The court emphasized that procedural compliance under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is essential, requiring separate questioning of the accused to ensure fair defense and proper evaluation of evidence, particularly in circumstantial cases.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. By its Judgment dated 29-03-2022, in Sessions Trial Case No.02 of 2021 (State of Sikkim vs. Rabin Rai), the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, convicted the Appellant under Section 304 part II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. The sentence of fine bore a default clause of imprisonment. Aggrieved, the Appellant/Accused now assails the Judgment of Conviction and the Order on Sentence.

2. The First Information Report (for short, “FIR”), Exhibit 1, was lodged by P.W.1, the younger brother of the deceased, informing that on the night of 07-09-2020, the deceased was brutally assaulted by the Appellant/Accused sans reason. In the morning her children found her in a state of unconsciousness with injuries on her body. She was taken to the Soreng Hospital, where her condition deteriorated, hence the prayer for justice. Based on Exhibit 1, the Police Station registered a case against the Appellant under Section 325 IPC, on 08-09-2020, which was investigated into by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer (I.O.). On completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted under Sections 325 and304 IPC against the Appellant.

3. The Prosecution case is that the Appellant and the victim were married in the year 2001-2002. The Appellant was a taxi driver, while the victim owned a grocery store. The victim had two daughters from her previous marriage and one son from the Appellant. On 07-09-2020 at around 1230 hours, the Appellant along with his friends P.Ws 2, 4, 5 and 6 went on a picnic by the river side where they partook of alcohol. From there, at around 1730 hours they proceeded to a hotel at Sombaria where they again had alcohol. Later, in the evening they parted ways to return to their respective homes. When the Appellant reached home an argument broke out between him and his wife, during which the Appellant assaulted the victim with slaps and blows, bruising her face and body and causing her to fall on the floor. Thereafter, he went to sleep. The next morning, on 08-09-2020, he took his taxi and went to work scant realising that the victim was unconscious. At around 08.30 a.m., when P.W.8, their son returned home after opening the shop, he saw his mother had bruises on her face and body and informed his sister P.W.7, who after a while sought help from P.W.2, the Appellant’s friend. At around 09.30 a.m., both P.W.7 and P.W.8 tried to wake their mother, in vain. Thereafter, they called their father over the phone, who came home later in the afternoon with medicines but returned to his work. Meanwhile, P.W.7 went to her maternal uncle and informed him of the incident. At around 03.00 p.m., the Appellant came home and evacuated the victim to the Health Centre at Soreng with the help of P.W.2. The victim was referred to the Central Referral Hospital (CRH), Manipal, Gangtok. On 08-11-2020, the victim succumbed to her injuries at the Health Centre, Soreng after having been in a persistent vegetative state from 08-09-2020.

4. Before this Court, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant advanced the argument that the Appellant was only guilty of the offence of hurt and not of culpable homicide as the victim had passed away two months after the incident. That, Exhibit 8, the Medical Report of the victim is revelatory of the fact that the victim had sustained only grievous injuries, duly confirmed by P.W.11, the Doctor who had examined her immediately after the alleged incident. The Appellant’s Medical Report, Exhibit 11 does not reveal any injuries on his body that point