Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
Kaziman Gurung, S/o Late Lall Bahadur Gurung - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 14 of 2015
Decided on : 26-07-2017
The Appellant was convicted of attempt to murder under Section 307 and robbery under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was that the Appellant had assaulted the victim with a sharp weapon and snatched his bag containing money. The Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated. The trial court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to a total of three years and six months of imprisonment. The Appellant appealed the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Suresh Kumar Singhal, was walking home from his lottery shop on the evening of July 23, 2013, when he was attacked by the Appellant. The Appellant hit the victim in the neck with a sharp weapon and stole his bag, which contained approximately Rs. 4,000. The victim was taken to the hospital, where he received treatment for his injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the Appellant guilty of attempt to murder and robbery based on the following evidence: * The victim's testimony that the Appellant had assaulted him and stolen his bag. * The testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the Appellant fleeing the scene of the crime. * The recovery of the stolen bag from the Appellant's possession. * The Appellant's confession to the police.
Issues: The main issues in the appeal were: * Whether the trial court had erred in convicting the Appellant based on the evidence presented. * Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court upheld the Appellant's conviction, finding that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and that the Appellant's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court also upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court, finding that it was appropriate given the seriousness of the Appellant's crimes.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
1. A Trial of the offences under Section 307 and Section 392 IPC conducted by the Learned Session Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter the learned Session Judge) resulted in the conviction of the Appellant on both the charges after examining 17 witnesses. The Appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of the Learned Session Judge dated 24.07.2015 (hereinafter the impugned Judgment) and the order on sentence dated 27.07.2015 (hereinafter the impugned sentence). The present Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2015 (hereinafter the present Appeal) seeks to assail both the impugned Judgment and impugned sentence.
2. On 23.07.2013, Dr. Sangeeta Pradhan, Medical Officer in Sir Thutob Namgyal Memorial Hospital (hereinafter the STNM Hospital), Gangtok, examined a patient, one Suresh Agarwal, found a deep cut injury in front portion of his neck and lodged an FIR with the Sadar Police Station.
3. Around the same time Sub Inspector (S.I.), Rinku Wangmu Bhutia of Sadar Police Station, Gangtok received a telephonic information from Bhim Bahadur Basnett, former Superintendent of Police about the incident, on the basis of which FIR number 182/2013 dated 23.07.2013 under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter the IPC) was registered at 2010 hrs against unknown person(s) and investigation taken up.
4. On completion of investigation, the Prosecution filed a charge-sheet No. 199 dated 01.10.2013 (hereinafter the charge-sheet) u/s 307 and 392 of the IPC.
5. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed on 17.10.2013 on receipt of forensic report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter RFSL), Saramsa, Ranipool.
6. On 30.05.2014 the Court of the Principal Session Judge, East Sikkim, Gangtok, framed two charges as under:-
“Firstly – That you on 23.07.2013 at around 8 p.m at Diesel Power House Road, Gangtok, East Sikkim under the jurisdiction of Sadar P.S., East Sikkim, did an act, to wit, you used a knife to cut the throat of the victim Suresh Agarwal with such knowledge that under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of the said Suresh Agarwal, you would have been guilty of murder and by the said Act you caused hurt to Suresh Agarwal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, 1860, and within my cognizance.
Secondly- that you on the same date, day , time and place as above committed robbery by taking a bag belonging to the victim Suresh Agarwal, containing a sum of Rs. 4,840/- (Rupees four thousand, eight hundred and forty) only, which was the property of the said Suresh Agarwal and in his possession and which you robbed him of in the Diesel Power House Road, Gangtok, East Sikkim at about 8 p.m. and thereby committed an offence under Section 392 of the IPC, 1860, and within my cognizance.”
7. The Appellant having pleaded not guilty the case was put to trial.
8. The Prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
9. After the Prosecution closed its evidence, examination of the Appellant u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter the Cr.P.C) was recorded on 10.06.2015 by the learned Session’s Judge.
10. Although an opportunity to enter his defence was granted to the Appellant, the Appellant declined.
11. On 24.07.2015 the learned Session Judge rendered the impugned Judgment holding, inter-alia, that the Prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant u/s 307 and 392 of the IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the Appellant stands convicted and liable to be sentenced in accordance with law.
12. On 27.07.2015, the Learned Session Judge sentenced the Appellant to undergo (i) simple imprisonment for one year and six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 IPC and in default of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months; (ii) imprisonment for one year and six months along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 392 IPC and in default of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The sentences were to run consecu
AI
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
