Extra-judicial confessions made to non-police witnesses remain admissible if voluntary, whereas those made in police custody are inadmissible. Identification parades are not mandatory when witnesses identify the accused at the crime scene. Procedural irregularities in the chain of custody do not invalidate forensic reports absent proof of tampering.

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. Whether the Appellant committed the murder of the victim, his grandmother, is the question that craves determination in the instant matter.

2. The Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Gangtok District, Sikkim, vide the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 30-08-2024, in Sessions Trial Case No. 01 of 2023 ( State of Sikkim vs. Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily ), convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only.

3. Before embarking on the merits of the matter, for clear comprehension, a brief summation of the Prosecution narrative is essential. The Appellant then aged about 29 years, attacked the victim, his grandmother, aged about 82 years, with a sharp object on her throat on 01-11-2022, around 1130 hours, at Majhi Gaon. She was evacuated to the Rangpo PHC by her relatives where they reached at around 1155 hours. The Doctor on Duty PW-2, informed the Station House Officer (SHO), Rangpo PS, via “Call Book Intimation” that, a lady had been brought dead to the PHC with her throat cut, which could possibly be homicidal. At around 1224 hours, the SHO Rangpo PS, also received information from Lnk Dawa Tamang, PW-18 about the assault. At around 1259 hours, the Appellant was apprehended near the riverside and brought to the Rangpo PS by PW-18, with the help of other persons of the locality, including off duty India Reserve Battalion (IRBn) personnel, who were off duty and reside in the same colony as the deceased and the Appellant:

(i) Investigation was endorsed to PW-22, the IO of the case, who on completion of the investigation filed Charge-Sheet against the Appellant, under Sections 302/201 of the IPC. Charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by the Trial Court, to which he entered a plea of “not guilty” and claimed trial. Such plea was followed by the examination of twenty- two witnesses of the Prosecution, to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant was afforded the opportunity of explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him as provided by Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in which he claimed innocence. After hearing the final arguments of the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court pronounced the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence.

4. While concluding that the Appellant was responsible for the murder, the Learned Trial Court observed as follows:

(i) the testimonies of PWs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 20 establish that the Appellant, his sister, his niece and the deceased used to reside together at Majhi Gaon at the relevant time.

(ii) The evidence of PWs 1, 9, 10 establish that at the time of the incident they saw the Appellant and the deceased together.

(iii) PW-1, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-18 all heard a lady scream. PW-10 saw the Appellant standing near the old lady who was on the ground. The Appellant looked towards them and fled towards the riverside. PW-10 and PW-18 both noticed a profusely bleeding cut injury on the neck of the deceased.

(iv) Thereafter, PW-18 went in pursuit of the Appellant along with people from the locality.

(v) MO-1, a surgical blade was furnish