 lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Naya Bazar Police Station, West Sikkim, by P.W.1, Nk 1607 Sarku Man Tamang of Naya Bazar Police Station stating that when he and Nk 1791 Bishnu Kumar Pradhan, who is the deceased, were on bridge duty at the Akkar Bridge between 0800 hours to 1400 hours, the Appellant Pankaj Thakur, son of Lalan Thakur, suddenly arrived at the place at about 9 a.m. and assaulted Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan, the deceased, on his head with a knife injuring him grievously on the head. P.W.1 then informed the Officer-in-Charge about the incident and took the deceased to Jorethang Hospital from where he was referred to Anandalok Hospital at Siliguri for being treated. 3(i). On the basis of the FIR, Naya Bazar Police Station Case No.08(04)09 dated 16-04-2009 under Sections 307/353 IPC was registered against the Appellant and the case endorsed to P.W.12, SI Mingyur Tempo Nadik, for investigation. The Investigating Officer (in short the ‘I.O.’) immediately proceeded to Jorethang PHC from where the victim who was not in a condition to give any statement, was forwarded to Siliguri. The uniform worn by the victim, were seized at the Jorethang PHC in presence of the witnesses and the Appellant rounded up and brought to the hospital and kept under observation under police escort. (ii) The I.O. then proceeded to the place of occurrence which was at the Naya Bazar Police Station Picket at Akkar Bridge, West Sikkim, approximately 500 meters away from the Police Station. He took the photographs of the place of occurrence, drew rough sketch and minutely inspected the place. (ii) The I.O. then proceeded to the place of occurrence which was at the Naya Bazar Police Station Picket at Akkar Bridge, West Sikkim, approximately 500 meters away from the Police Station. He took the photographs of the place of occurrence, drew rough sketch and minutely inspected the place. The weapon of offence, i.e., sharp pointed knife, was seized from the place of occurrence, mud sample along with mud mixed with blood stain were collected separately and packed and sealed in presence of the witnesses. The witnesses aware of the facts and circumstances of the case were examined and their statements recorded. (iii) The Appellant after discharge from the hospital was formally arrested and his wearing apparels seized in presence of the witnesses and then forwarded to judicial custody on 17-04-2009 after proper interrogation. On 27-04-2009 about 0900 hours, it was informed that the deceased, Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan, had succumbed to his injuries at Anandlok Hospital, Siliguri, which led to the case being converted to one under Sections 302/353 IPC. UD Case No.77/09 dated 27-04-2009 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (in short the “Cr.P.C.”) was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station, Jalpaiguri, Siliguri and inquest over the dead body of the deceased conducted by P.W.8, ASI Arindam Chatterjee, the I.O. of Bhaktinagar Police Station. Later, the inquest paper and the autopsy report were handed over by P.W.8, the I.O. of the Bhaktinagar Police Station to P.W.12 along with the blood sample of the deceased. The case exhibits were thereafter forwarded to CFSL, Kolkata for forensic examination and report. 4(i). Investigation of the case revealed that on the fateful day of 16-04-2009, the deceased, Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan along with P.W.1, the Complainant, Sarku Man Tamang, were detailed for duty on the Akkar Bridge from 0800 hours to 1400 hours during which period one Lalan Thakur approached the deceased, Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan and verbally reported that his son Pankaj Thakur, the Appellant, had been creating nuisance at the shop and had abused him. The deceased, Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan, then went to the shop and advised the family to stay out of trouble or approach the police station for further action after which he returned to the Police Picket for duty where he sat on a bench while P.W.1, the Complainant, was on the opposite side of the bridge checking entry and exit of vehicles. (ii) After about 15 minutes, the Appellant armed with a sharp edged knife came to place from behind the police picket unnoticed by the Complainant and the victim and suddenly struck the victim with the knife on his head. The Complainant, reacting quickly, prevented the Appellant from striking the deceased again which he was intending to do and overpowered him with the help of other witnesses and apprehended him at that place. 5. A prima facie case under Sections 302/353 IPC having been made out against the Appellant for assaulting a policeman on duty on the head with the intention to cause death, charge-sheet was accordingly filed against him for trial. 6. The Learned Sessions Judge having found sufficient material against the Appellant framed charges under Sections 302 and 353 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased, Nk Bishnu Kumar Pradhan, a public servant, while on duty. 7. After completion of the trial, the Learned Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the charges and accordingly sentenced in the manner already stated earlier. 8(i). Pressing the Appeal, Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Learned Senior Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that this was a case where there was no eye witness and, therefore, a case purely based on circumstantial evidence where the prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances against the Appellant and, even the circumstances did not form a complete chain leading to the sole hypothesis that the Appellant was guilty of the offence. He would rely upon Chhita and Another vs. State of Rajasthan : 1987 (Supp) SCC 639 to urge that there were contradictory statements in the evidence of the witnesses giving rise to grave doubts on the prosecution case entitling the Appellant to the benefit of the doubt. (ii) Relying upon Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs. The State of Gujarat : (1972) 3 SCC 671 it was stated that non-examination of the father of the Appellant as a witness by the prosecution was fatal to the case as he was a material witness upon whose complaint the entire story of the prosecution is based. (iii) Referring to the evidence of P.Ws 1, 3, 4, 7 and 12, it was submitted that there were serious contradictions as regards the seizure of the weapon of offence said to have been made from the possession of the Appellant. (iii) Referring to the evidence of P.Ws 1, 3, 4, 7 and 12, it was submitted that there were serious contradictions as regards the seizure of the weapon of offence said to have been made from the possession of the Appellant. Even the weapon of offence and the mud collected from the place of occurrence did not contain human blood as per the CFSL report and the evidence of P.W.10, P. K. Mishra, Junior Scientific Officer. (iv) It is further contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased were also not proved as there were contradiction on the number of injuries reported by P.W.5, Dr. S. Lepcha, who was first to examine the deceased at the Jorethang PHC, in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 5, 7, 11, the post mortem report, Exhibit 19, as well as the medical requisition forms of the deceased, Exhibits 14 and 15, and the inquest report, Exhibit 16. As per the Learned Legal Aid Counsel, the case was thus fully covered by State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh : (2009) 11 SCC 106 . (v) It was further his submission that given the fact the deceased was alive for 11 days between the dates of the incident, i.e., 16-04-2009, and 27-04-2009, on which day he died, it was essential for the prosecution to have recorded his dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fact that it was not reinforces the doubts on the prosecution case. (vi) Mr. Upadhayay contended that in view of such serious infirmities grave doubts arise in the prosecution case. The prosecution having thus failed to discharge its burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the benefit ought to go in favour of the Appellant. 9(i). Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that there were sufficient materials and evidence on the record to hold the Appellant guilty of the offences charge against him and there was no error in the impugned judgment for this Court to interfere. 9(i). Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that there were sufficient materials and evidence on the record to hold the Appellant guilty of the offences charge against him and there was no error in the impugned judgment for this Court to interfere. (ii) It was submitted that P.W.1 who was on duty along with the deceased was a witness to the father of the Appellant making an oral complaint to the deceased about nuisance being created by the Appellant in his shop and thereafter the deceased proceeding towards the hair cutting salon of the father of the Appellant and returning from there after about 10 minutes to resume his booth duty. He then heard a sound (“chak”) from the direction of the place where the deceased was sitting and when he turned to look there, he found the Appellant having struck the deceased on his head with a knife which the Appellant was found holding in his hand. It was P.W.1, who reacting quickly, caught hold of the Appellant and prevented him from assaulting the deceased further and then snatched the knife from the possession of the Appellant with the help of the drivers from the nearby taxi stand. (iii) The evidence of P.W.1, as per the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, stands fully corroborated by P.W.2, a customer in the hair cutting salon of the Appellant and his father, who was there for a shave and had noticed and heard the family having discussions and the father of the Appellant leaving the shop. He also had witnessed an altercation between the Appellant and his father when the latter returned back to the shop and the Appellant pushing him out saying he did not want a father like him leading the father to call the Police from the Naya Bazar Akkar Bridge Booth and returning to the salon with the Police where the Appellant was giving him a shave. He had then heard the policeman calling the Appellant to the Police Booth and, later saw the Appellant proceeding towards the Police Booth. (iv) The Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of this uncontroverted and consistent evidence of the witnesses, the necessity of the father being examined as a witness was inconsequential. He had then heard the policeman calling the Appellant to the Police Booth and, later saw the Appellant proceeding towards the Police Booth. (iv) The Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of this uncontroverted and consistent evidence of the witnesses, the necessity of the father being examined as a witness was inconsequential. It was submitted that although P.W.1 had not witnessed the Appellant delivering the fatal blow on the deceased, the fact that P.W.1 had seen the Appellant about to strike the deceased again with a knife which the Appellant was found holding in his hand but was prevented by him when he managed to snatch it with the help of others, have remained uncontradicted but rather fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 7. (v) P.Ws 3 and 4, drivers from the taxi stand near the hair cutting salon of the Appellant, and P.W.7 a labour and a co-villager of the Appellant, had seen P.W.1 and Appellant in a tussle and, P.W.1 snatching the knife from the hand of the Appellant. Even to the questions put to the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had preferred to give complete denials of the circumstances appearing against him which, as per him, was one more circumstance added to the chain of other circumstances appearing against the Appellant. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor went on to submit that considering the clinching evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, the case against the Appellant stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt. (vi) As regards the discrepancy in the evidence on the number of injuries on the body of the deceased pointed out on behalf of the Appellant, it was submitted that the discrepancy was not such as to shake the foundation of the prosecution case. As per the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the fact that the deceased had suffered grievous injury on his head resulting in him being rushed to the Jorethang PHC and then to Anandlok Hospital at Siliguri where he succumbed to the injuries stand fully established. Considering the established sequence of events following the murderous assault on the deceased by the Appellant, the discrepancy as to the number of injuries would have no significance. Considering the established sequence of events following the murderous assault on the deceased by the Appellant, the discrepancy as to the number of injuries would have no significance. (vii) Replying to the contention regarding the dying declaration of the deceased not having been recorded, it was submitted that there was no scope for doing so as evidently the deceased was unconscious during the entire period between the time of the incident and his death. (viii) On the question raised on behalf of the Appellant as regards the absence of human blood on the weapon of offence and the mud sample collected from the place of occurrence in the CFSL report and the evidence of P.W.10, the Junior Scientific Officer, it was submitted that the CFSL report, Exhibit 18 and the evidence of P.W.10, Junior Scientific Officer, clearly reveal the existence of blood on those items amongst the others. (ix) From these, considered with the other evidence on record, there can be no manner of doubt that the incident did take place and the weapon of offence was the one which had been used by the Appellant to strike the deceased. Reference was made to Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 11 SCC 205 in support of this contention. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also sought to rely upon the following decisions on the principle of appreciation of evidence:- (i) Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde and Another vs. State of Karnataka : (2004) 12 SCC 492 ; (ii) Prithu alias Prithi Chand and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : (2009) 11 SCC 588 ; and (iii) Mritunjoy Biswas vs. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas and Another : (2013) 12 SCC 796. 10. We have carefully considered the records of the case, the evidence and the rival contentions of the parties. In so far as the law on appreciation of evidence, as placed before us by the Learned Counsel, we have no difficulty in accepting those as being a well-settled position. It is only to be seen as to whether the facts of the present case would fall within the four corners of such law and, in doing so we may examine the various contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant in support of the Appeal. 11(i). Taking up the first contention that there is no eye-witness of the incident but is purely based on circumstantial evidence. 11(i). Taking up the first contention that there is no eye-witness of the incident but is purely based on circumstantial evidence. The submission does not appear to be correct as we find that P.W.1 who although had not seen the Appellant actually delivering the fatal stroke on the head of the deceased with the knife, had nevertheless heard the sound of the strike and when he turned into the direction of the sound, the Appellant was seen about to strike the deceased again which, he prevented by overpowering him and snatching the knife from his hand with the help of P.Ws 3 and 4 who were drivers from the taxi stand near the place of occurrence and P.W.7, a co-villager of the Appellant. These witnesses in no uncertain terms have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. It has come categorically in their evidence that they had seen P.W.1 snatching the knife, M.O.I, from the hands of the Appellant and the deceased bleeding profusely from his forehead. All are consistent in their statements and have further stated that they had helped in stemming the bleeding and in evacuating the deceased to the Jorethang PHC from where he was referred to Siliguri. We do not find any contradiction in the material portions of their evidence and are found to have stood firm in their cross-examination. The contention, therefore, does not appear to have any merit. (ii) Non-examination of the father of the Appellant as a witness, in our view, appears to quite inconsequential and would have been redundant in view of the categorical evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as discussed while dealing with the submissions on behalf of the prosecution. No doubt, it would have been ideal to have examined him but failure to do so has not diminished the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. (iii) Much was made out as regards the seizure of the weapon of offence as to whether it was found in possession of the Appellant or somewhere else. Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.12, the I.O., who in his cross-examination has stated that he seized the knife from the ground at that place of occurrence to urge that this was in gross contradiction to the evidence of the other witnesses as per which the seizure was made from the hands of the Appellant. Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya strongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.12, the I.O., who in his cross-examination has stated that he seized the knife from the ground at that place of occurrence to urge that this was in gross contradiction to the evidence of the other witnesses as per which the seizure was made from the hands of the Appellant. In our view, the submission appears to be fallacious considering the sequence of events leading to the I.O. appearing at the place of occurrence. It may be noted that the FIR, Exhibit 1 was lodged by P.W.1 after the Appellant had been overpowered by him and the other witnesses and after he had snatched the knife from him. The I.O.’s role came into play only thereafter and is, therefore, not out of place for him to have recovered and seized the knife from the ground at the place of occurrence. In our view, there is no contradiction but rather find the story of the prosecution more credible in view of the consistent and categorical corroborative statements of P.Ws 1, 3, 4 and 7 who are the witnesses to the incident prior to the lodging of the FIR. The other evidence which Mr. Upadhyaya sought to rely upon is the evidence of P.W.1, the Complainant, where in his cross-examination he has stated that it was the O/C, Naya Bazar Police Station, who disarmed the Appellant at the place of occurrence after he had arrived there 10-15 minutes later and that till then the knife was in the hands of the Appellant. This, no doubt, appears to be quite contradictory to what he had stated in his examination-in-chief that it was he who had overpowered him with the help of the other witnesses and snatched the knife from the possession of the Appellant. However, this contradiction is grossly incongruous to the consistent evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 7 who have corroborated in full measure the evidence-in-chief of P.W.1 himself. In our view, this is a minor discrepancy and does not displace the fact that the Appellant had used the knife to fatally stab the deceased. The contention, therefore, stands rejected. However, this contradiction is grossly incongruous to the consistent evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 7 who have corroborated in full measure the evidence-in-chief of P.W.1 himself. In our view, this is a minor discrepancy and does not displace the fact that the Appellant had used the knife to fatally stab the deceased. The contention, therefore, stands rejected. (iv) The argument that no “human blood” was present on the weapon of offence M.O.I (Exhibit A as per the CFSL report, Exhibit 18) and the mud collected from the place of occurrence, Exhibits C and D also of the CFSL report, Exhibit 18, is of no consequence in view of the further finding that “blood” was detected on the weapon of offence, M.O.I, Exhibits C and D, the mud samples collected from the place of occurrence, Exhibit E , the cotton swab containing the blood of the deceased and Exhibit F2, the full pant of the Appellant and Exhibits G1 and G2, i.e., full pant and full shirt of the deceased. Further that human blood detected in Exhibit B, the blood sample of the deceased was found to be of group “A” and, those found on Exhibit E, the cotton swab of blood collected from the body of the deceased, Exhibit G1 and G2, the full pant and full shirt of the deceased also tested to be blood group ‘A’. When we consider these with the evidence of the Junior Scientific Officer, P.W.10, who carried out the test, it can be reasonably inferred that the blood found on M.O.I (Exhibit A) is also human blood. These considered with the other evidence on record fully establishes the fact that it was the very weapon M.O.I which was used by the Appellant to strike the deceased that caused his death. (v) Next, is the controversy raised on the number of injuries sustained by the deceased. We have carefully examined the evidence and find that the deceased had been struck by the Appellant only once. The evidence of P.Ws 1, 3, 4 and 7 is clear in indicating that the victim was severely injured on his forehead and was found bleeding profusely. The medical requisition forms, Exhibits 14 and 15, mention the type of injury as bone deep uneven cut injury measuring 3" x 4" approximately on the forehead left side and above left eyebrow. In her evidence, P.W.5, Dr. The medical requisition forms, Exhibits 14 and 15, mention the type of injury as bone deep uneven cut injury measuring 3" x 4" approximately on the forehead left side and above left eyebrow. In her evidence, P.W.5, Dr. S. Lepcha, the Medical Officer, who examined the deceased on the strength of those medical requisition forms, stated that on local examination there was incised cut injury (bone deep) measuring approximately 3 x ¼ inches on the left side of his forehead with swelling above the left eyebrow. This was followed by the inquest conducted by P.W.8, ASI Arindam Chatterjee of Bhaktinagar Police Station, District Jalpaiguri, Siliguri, on the body of the deceased after he had succumbed to his injuries at Anandlok Hospital, Siliguri. During the inquest, he had found stitched cut mark wound on the left side of the forehead of the deceased approximately 2" and his throat and right forearm covered with bandage. He also noticed a slight abrasion on the wrist of the left hand and few bed sores on his back. We find consistency in the evidence of all these witnesses that the deceased had suffered severe cut injury on his forehead and was bleeding from profusely. Mr. Upadhyaya, however, pointed out that the post mortem report, Exhibit 19, conducted by P.W.11, Dr. Saibal Gupta, shows three distinct injuries contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses. This, as per him, was a serious discrepancy eroding the case of the prosecution. We have carefully examined the post mortem report and the evidence of P.W.11. He had indicated the following injuries:- “(1) Incised penetrating wound 2½" x 5" x Muscles x Eye x nose x cheek directed above downwards from left eyebrow to Right side oral region x Right chin x Vessels (of face) x Bones with cut fractures of both maxilla. (2) Incised penetrating wound 3" x 6" x Muscles x Eye (lt) x nose x Mouth x Right side cheek x right side neck directed above downwards x Right mandible (fracture) x vessels of face. (3) Incised wound 2" x 3" x Muscles x Vessels over palmer aspect of Right hand — The injuries sustained over the body of victim caused by moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon. (3) Incised wound 2" x 3" x Muscles x Vessels over palmer aspect of Right hand — The injuries sustained over the body of victim caused by moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon. All the injuries, as mentioned showed evidence of vital reactions.” As is obvious from the above, injuries no.1 and 2 are clearly located on the same side of the head giving an indication that those had been caused by the single assault. The third injury is on the right hand palm which leads us to reasonably infer that it was likely to have been caused while fending off attack by the Appellant. We do not find any contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses as the fatal injury was on the left forehead above the eyebrow of the deceased. This was the precise evidence of all the witnesses. (vi) From the facts as revealed by the evidence, the entire sequence of events leading to the deceased being struck with a knife by the Appellant first of all took place in broad daylight in the morning hours at about 9 a.m. with the span of just about 15-20 minutes. As per the evidence of the I.O., it was about 15 minutes after the deceased had returned to the place of his duty that the Appellant, armed with a sharp edged knife, approached the deceased and the Complainant from the behind the Police Picket where they were on duty and, suddenly struck the deceased on the head with the knife. P.W.1, the Complainant, who was in close proximity of the deceased heard the sound of the impact of the knife on the deceased and had immediately turned towards that direction when he noticed the Appellant about to strike the deceased again and, in a quick reaction, overpowered the Appellant and prevented him from doing so, snatching the knife from his hand with the help of other witnesses. Therefore, the entire controversy regarding the seizure of the knife and the number of injuries sustained by the deceased would lose significance. In any case, it is not the case of the Appellant that he did not assault the deceased. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant and are accordingly rejected. Therefore, the entire controversy regarding the seizure of the knife and the number of injuries sustained by the deceased would lose significance. In any case, it is not the case of the Appellant that he did not assault the deceased. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant and are accordingly rejected. (vii) Finally, on the contention that the prosecution had failed to record the dying declaration of the deceased despite the fact that he was alive for 11 days, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that when the deceased was lying unconscious throughout that period the question of recording his dying declaration did not arise. From the evidence of P.W.8, ASI Arindam Chatterjee, it appears that the deceased was kept in ICU, Room No.3 in the Anandlok Hospital, Siliguri, which is indicative of the condition of the deceased. Even in the evidence of P.W.5, Dr. S. Lepcha, it is found that the condition of the deceased was poor, semi-conscious with low pulse rate and blood pressure. This witness had examined the deceased on the very day of the incident at Jorethang PHC from where he was referred by her to higher centre for further management and investigation considering the seriousness of his condition. The deceased was then transferred to Anandlok Hospital at Siliguri where he was admitted in the ICU, the place where he ultimately died. Even otherwise, if the dying declaration had been recorded, it would have served only as a corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive one. Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution shorn of a dying declaration, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the Appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. (viii) The decisions cited at the bar on behalf of the Appellant are on principles of law that are well-settled but, those do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the Appeal. 13. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15(i). 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the Appeal. 13. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15(i). A copy of this judgment and the original case records be transmitted to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing, for its record as the occurrence took place in Naya Bazar, West Sikkim and the Appellant to the Appeal also ordinarily resides in that District. (ii) This has been necessitated in view of the creation of West Judicial District bifurcating South and West District at Namchi, South Sikkim, vide Notification No.14/Home/2012 dated 15-02-2012. (iii) A copy of the judgment be also sent to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi, for its record.