JUDGMENT

Date : 19-04-2022 (K. R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the applicant, namely, Shri Tulen Manki as well as Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP representing the State.

2. This is a jail appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Khonsa in KSA Sessions Case No.50/2019 by which the appellant was convicted of the offence committed under Section 304/201 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 304 IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years for offence under Section 201 IPC with fine of Rs.5000/- with default clauses operating for non-payment of fine. This jail appeal was forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Tezu. Accordingly, this is an appeal from conviction under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. This Court vide order dated 17.02.2020, had appointed Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel as the Amicus Curiae.

3. The prosecution had started rolling on the basis of an FIR dated 18.12.2017, lodged by one Litwang Lowang before the Officer-in- Charge, Deomali Police Station, alleging that on the previous night one of his labourer, namely, Shri Noresh Gowala, aged about 55 years, was killed by the appellant and his mother, namely, Smti. Reena Manki and that both the accused had burnt the dead body by burning the cowshed and thereafter buried the dead body to escape from their crime in order to mislead the law. In course of time, on completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet No.05/2018, dated

09.03.2018, was submitted against the appellant. It may be mentioned here that on the ground that no clinching evidence could be collected against the co-accused, Reena Manki was released on her own bond by the learned Trial Court. In course of trial, charges were framed against the appellant by order dated 07.05.2019 under Section 454 IPC, 304 Part-I IPC and 201 IPC.

4. The prosecution had examined 5 (five) witnesses viz, Liwang Lowang (PW-1), Shri Anik Tanti (PW-2), Dr. Pongkhu Monwangham (PW-3), who had conducted the Post-Mortem examination, Shri Nokpam Lowang (PW-4), Sub-Inspector of Police and Shri Kagum Nomu (PW-5), Inspector of Police.

5. On the basis of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and formulated the following points for determination:-

(i) Whether the accused person namely Tulen Manki has committed the offence of lurking house trespass or house breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment;

(ii) Whether the accused Tulen Manki has caused death of late Lt. Noresh Gowala with the intention of causing such bodily injury with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death and is punishable

you U/s 304 IPC;

(iii) Whether accused Tulen Manki has burnt down the cowshed with the

dead body of Noresh Gowala and thereafter buried the half burnt dead body of Noresh Gowala with intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence and thereby punishable under Section 201 IPC.

6. In respect of determination of point No. 1, the trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 454 IPC. It is from the evidence of the PWs’, the learned Trial Court had culled out the circumstances of the alleged crime and held that the appellant had falsely alleged before PW. 1 on the next morning of crime that the deceased had assaulted him and fled away and arrived at a conclusion that the entire materials on record led to the fact that none other than the appellant has assaulted the deceased with an intention to kill him and accordingly, holding that the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt, held the appellant guilty of committing offence under Section 304 IPC. In respect of determination of point No.3, it was held that the weapo