Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S.SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
Hopeson Ningshen - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondent
CRL.A. 1131 of 2014 & CRL. M. (Bail) No.5 of 2017
Decided On : 20-11-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Adv. with Mr. Kahorngam Zimik & Ms. Shallu Nigam, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate
The court confirmed that confessions must be voluntary and comply with procedural safeguards under criminal law; the appellant's conviction for abduction and murder was upheld based on corroborating evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 364, 364A, 302, 392; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 15 and 16 - Conviction of appellant for abduction and murder - Abduction for ransom from SDO and associates, leading to death of three individuals. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Confessions - Safeguards for voluntary confession under Sections 164 and 281 Cr.P.C. - Recording of confession without coercion and ensuring proper procedural compliance - Voluntary confession held admissible despite appellant's claims of coercion. (Paras 19-36)
(C) Medical evidence - Post-mortem findings corroborating brutal assault on victims leading to their deaths - Violent, premeditated murder established. (Paras 55-60)
(D) Appeal dismissed - Sentence upheld as life imprisonment with additional penalties. (Para 62)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in the abduction of government officials from Ukhrul, leading to their murder after a ransom demand, with a confession detailing the orchestrated crime.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on the confession and testimonies, corroborated by medical evidence.
Issues: The main issues before the court included the voluntariness of the confession, evidentiary weight of confessions, and applicability of abduction and murder charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The learned court ruled that procedural safeguards were followed in recording the confession, and the medical evidence supported the charge of homicide.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges against the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the voluntariness and legality of the confession. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. observations on trial procedure and adherence to safeguards. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. determination of guilt based on confession and corroborating evidence. (Para 36) |
| 5. final conclusion affirming the trial court's decision. (Para 62 , 64) |
JUDGMENT :
G.S.SISTANI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing judgment dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi in a Criminal Complaint No. 36/10 arising out of FIR RC No.IMPH-2009-S0002 and IMPH-2009-S0003, registered under Sections 120 -B/364/364A/302/392/34/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’) and under Section 16 read with Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP’ Act) registered at Police Station CBIACB, Imphal, whereby the appellant Hopeson Ningshen has been held guilty under Section 120B read with Sections 364A/392/302 of , Section 364A read with Section 120B of , Section 302 read with Section 120B of and Section 392 read with Section 120B of . Challenge is also made to the order on sentence dated 30.06.2014 whereby the following sentences were awarded to the appellant herein:
| Sr. No. | Name of the appellant | Sections under which convicted | Period of Sentence |
| 1. | Hopeson Ningshen | 120-B of IPC 364A of IPC 302 of IPC 392 of IPC | Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in the default, RI for 6 months under Section 120 -B of IPC . Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in the default, RI for 6 months under Section 364 -A of IPC . Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in the default, RI for 6 months under Section 302 of IPC . RI for 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000, in the default, RI for 3 months under Section 392 of IPC . |
All the sentences mentioned hereinabove were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the learned Trial Court reads as under:
“1.1 Dr. Th. Kishan Singh, SDO, Kasom Khullen, District Ukhrul, Manipur alongwith five of his subordinate staff members namely, Ramsing Siro, Ramthing Shinglai, Kapangkhui Jajo, Y. Token Singh and A. Rajen Sarma were abducted by NSCN (IM) activists from Ukhrul on 13.02.2009 and were kept under illegal detention at village Langdang and on 14.02.2009, while Ramsing Siro, Ramthing Shinglai and Kapangkhui Jajo were released and sent back to Ukhrul, Dr. Th. Kishan Singh, Y. Token Singh and A. Rajen Sarma were shifted to village Seikhor and kept under the captivity till evening of 16.02.2009 and on 16.02.2009 on the complaint of Sh. Sudhan R., case FIR No. 8(2)/2009 dated 16.02.2009 u/s. 365, 368/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Ukhrul. The three persons in captivity were taken to Senapati and killed in the night intervening 16/17.02.2009 and their dead bodies were thrown on the bank of River Touphu Kuki, Distt. Senapati for which the FIR no. 3(2)/2009 dated 17.02.2009 u/s. 302/400 IPC was registered at PS Senapati.
1.2 The wife and father of the SDO Dr. Th. Kishan Singh, when he did not return home on 14.02.2009, searched for him, met the SP Ukhrul and also the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister, Manipur and on 17.02.2009 received the information of his being dead alongwith two of his subordinate officials Y. Token Singh and A. Rajen Sarma.
1.3 The investigation was later on transferred to the CBI vide Government of India Notification dated 24.03.2009 and the Imphal branch of CBI registered two FIRs no. RC: IMPH.2009S0002 dated 02.04.2009 on transfer of case FIR no. 8(2)2009 dated 16.02.2009 of PS Ukhrul and FIR no. RCIMPH.2009S0003 dated 02.04.2009 on
