9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame there with a friend at about 6.30 p.m. and stopped near the pan stall. He beckoned Sanajoba Singh (P.W. 2) and when Sanajoba Singh went near him, he asked him why he was gazing at him. There was an exchange of hot words between them, and the appellant and his friend gave fist blows to Sanajoba Singh on the face. Sanajoba Singh retreated. In the meantime, Ibohal Singh came out of the Bharat Shoe House and separated them. The appellant and his friend then went towards the south while Sanajoba Singh and his friends Dorendro Singh (P.W. 3) and Raghumani Singh (P.W. 4) went to Eikhoigi Hotel again for taking their bicycles. When they came out, they found Ibohal Singh standing in the verandah of Bharat Shoe House. Sanajoba Singh did not know Akoijam Ranbir Singh and asked Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh who his assailant was. They told him the appellant's name and said that they did not know the name of the other assailant. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh then proceeded a bit ahead, while Sanajoba Singh went behind. When they were about to approach the lane running to the west of Paona Road, Sanajoba Singh heard a voice at a distance of some five or six feet, from behind, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... humani Singh and others. Dorendro Singh went and informed Ibotan Singh (P.W. 1)(brother of Ibohal Singh's grand-father) about the incident, and Ibotan Singh went to the hospital along with Dorendro Singh. They met Ibohal Singh's father on the way, but did not wait for him to accompany them as he was going on foot. On reaching the hospital Ibotan Singh found Ibohal Singh lying dead in the emergency room, and then he went and lodged report Ex. P-1 at the police station at 8.30 p.m. In the meantime, A.S. I. Bacha Singh (P.W. 9). Who was on bazar duty , learnt about the incident and reached the hospital. A case was registered by the police, and the appellant surrendered on December 18, 1966. He was prosecuted for the offence of murder, but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, as aforesaid. The Judicial Commissioner of Manipur has taken the view that the acquittal was based on flimsy and insignificant grounds as the case was not examined in its proper perspective, and he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 3. The name of the assailant was not stated in the first information report Ex. P1. On the other hand, it was stated there that Ibohal Singh had been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s associate beat him a little before the incident of murder, as aforesaid. Sanajoba Singh has stated that Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh, thereafter, went a bit ahead of him while Ibohal Singh was standing in the verandah of the Bharat Shoe House when the appellant called for a settlement of the matter and it was suggested by Ibohal Singh that the matter may be settled at that very place. It has been stated that there was an exchange of hot words between the appellant and Ibohal Singh. It appears from the statement of Sanajoba Singh that Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh were present at that time. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh, however, claim that they left the place to go to their respective houses. Accodring to Dorendro Singh (P.W. 3), it was when they reached the crossing of Bir Tikendrajit Road that he saw that Ibohal Singh was lying injured in a rickshaw and Sanajoba Singh was attending on him. That is why they also proceeded to the civil hospital. In these circumstances, it cannot be said to be unreasonable if the Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that the version of the prosecution was not likely as Dorendro Singh (P.W. 3) and Raghumani Singh (P.W. 4) would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed by Sanajoba Singh, and Dorendro Singh knew it, he would have mentioned it to Ibotan Singh. Ibotan Singh himself reached the hospital as soon as be learnt about the incident from Dorendro Singh, and we have it from Sanajoba Singh that Ibotan Singh and others had come to him soon after, near the emergency room. There could be no reason why Sanajoba Singh would not have told Ibotan Singh about the name of the person who had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, and the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable if he attached importance to the fact that, even so, the name of the appellant was significantly omitted from the first information report which was lodged by Ibotan Singh soon after, and, on the other hand, it was stated that the offence had been committed by somebody and the culprits may be arrested and dealt with. 8. The above were significant infirmities in the prosecution case it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge was not justified in noticing them. 9. The other point which was noticed by the Sessions Judge was that there was a discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution about the place of incident, and bloodstains were not found in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hal Singh when he fell down. The witness disowned that statement, but he could not give any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy. 12. The Judicial Commissioner has attached considerable importance to the absence of the appellant from his house and has taken the view that the omission of the name of the eye-witness and the accused from the first information report was a minor matter because it was not lodged by an eye-witness but by Ibotan Singh who was 73 years old. The Judicial Commissioner has tried to explain the discrepancy regarding the place of the incident also. There can be no doubt however that, for reasons stated by us, it could not be said that the finding reached by the Sessions Judge was unreasonable, so as to require interference in appeal. It may be that the Judicial Commissioner has found it possible to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record. It may also be that the evidence was sufficient to create some suspicion about the complicity of the appellant in the crime. But, as has been held by this Court in Mathai Methews v. State of Maharashtra that could not justify a reversal of the finding of acquittal which was based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
