The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, relying on reliable and corroborative evidence. The judgment also emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of witness testimonies, the importance of establishing motive, and the inadmissibility of certain statements.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing in Sessions Trial Case No.02/2018 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, IPC). The learned Sessions Judge, Sikkim had sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. It is also to be noticed that learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim had awarded compensation to the minor daughter of the deceased and the appellant, who is aged about 13-14 years, a sum of Rs.1 lakh under Sikkim Compensation to the Victims or his Dependants Amendment Scheme, 2016.

3. The appellant is accused of mariticide. An FIR was lodged by one Naresh Chettri, Sub-Inspector of Police of Gyalshing Police Station before the Station House Officer(SHO), Gyalshing Police Station on 06.04.2018 at about 11:45 pm stating that on being directed, he had visited Yuksom Public Health Centre (PHC), and it was learnt upon enquiry that at around 09.45 pm, one Nima Tshering Lepcha was declared brought dead by the Medical Officer of PHC, Yuksam with alleged history of murder by his wife by poisoning him with rat poison and by assaulting him with wooden log on his head. On the basis of the said FIR, G.P.S Case No.17/2018 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant and the SHO had taken up the investigation himself.

4. After completion of investigation, finding that a prima facie case is made out against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, charge sheet was submitted on 31.05.2018. Subsequently, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing Sessions Trial Case No.02/2018 was registered. Charge being read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses and the accused had also examined two witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of materials on record including the evidence of the doctor (PW-21), who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, and the Forensic Report (Exhibit-17), which revealed that the viscera of the deceased tested negative for poison, held that the allegation of the prosecution that the accused had poisoned the deceased had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge held that voluntary extra- judicial confession made by the accused to PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8 is a strong circumstance pointing unerringly towards commission of the offence by the accused. Learned Sessions Judge held that PW-4, who was declared hostile, must have been won over by the accused being a friend. It was also held that recovery of the fire-wood, the weapon of offence, in the bed room of the accused is also a vital link in the circumstances. The probability of the deceased sustaining injuries in the form of an assault elsewhere was discounted holding that in such an event the deceased would have gone for seeking medical attention. The evidence of DW-1 was considered unbelievable and unreliable in view of evidence of PW-4, the hostile witness. Evidence of DW-2 was found to be not convincing because of evidence of PW-8.

7. Ms. Puja Lamichaney, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court committed error of law as well as of facts in convicting the appellant in as much as the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that prosecution had hoisted a false case against her and had also falsely introduced poisoning of her husband by her. She submits that the learned trial Court committed manifest error of law in relying upon on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-1, 3 and 4 and 8. She submits that there is glaring contradiction on vital aspects going to the root of the prosecution case and as such the appellan