Point of Law: Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Whether conviction justified - Ante mortem injuries noted by Dr. in his post mortem report leads to only hypothesis that appellant knew that such act of his which caused multiple injuries on head of deceased was likely to cause his death - Dr. (PW-15) opinion that cause of death was due to intra-cranial haemorrhage as a result of fractured skull due to multiple blunt force injury and it was homicidal in nature, is convincing and backed by postmortem examination - Hence Conviction justified.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The appellant convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing (the learned Sessions Judge) under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) seeks to challenge both the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 23.09.2019, in Sessions Trial Case No. 07 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Sudeep Rai). The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Heard Ms Tshering Palmoo Bhutia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no eye witnesses in the present case and therefore, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. She submits that the circumstantial evidence has not been proved in the manner required and there are broken links in the chain of circumstances. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have taken note of the examination-in-chief but ignored the cross-examination. It is further submitted that even the learned Sessions Judge has discarded the purported disclosure statement (Exhibit-3). The learned counsel took this Court through the various depositions of the prosecution witnesses pointing out various discrepancies which would, according to her, seriously dent the prosecution case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vithal Tukaram More and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20 and Umakant and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 7 SCC 405 were relied upon. The judgment of this Court in Binod Pradhan and Another vs. State of Sikkim, (2019) SCC online Sik 227 was also referred to.

4. In Vithal Tukaram More (supra), the Supreme Court noted its earlier judgment in State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300, in which it was held, “11. ………… that the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are: (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (d) the circumstances should to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.”

5. In Umakant (supra), the Supreme Court held, inter-alia, that the burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt and if the views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The judgment of this Court in Binod Pradhan (supra) which dealt with an allegation of rape is not found relevant.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly convicted the appellant. He pointed out the various circumstances taken note of by the learned sessions Judge in paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment and submitted that each of these circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt and they form an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the only hypothesis that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who is guilty for the offence.

7. The FIR dated 11.09.2018 was lodged by Sandeep Rai (PW-4) alleging that his brother Randip Rai was hit on the head by the youngest brother, the appellant, using a hammer and that he had been admitted to the Mangalbaria hospital. It was also asserted that his brother Randip Rai was hit on the varandah of his house at around 7:00 p.m. As per the prosecution, Randip Rai succumbed to his injuries on 12.09.2018. The investigation was conducted by Police Inspector Bimal Gurung (PW-16) (Investigating Officer), who, on the closure of the investigation filed the charge-sheet dated 14.1