Back
SIKKIM HIGH COURT
RAJINDAR SACHAR, J.
PASSANG LAMA
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1975,
Decided On : 6 -6 -1975
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 304(II) READ WITH SECTIONS 149, 147, 448, 452 AND 342 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS - ADMISSIBILITY - EYE-WITNESSES - CROSS-EXAMINATION - RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED - DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, along with four others, was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rioting, house-breaking, and house trespass. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly to commit murder, wrongfully confined two women, and caused the death of a police constable. The appellant claimed that he was involved due to enmity with the deceased's husband over a land dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused. The alleged confessions of three accused were not admissible as they did not amount to an admission of guilt. The evidence of two eyewitnesses was inadmissible as the accused were denied the right to cross-examine them after the framing of charges. The court also found that the prosecution story was not free from doubt and that the accused were acting under a genuine belief that they were chasing a thief.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessions of the accused were admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Confessions are admissible in evidence only if they amount to an acknowledgment of guilt by a person who has committed the crime. A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession. 2. The right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental right and its denial violates the principles of natural justice. 3. The prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had a common object to cause the death of the deceased or that they wrongfully confined the two women.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and the other accused, and acquitted them.
1. This is an appeal by one Passang Lama who has been convicted by the Judge Central Court under Section 304(II) read with Sections 149, 147, 448, 452 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months, 1 month, and 3 months and 1 month each on two counts respectively. The sentences have been however ordered to run concurrent.
2. The appellant along with four other accused namely Tek Bahadur Chetri, Bhim Prasad Chetri, Nim Tshering and Dhan Bahadur were charged under Sections 147, 302 read with Ss.149, 452, 448 and 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object and committed a house trespass into the house of Phool Maya and Chandra Maya and of Champa Sherpani and of committing the murder of Abhiram, Constable, on the night between 26th and 27th April, 1973, at Taja Pachey Khola.
3. The prosecution case is that one Ghishing Tamang had let out some land to Maniraj - husband of Phool Maya Tamangni and brother of Chandra Maya Tamangni, for cultivation on Adhya. The appellant wanted that piece of land for cultivation and on refusal he bore enmity with Maniraj. On 23-4-1974 there was quarrel between Maniraj and his second wife Hari Maya who left her house. One Lal Bahadur was sent to search for the wife but when he did not come back, Mani Raj himself went out and informed his family members that Lal Bahadur had been detained at the house of the appellant. Maniraj then accompanied by one Budhiman Sherpa is said to have left for police station Rhenock for reporting the incident of wrongful confinement of Lal Bahadur. They however never returned to their houses and have not been heard of since then. However Lal Bahadur was removed from the house of Passang Lama by the police and was challaned for working in the village without any work permit.
4. On 26-4-1973 Lal Bahadur returned to the village in the company of writer constable Abhiram deceased who stayed at the house of Maniraj for the night. At 11-00 p.m. a crowd came to the house of Maniraj shouting "Chor Ayo Chor Ayo." Chandramaya opened the door. The appellant and the other four accused were said to be carrying lathis and torches with them and they searched for Maniraj Tamang and Budhiman Sherpa but having not found them there they went to the house of the appellant. Soon after the deceased asked Phulmaya and Chandramaya to leave the house and these two women accompanied the deceased and had gone about 200 paces when a crowd again came shouting "Chor Ayo Chor Ayo." The two women went and hid themselves in the maize field close by and saw several persons beating the deceased who on receiving injuries fell down. Chandramaya and Phulmaya were then asked to go to the house of the appellant where they remained for the night but were allowed to go back early in the morning. Abhi Mukhia who had been injured had been removed to the house of the appellant.
5. On 27-4-1973 at 11-40 a.m. accused Nim Tshering made a report and thereafter one Mr. P.D. Subba, the then Officer Incharge Rhenock started investigation. He found Abhi Mukhia lying injured in an unconscious state and removed him to the police station where from he was sent to the military hospital at Chalishey through Havildar Karnabir. Thereafter he was removed to the hospital at Gangtok.
6. The deceased was admitted as out door patient on 27-4-1973 and on 30-4-1973 Dr. P.S. Giri did the autopsy of the deceased and found the following injuries :-
1. Haematoma all over the Scalp.
2. A transverse fracture from the right base of the Skull to the left base, involving the right temporal, parietal and left temporal bones.
3. Haematoma over the left parietallobe of the brain.
4. Haemorrhage all over the brain area.
7. The death is said to be due to internal haemorrhage and shock on account of the injuries.
8. On 28-4-1973 the appellant, Dhanbahadur and Bhim Prasad Chettri were put under arrest others having been detained already. Three other
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
