1976 (4) TMI 221 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge.
2. Conviction by the Judicial Commissioner.
3. Reliability of the sole eyewitness.
4. Omission of the assailant's name in the First Information Report (FIR).
5. Discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence.
6. Medical evidence and its corroboration.
7. Absence of the appellant from his house.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge:
The appellant, Akoijam Ranbir Singh, was initially acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Manipur on the grounds of benefit of doubt. The Sessions Judge found significant discrepancies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal on November 2, 1967.

2. Conviction by the Judicial Commissioner:
The State appealed the acquittal, and the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Judicial Commissioner found the Sessions Judge's grounds for acquittal to be flimsy and insignificant, thereby overturning the initial judgment.

3. Reliability of the Sole Eyewitness:
Sanajoba Singh (P.W. 2) was examined as the only eyewitness to the incident. The Sessions Judge questioned his reliability, noting that his friends, Dorendro Singh (P.W. 3) and Raghumani Singh (P.W. 4), who were present during the initial altercation, did not intervene or witness the stabbing. The Sessions Judge found it improbable that they would leave their friend alone after he was beaten and threatened by the appellant.

4. Omission of the Assailant's Name in the FIR:
The name of the assailant was not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Ibotan Singh (P.W. 1). It was stated that Ibohal Singh had been stabbed by "somebody" and the "culprits" should be arrested. The Sessions Judge considered this omission significant, questioning why the name of the appellant was not disclosed if it was known to the witnesses.

5. Discrepancies in the Prosecution's Evidence:
The Sessions Judge noted discrepancies regarding the place of the incident and the absence of bloodstains near the verandah of Bharat Shoe House, where the stabbing allegedly took place. The prosecution's evidence did not explain why blood was found at three different places in the bazar.

6. Medical Evidence and Its Corroboration:
The Judicial Commissioner emphasized that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness account, noting the presence of two stab wounds on the deceased. However, the Sessions Judge found this argument unconvincing, pointing out that the prosecution's version had inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies.

7. Absence of the Appellant from His House:
The Judicial Commissioner attached importance to the appellant's absence from his house, interpreting it as indicative of guilt. However, the Sessions Judge did not find this sufficient to overturn the acquittal, emphasizing that the evidence on record did not conclusively prove the appellant's guilt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the Sessions Judge's acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the significant infirmities in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the Judicial Commissioner erred in overturning the acquittal, as the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively prove the appellant's guilt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, Akoijam Ranbir Singh, was acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.