Maniya Taku, represented by Shri Tai Tok S/o Shri Kapa Taku vs State Of AP

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 54

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)(ITANAGAR BENCH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
Smt. Maniya Taku, represented by Shri Tai Tok S/o Shri Kapa Taku – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP – Respondent
Crl.A. 9 of 2021
Decided on : 04-01-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. T.T. Tara, Mr. T. Gadi, Mr. D. Loyi, Mr. J. Jini, Mr. G. Bam, Mr. G. Lollen, Mr. Kinnani L., Mr. T. Kamch, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Tado, Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh,

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374, 394, 313 – Imprisonment – Offence of Murder – Power to examine the accused – Memo of appeal has been filed by one accused and sentenced by learned trial Court noticed entered in cause title as appellant – Appellant word appellant used in this judgment would mean and denote accused – Held, Cases were proved by eye witnesses evidence could not be contradicted and under such circumstances non-examination of I.O. was not considered to be fatal – Case in hand not to speak of any eye witness, there is no corroborative evidence against appellant – Court considered opinion of Court non-examination of I.O. would be fatal to prosecution – Appeal stands allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs.M.Thakuria, J

Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. The memo of appeal has been filed by one Sri Tai Tok, the son of Smt. Maniya Taku. The said Maniya Taku is the accused and sentenced by the learned trial Court. However, it is noticed that the name of Sri Tai Tok is entered in the cause title as appellant. However, as the defacto-appellant is Smt. Maniya Taku, the word “appellant” used in this judgment would mean and denote the “accused”, i.e. Smt. Maniya Taku.

3. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred against the judgment and sentence passed on 04.09.2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila in Sessions Case No. 30/2017, thereby convicting the appellant, Smt. Maniya Taku under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life, out of which the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous sentence for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation to further undergo further sentence of three months.

4. The prosecution case was set rolling by a complaint dated 28.03.1983 made by Sri Hadang Taku, GaonBura of village Yortepobe before the Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng District, Seppa, informing that his maid servant, namely, Smt. Maniya Taku (the appellant), daughter of Sri Rigso Taku of village Temyola, Ranghad Circle, Balijan had poisoned Smt. Yame Taku, who died on 21.03.1983. On the same day, i.e. on 28.03.1983, the E.A.C. (Judicial), Seppa had forwarded the said written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Seppa P.S. to be treated as an FIR. Accordingly, Seppa P.S. Case No. 6/1983 was registered. During investigation, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and postmortem was conducted by the Medical Officer. The viscera and the seized poison were sent for chemical examination by Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL for short). As per chemical examination report, the poison was identified as zinc phosphide, which was present in the viscera of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the poison was produced by the appellant and she had confessed her guilt. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.

5. It may be mentioned that at the said point of time, the judiciary was not separated from the Executive and thus, upon submission of the charge-sheet before the learned Executive Magistrate, East Kameng District, Seppa, the said learned Court took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellant on 08.01.1987.

6. The prosecution had examined 8 (eight) witnesses, viz., Sri Harang Taku (PW-1); Smt. Yesap Taku (PW-2); Sri Tado Taku, (PW-3); Sri Tsang Taku (PW-4); Sri Kapa Taku (PW-5); Sri Chama Tachang (PW-6); Dr. T. Saikia, Medical Officer (PW-7); Sri N.N. Gogoi, Executive Magistrate (PW-8). The appellant, Smt. Maniya Taku had examined herself as DW-1. In course of trial, the following documents were exhibited, viz., FIR (Ext.1); one bottle suspected to be poison, seized from Ringcho Taku (Ext.2); seizure list (Ext.3); dead body challan (Ext.4). The appellant, as accused, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the appellant denied the charges against her and examined herself as DW-1.

7. The PW-1 had stated in his evidence-in-chief that Ringcho Taku was his brother, who brought the appellant to his house and the PW-1 then arranged her marriage with Tado Taku, his servant, from whom she had a son. It was stated that appellant developed illicit relationship with Kapar Taku, the brother of her husband, for which her husband left her. The deceased Yame Taku was the wife of Kapar Taku. He had stated that Yame Taku was vomiting blood from mouth and died. Thereafter, they performed pujaand were planning to do mangal(a type of localsorcery)to find truth and on inquiry, the appellant had stated that she had administered to the deceased rat poison mixed with a