Manipur High Court
Thangmeisohoram vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 17 June, 2021
KABORAMB
Page 1 of 46
AM LARSON
Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KABORAMBAM LARSON AT IMPHAL
Date: 2021.06.21
12:44:34 +05'30'
Criminal Jail Appeal No.4 of 2013
ThangmeisoHoram, aged about 32 years, S/o H.R. Luingam
of Halang Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur.
.... Respondent/s
With Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
H.R. Mashungmi, aged about 30 years, S/o VareyoHoram of
Halang Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur.
.... Respondent/s
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Appellant/s : Mr. K. Modhusudon, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. H. Samarjit, Ld. PP
Date of Hearing : 08.04.2021
Judgment & Order : 17.06.2021.
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
[1] These appeals arise out of the judgment made in S.T.
Case No.10/2006/11/2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Manipur East, convicting the appellants-accused for an offence under
Section 304 Part II IPC, and sentencing them to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
[2] Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
[2.1] On 31.07.2004 at around 2.30 p.m., the deceased
Penmi, younger brother of the complainant, who was mentally
unsound, was taken to VachonTharam of Halang village by the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
appellants- accused and physically assaulted seriously at the said spot
and as a result, Penmi succumbed to the injuries.
[2.2] One SomtharKeidam set the law in motion. On the basis
of complaint lodged by the said SomtharKeidam, an FIR bearing
No.8(8)2004 was registered by the Ukhrul Police Station under Section
302/34 IPC against the appellants-accused.
[2.3] P.W.4-Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the
complaint from SomtharKeidam and upon registration of the FIR on
1.8.2004 at 12.30 p.m., went to Halang village and found the dead body
of Penmi lying at the house of S. Lamyang, elder brother of Penmi. He
had conducted inquest on the dead body of Penmi and took
photographs. Thereafter, P.W.4 seized one G.I. Pipe of 1 Inch
diameter, 4 feet in length on production by Ram Somthar, elder brother
of the deceased Penmi, under seizure memo Ex.P9. Thereafter, P.W.4
brought the dead body to Ukhrul Police Station for conducting post-
mortem as there was no mortuary at the District Hospital, Ukhrul. Dr.
Chesti conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Penmi and
had issued Ex.P5 post-mortem report and thereafter, P.W.4 handed
over the body to the family members of the deceased.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[2.4] On 2.8.2004, P.W.4 arrested the appellants-accused
from their respective houses and remanded them to judicial custody.
After completing the investigation and after examining the witnesses,
P.W.4 filed Ex.P6-charge sheet against the appellants-accused under
Section 302/34 IPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
[3] After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the
case was taken on file as S.T. Case No.10/2006/11/2006 and
thereafter, transferred to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Manipur East for trial.
[4] To substantiate the charges against the appellants-
accused in the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs. P1
to P12 and M.O.1 were marked. The appellants-accused were
questioned about the incriminating circumstance and evidence under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.3.2013. The appellants-accused denied all
of them and pleaded that a false case was foisted against them.
[5] Upon consideration of the oral documentary evidence,
the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no eye witness to the
alleged incident and therefore the case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The trial Court, further held that the deceased Penmi was
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
chased by the appellants-accused and assaulted the deceased.
However, the trial Court held that the assault caused to the deceased
was not with an intention to kill him, but due to sudden provocation of
his assault to some women of their village and therefore, Section 302
read with 34 IPC would not attract. Accordingly, the trial Court
convicted the appellants-accused under Section 304 Part II IPC vide
judgment dated 15.7.2013 and the case was adjourned to 25.7.2013 for
sentencing. On 25.7.2013, the trial Court sentenced the appellants-
accused to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304
Part II IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo 6
months rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court has also ordered that
50% of the fine amount shall be given to the legal heirs of the
deceased. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellants-accused, the appellants-accused havepreferred these jail
appeals.
[6] The prosecution version hinges on circumstantial
evidence. In every case, based upon circumstantial evidence and in
this case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether
all the links in the chain of circumstances is so complete pointing to the
guilt of the accused to rule out possibility of innocence of accused.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[7] P.W.1-K.H. Tuisem, who is a relative of the deceased,
has deposed that on the day in the year 2004 at around 2.00 p.m.,
while he was doing domestic work, he saw the deceased Penmi come
running. He asked Penmi what happened, but Penmi did not reply.
After a while, the appellants-accused also came running. He asked the
appellants-accused, why they are chasing Penmi. The appellants-
accused replied that the said Penmi had beaten up some women, so
they are chasing him. Thereafter, he had no knowledge. At around 3.00
p.m., he heard that Penmi was brought back to his house as he was
beaten by the appellants-accused. When P.W.1 reached the house of
Penmi, he was lying on the bed and after some time Penmi expired.
[8] In his evidence, P.W.2-Chinaongam Chamroy deposed
that on the day in the year 2004, when he was returning from his farm,
he saw Penmi running towards him and after some minutes the
accused were seen running towards Penmi. However, P.W.2 was
declared as hostile witness as requested by the Public Prosecutor and
in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 stated that he
never gave his statement to the investigating officer of the case.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[9] P.W.3 is David Somdhar, who is the eldest brother of the
deceased Penmi. In his evidence, P.W.3 stated that he was residing at
Ukhrul since the year 1982. In the morning of 1.8.2004, one Ringphami
of Halang village came to his house and informed him that his brother
Penmi was killed by the accused. Thereafter, he along with his father-
in-law came to Halang village. When he reached Halang village, he
found some police personnel led by the Sub Inspector and he also saw
one Doctor. The Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the body
of the deceased Penmi in the presence of the Doctor and at that time
he saw many injury marks on the body of the deceased. P.W.3 stated
that he signed in the inquest report.
[10] P.W.4 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who investigated
the case and deposed that on 1.8.2004 at 12.30 p.m., he got the
complaint from SomtharKeidam of Halang village stating that on
31.7.2004 at around 2.30 p.m., one PenmiSomthar of Halang village,
who is a mentally unsound person, was taken to VachonTharam of
Halang village by the accused and physically assaulted him seriously at
the said place. The matter of assault or manhandling was informed to
the family members of Penmi on the same day by the accused
themselves. When the family members of Penmi rushed to the spot,
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
PenmiSomthar was found mortally wounded and he was brought home.
However, he died at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. In his evidence, P.W.4
further stated that a case being FIR No.8(8)2004 Ukl. P.S. U/s 302/34
IPC was registered and he was assigned the investigation. He went to
Halang village and also visited the spot. The dead body of S. Penmi
was lying at the house of S. Lamyang, elder brother of deceased P.W.4
conducted inquest and had taken photographs and he had also seized
on G.I. Pipe on production by Ram Somthar, elder brother of the
deceased, under Ex.P9-seizure memo. Then the dead body was
brought to Ukhrul Police Station for post-mortem as there was no
mortuary at the District Hospital, Ukhrul. After conducting post-mortem,
the body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. On
the next day, P.W.4 arrested the appellants-accused and after
completing the investigation, P.W.4 filed the charge sheet under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants-accused.
[11] Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that the chain of evidence is so complete
and there is no other reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the appellants-accused and it clearly shows that
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
in all human probability the act had been done only by the appellants-
accused.
[12] Assailing the findings arrived at by the trial Court and
also conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-accused, the
learned counsel for the appellants-accused has made the following
submissions:
* That the prosecution failed to produce any of the eye witnesses in
the crime.
* That there is no evidence to show that the appellants-accused
assaulted the deceased Penmi.
* That nobody deposed that the deceased Penmi was lying at the
place of occurrence in a serious condition.
* That nobody stated that the deceased was brought home from the
place of occurrence in a serious condition.
* That the inquest of the deceased was done at the residence of S.
Ramyang at Halang village on 1.8.2004 at 4.50 p.m. On the other
hand, the post-mortem over the dead body was conducted at
Ukhrul police station on 1.8.2004 at 4.50 p.m. The distance
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
between Halang village and Ukhrul police station is about 30 kms.
and it took about one hour journey.
* That M.O.1-G.I. pipe was seized on production by the elder brother
of the deceased and the same was submitted at the time of filing of
the charge sheet.
* Neither the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem nor the
informant of the case was examined as witnesses.
* That no witnesses depose that Exs.P7 and P10-photographs
belong to the deceased and that the photographer has not been
cited and examined as prosecution witness.
* That there are lot of contradictions in the evidences of the
prosecution witnesses.
* That the trial Court ignoring the innocence of the appellants-
accused, convicted them despite the fact that sufficient
circumstances demanding the benefit of doubt in favour of the
appellants-accused in the trial and as such, the trial Court has
failed to apply its judicial mind while convicting the appellants-
accused.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[13] Making the above submissions and taking us to the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses and relying upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh Patel v.
State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791; Madhu v. State of Kerala,
(2012) 2 SCC 399; Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621
and V. Vijay Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 628, it is prayed to
allow these jail appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the
trial Court.
[14] These appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor by contending that after examining the
testimonies of the witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that
the appellants-accused had beaten the deceased to death. Insofar as
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused
regarding non-production of other material witnesses and discrepancies
of statements about the timing of conducting inquest and post-mortem
over the dead body of the deceased, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor contended that evidences are to be assessed to the quality
of evidence and not to the quantity and that those discrepancies are not
material contradictions which may vitiate the entire prosecution case.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[15] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submitted that P.W.1 has clearly deposed before the trial Court that he
saw the deceased come running and thereafter, the accused also came
running and when he asked them why they were chasing the
deceased, the appellants-accused replied that the deceased had
beaten some women and so, they chased him and therefore, it is for
the appellants-accused who had beaten the deceased and caused
death. Therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 302 read
with 34 of IPC. However, the trial Court, by citing certain decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, convicted the appellants-accused under
Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced them to undergo 5 years
rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the State has not
preferred an appeal against the said lesser conviction, taking note of
the evidences produced by the prosecution, the High Court may convict
the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and impose major
sentence accordingly.
[16] This Court considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants-accused and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[17] As per the story of the prosecution, on 31.7.2004 at
around 2.30 p.m., the appellants-accused have taken the deceased
Penmi to a place called VachonTharam of Halang village and physically
assaulted him at the said spot and as a result, Penmi succumbed to
injuries.
[18] Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the plea of the
prosecution that the appellants-accused have taken the deceased
Penmi to VachonTharam. In his complaint, the complainant
SomtharKeidam has stated as under:
"I beg to call attention and state the following for your kind and
necessary action thereof. That Mr. Penmi (30) is a mentally
unsound person. On 31st July 2004 at around 2.30 he was
taken to (Vachontharam) by Mr. ThangmeisoHoram and H.R.
Masungmi, both from Halang village, and physically assaulted
him seriously at the said spot. Firstly, the matter of man
handling by the above two persons to my brother late Mr.
PenmiSomthar was informed to the family by the above two
culprits. When members of my family rushed to the spot Mr.
Late Penmi was found mentally wounded. He was brought to
his house immediately. However, succumbed to his mortal
would at around 5 p.m. on the same day. Therefore, the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
bereaved family would like to appeal to authority to
immediately take necessary steps against the culprits."
[19] As per the complainant, the appellants-accused
physically assaulted Penmi seriously at VachonTharam. A reading of
the complaint, proceeds as though SomtharKeidam had directly
witnessed the occurrence. But, the complainant SomtharKeidam has
not turned up and deposed before the Court. If really the appellants-
accused have taken the deceased Penmi to VachonTharam for
assaulting, the complainant SomtharKeidam, who is none other than
the elder brother of the deceased Penmi, ought to have come to the
Court and deposed about the occurrence. On account of the failure of
the complainant to come and depose before the trial Court, it is highly
doubtful whether SomtharKeidam had witnessed the occurrence.
[20] The prosecution examined one K.H. Tuisem as P.W.1,
who has deposed that on day in the year 2004 at around 2 p.m. while
he was doing domestic works, he saw Penmi come running and when
he asked him why did he was running, Penmi did not reply.
Thereafter, the appellants-accused also came running after Penmi
and when P.W.1 asked them why they are chasing Penmi, they
replied that Penmi had beaten some women and so they chased him.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
The said deposition of P.W.1 is entirely different from what the
complainant has stated in his complaint. P.W.1 further went on to
state that the appellants-accused followed Penmi and then he did not
know what had happened, however, at about 3.00 p.m., he heard that
Penmi was brought back to his house due to beaten by the
appellants-accused and he had also went to the house of Penmi,
where he saw lying of Penmi in a bed inside the house by covering his
body with a cloth. At the time of his visit, some of his family members
gave a glass of water and after some minutes, Penmi was expired.
The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that he has not directly
witnessed the alleged assault on the deceased Penmi said to have
been made by the appellants-accused. He only heard that Penmi was
brought back to his house as he was beaten by the appellants-
accused. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he was a
relative to the deceased Penmi.
[21] P.W.2 has turned hostile by stating that in the year
2004 one day, when he was returning from their family farm located at
Khamu jungle, he met Penmi running towards him and he was
running away and within after some minutes, the appellants-accused
also running towards him and they also running towards Penmi and
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
after that he has no knowledge. P.W.2 also not specifically stated that
the appellants-accused assaulted the deceased Penmi. During the
cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 stated that
he did not give any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the
investigating officer. Since P.W.2 turned hostile, the only evidence
available to prove the prosecution case is P.W.1 and no other witness
was examined to prove the occurrence.
[22] The reading of evidence of P.W.1, who is a relative of
the deceased, it is seen that the deceased had beaten some women
and therefore, the appellants-accused chased him. According to the
complainant, the deceased Penmi was mentally unsound person.
P.W.4 also stated that the deceased Penmi was mentally unsound
person. When a mentally unsound person was running, how p.W.1
was able to ask him why he was running. Therefore, it is highly
doubtful that the appellants-accused had chased the deceased Penmi
on the fateful day and P.W.1 witnessed the same. It is also possible
for an unsound person like the deceased for doing some naughty
things, for which, there is every likelihood of the family members
beating the deceased. In his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the P.W.1 stated
that the appellants-accused running chasing after late Penmi and they
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
were also empty handed and no weapons are found on their hands.
Thus, the circumstances stated by the prosecution do not link the
appellants-accused who have said to have assaulted the deceased
and caused the death.
[23] In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, the trial
Court held as under:
"On going through minutely the testimony of all the
P.W.s particularly, P.W.1, it is evident that the
deceased S. Penmi was chased by the accused
persons and when he enquired about their chasing the
accused persons told him that the deceased Penmi
beaten some women and so they chased him. Thus, it
is very clear that the said incident was happened while
the deceased committed some unwanted acts,
suddenly. Therefore, I am of the considered view that
the assault/beating caused to the said S. Penmi by the
accused persons was not within the intention to kill him
but due to sudden provocation of his assault to some
women of their village. Nevertheless, the accused
persons had beaten severely with furthereanceof their
common intention with a G.I. Pipe and thus, I come to
the conclusion that the accused persons committed the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
act of beating/assaulting to S. Penmi was done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death."
[24] The aforesaid conclusion of the trial Court that the
assault/beating caused to Penmi by the accused by chasing has no
basis, as P.W.1 has not directly seen the assault by the appellants-
accused on the deceased Penmi. As stated supra, in his evidence,
P.W.1 has clearly stated that the appellants-accused followed the
deceased Penmi and he does not know what had happened
thereafter. When such being the evidence of P.W.1, how the trial
Court could arrive at the conclusion that the assault/beating caused to
the said S. Penmi by the accused persons. In fact, in his statement,
P.W.4 the investigating officer, stated that the deceased was an
unsound person and unwanted by the villagers of Halang village.
Thus, there is every possibility of thinking that the assault of the
deceased Penmi may be caused by any villager or self-accident or
beaten by the family members of the deceased with the presumption
that M.O.1-G.I. Pipe was seized on production by Ram Somthar, who
is the elder brother of the deceased Penmi. In fact, the investigating
officer has failed to record the statement of neighbouring people of the
deceased. In view of the above, there is suspicion that the real fact of
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
the case has been concealed by the prosecution. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in arriving at the
conclusion that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused assaulted/beated the deceased by using
M.O.1-G.I. Pipe and as a result, Penmi succumbed to injuries.
[25] In the instant case, P.W.3, who is the eldest brother of
the deceased, stood as witness to the inquest report. In his evidence,
P.W.3 deposed that on 1.8.2004 in the morning one K.R. Rengphami
of Halang village came to his house and informed him that his
younger brother S. Penmi was killed by the accused who is now in the
dock. Immediately, he along with his father-in-law proceeded to
Halang village and when he reached to his brother house, he found
some police personnel led by P.W.4 and also found one Doctor from
the District Hospital. P.W.4 conducted inquest on the dead body in his
presence and other witnesses, including the Doctor and he witnessed
Ex.P1-inquest report. However, in his evidence, P.W.4 stated that he
and his police team visited the spot and the dead body of late
PenmiSomthar has been already brought to the house of S. Lamyang,
elder brother of the deceased. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that
P.W.4 and the Doctor left the house suddenly when he reached his
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
native village i.e. Halang village. In his evidence, P.W.4 stated that he
reached Halang village at about 2.50 p.m. and thereafter, he returned
Ukhrul police station at 6.30 p.m. P.W.4 also stated that he did not
examine any witness and recorded statement at Halang village on
1.8.2004. According to the prosecution, in the presence of two
witnesses namely R. Aleng and S. David, P.W.4 conducted inquest
over the dead body of late S. Penmi.
[26] It appears that in his evidence, P.W.3 stated that on
1.8.2004, he reached Halang village at around 8.30 a.m. and the S.I.
of Police and the Doctor left the house of his brother after a few
minutes when he reached the house. Admittedly, the complaint was
lodged on 1.8.2004 at 12.30 p.m. and P.W.4 stated that he
reachedHalang village at about 2.50 p.m. Thus, there is a doubt over
the evidence of P.W.3. This Court is also of the view that there is a
doubt that the statements of all witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
was done by the investigating officer at table work so as to enable to
file the charge sheet without the consent of the said witnesses.
[27] By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Hema v. State, through Inspector of Police,
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
Madras, (2013) 10 SCC 192, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that in case of a defective investigation the Court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect.
[28] In Hema(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"18. It is clear that merely because of some defect in
the investigation, lapse on the part of the investigating
officer, it cannot be a ground for acquittal. Further, even
if there had been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions, etc., it is the
obligation on the part of the Court to scrutinize the
prosecution evidence dehors such lapses to find out
whether the said evidence is reliable or not and
whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the
truth."
[29] When we examine the instant case in the light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hema(supra),
this Court finds that this is a case of not only a defective investigation,
but also failure on the part of the investigating officer to visit the
occurrence place and prepare a rough sketch. In his evidence, P.W.4
stated that he and his police party along with the complainant left the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
spot i.e., VachonTharam for inspection. Admittedly, P.W.4 has not
produced the rough sketch of the place of occurrence though he
stated that he had prepared the rough sketch. As could be seen from
the evidence of P.W.4 that on receipt of the complaint, he rushed to
the house where the dead body kept and after conducting the inquest,
he brought the dead body to Ukhrul police station and after
conducting the post-mortem, handed over the body to the family
members of the deceased.
[30] The learned counsel for the appellants-accused
submitted that there are contradictory statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4.
P.W.3 stated that the dead body was never brought to any place,
whereas P.W.4 stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken
to Ukhrul police station by P.W.4 and his party. Likewise, there are
contradictory statements of P.W.1 and P.W.4. P.W.1 stated that the
appellants-accused chased him, whereas P.W.4 stated that Penmi
was taken by the appellants-accused. Admittedly, there are
contradictions in the evidences of prosecution witnesses.
[31] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the prosecution was able to prove by sufficient evidence beyond
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
reasonable doubt that on the fateful day the appellants-accused
chased the deceased Penmi and physically assaulted and because of
the physical assault, Penmi succumbed to injuries. There is no force
in the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as
nothing on record to link the appellants-accused to the alleged
occurrence.
[32] The trial Court, very much relied upon the oral
testimony of P.W.1 in convicting the appellants-accused as his
testimony was not shaken in the cross-examination by the appellants-
accused. This Court does not find any trustworthiness in the
statement of P.W.1, as P.W.1 has not directly seen that the
appellants-accused physically assaulting the deceased. As stated
supra, in his evidence, P.W.1 clearly stated that he heard that
Penmiwas brought back to his house as he was beaten by the
accused persons. In the earlier part of evidence also P.W.1 clearly
stated that the accused persons followed Penmi and then P.W.1
deposed that he does not know what had happened thereafter. When
such being the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court ought not to have
believed the evidence of P.W.1 for convicting the appellants-accused
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
on his sole testimony. Further, the only oral testimony of P.W.1 is also
not enough to link the appellants-accused to the alleged occurrence.
[33] According to the prosecution, the motive behind the
appellants-accused in assaulting the deceased is the deceased
Penmihad beaten some women and so, the appellants-accused
chased him and physically assaulted. The said motive has not been
clearly established by the prosecution even though in his cross-
examination, P.W.4 denied the suggestion that the deceased S.
Penmi died due to beaten by his family members for causing the
disturbance to some local women and not as a result of beating by the
accused persons. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that during
his inquiry about the history of the deceased, his family members as
well as the villagers told him that the deceased was somewhat a
mentally abnormal person and it is true that he was told that the
deceased was an unwanted person by the villagers due to his mental
disorder.
[34] By relying upon the said portion of the deposition of
P.W.4, the learned counsel for the appellants-accused contended that
the family members of the deceased have killed the deceased as he
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
was an unwanted person due to his mental disorder. Though the said
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused has no
material support, the production of M.O.1-G.I. pipe by the elder
brother of the deceased gains credence. If really, the appellants-
accused used M.O.1-G.I. Pipe for assaulting the deceased, how
M.O.1 can be produced by the elder brother of the deceased to
P.W.4. Admittedly, P.W.4 after arrest of the appellants-accused has
not obtained any confessional statements and based on the
confessional statements, P.W.4 seized material objects. In the
absence of any leading recovery from the appellants-accused, how it
could be said that M.O.1 was used by the appellants-accused during
the commission of the offence. Further, nothing on record to show that
M.O.1 was sent to forensic sciences department for chemical
analysis.
[35] In the instant case, the Doctor who had conducted the
post-mortem on the dead body of Penmi has not been examined by
the prosecution. In fact, the post-mortem report was marked through
P.W.4 as Ex.P5 and therefore, the trial Court erred in relying upon the
post-mortem report.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[36] After extracting the internal and external injuries on the
body of the deceased and also opinion of the Doctor; the trial Court, in
paragraph 10, held as under:
"EXTERNAL INJURIES:
1) MULTIPLE ABRASIONS ON RIGHT SIDE
FOREHEAD
2) LACERATIONS -
(i) 4 cm. X 1 cm. bone deep on left sideforehead
just above left eye brow.
(ii) 1 cm. X 1 cm. on left side face over (L) check
prominence.
3) Multiple (diffuse) bruise marks on the back - middle
1/3rd back - both on right & left sides - over scapular
region to the middle 1/3rdback.
4) Multiple abrasions over dorsal aspect of forearm &
over dorsum of (L) hand.
5) Depression deformity on the back of the left side.
6) Multiple bruises on the back of both thighs &calfs
(lower legs).
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
INTERNAL APPEARANCE:
A. HEAD, NECK AND SPINAL COLUMN:
a) Scalp - Laceration - 4 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left
eyebrow.
b) Skull - No fractures.
c) Meninges and Vessels - No injuries.
d) Brain - No injuries.
e) Vertebrae and Spinal Cord - No injuries.
f) Orbital, Aural and Nasal Cavities - No injuries.
g) Mouth, Tongue, Pharynx, Larynx and other neck structures
- No injuries.
B. THORAX:
(1)Fracture of (R) Scapula
(2)Fractures of shafts of the 7th, 8th, 9th ribs on posterior
aspect near Casto - Vertebral Joints
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
- Left side.
- Haemopneumothorax left chest.
- Laceration of posterior aspect of left lung middle & lower
lobes.
- Puncture of left pulmonary vessels.
C. ABDOMEN - No injuries.
D. MUSCLES, BONES AND JOINTS:
(A) Fractures of Shafts of 7th, 8th, 9th ribs on left side chest
posterior aspect mentioned.
(B) Fracture of (R) Scapula - Over the spine & the body.
(C) Fractures of Shafts of 3rd, 4th& 5thmeta carpal bones of
right hand.
OPINON OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER AS TO THE CAUSE
OF DEATH: Death is due to massive hemorrhages of
following injuries to left lung & pulmonary vessels causing
acute Cardio-respiratory. The injuries are due to hitting on the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
back by heavy blunt weapon causing fractures of ribs &
visceral injuries & homicidal in nature.
As per the above Post Mortem report, it is crystal clear
that the deceased S.Penmi had caused many External
Injuries, Internal Injuries to the Head, Thorax, Muscles, bones
and joints and the opinion of the Doctor who conducted the
said Post Mortem is that the death is due to massive
hemorrhages of injuries to left lung & pulmonary vessels
causing acute Cardio-respiratory as the injuries are due to
hitting on the back by heavy blunt weapon causing fractures
of ribs & visceral injuries & homicidal in nature. Thus, it is
evident that the death of S.Penmi is homicidal in nature.
Nevertheless, now the question is who had caused that
injuries to the deceased Penmi."
[37] At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that on a thorough reading of the oral testimonies of
theprosecution witnesses, the undisputed factual position is that in Ex.P5
post-mortem report, the Doctor has clearly opined that the death of
S.Pemni was due to massive hemorrhages of injuries to left lung and
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
pulmonary vessels causing acute cardio-respiratory. As stated supra, the
only seizure made by the prosecution in this case is M.0.1-G.I. pipe and
that too the same was produced by the elder brother of the deceased to
P.W.4. Therefore, as stated supra, there is every suspicion that the
appellants-accused have used the M.O.1 G.I. pipe in the alleged
occurrence.
[38] By relying upon the decision in the case of Dhobi Yadav v.
State of Bihar, 1990(1) Crimes 28 (Pat), the learned counsel for the
appellants-accused submitted that the examination of the Doctor who had
conducted post-mortem is essential.
[39] The learned counsel for the appellants-accused also relied
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh
Patel v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:
"12. The High Court has erroneously accepted the findings of the
trial Court that the appellant has not been prejudiced to non-
examination of the doctor for the reason that she was working as a
nurse in the private hospital of PW4 and being a nurse she knew
that the information on commission of rape is grave in nature and
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
she would not have hesitated in giving the information to the police if
the occurrence was true. Further, the finding of the Courts below
that non-examination of the I.O. by the prosecution who has
conducted the investigation in this case has not caused prejudice to
the case of the appellant, since the prosecution witnesses were
unfavourable to the prosecution who were either examined or
declared hostile by the prosecution, which reasoning is wholly
untenable in law. Therefore, the finding and reasons recorded by
both the trial Court as well as the High Court regarding non-
examination of the above said two witnesses in the case has not
prejudiced the case of the appellant is totally an erroneous approach
of the Courts below. For this reason also, we have to hold that the
findings and reasons recorded in the impugned judgment that the
trial Court was justified in holding that the prosecution has proved
the charge against the appellant and that he has committed the
offence on the prosecutrix, is totally erroneous and the same is
wholly unsustainable in law."
[40] There is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution
regarding the non-examination of the post-mortem Doctor and in fact, the
trial Court, very strangely, has taken the non-examination of the Doctor so
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
lightly, which is not appreciable. That apart, the post-mortem report was
marked as Ex.P5 through P.W.4, who is not competent to depose about
the post-mortem report. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants-accused, the non-examination of the Doctor, who conducted the
post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Penmi is fatal to the
prosecution case.
[41] As regards the non-examination of the Doctor, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the death of the
deceased is not disputed or questioned, non-examination of the Doctor will
not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the non-examination of the Doctor is
not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
[42] As stated supra, Ex.P5 post-mortem report was marked
through the investigating officer, P.W.4. Admittedly, nothing on record to
show that P.W.4 examined the Doctor and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. When the appellants-accused disputed their involvement in the
crime and contended that they have not attacked the deceased, the
prosecution ought to have examined the Doctor who conducted the post-
mortem on the dead body of the deceased.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[43] In a murder case, the post-mortem report play a vital role. The
Doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead body if not examined
definitely it would cause prejudice to the defence, as the defence got no
opportunity to cross-examine the Doctor on account of nature of injuries
and whether they were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The
contents of post-mortem report could not be proved through the
investigating officer. Further, if the Doctor concerned is not traceable, then
some other Doctor from the same hospital, who knows the handwriting and
signature of the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem should be
called for evidence as it is admissible under Section 47 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
[44] The non-examination of the Doctor and the nonproduction of
the Doctor's report would not be a fatal to the prosecution case, only if
statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses inspire the
confidence. In the present case, the complainant has not been examined
and the only evidence available is P.W.1 and on a thorough reading of the
evidence of P.W.1, the same does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-examination
of the post-mortem Doctor is fatal to the prosecution case.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[45] In the present case, there is a delay in lodging the complaint.
The delay in setting the law in motion is normally viewed with suspicion as
there are possibilities of introduction of coloured version and
improvements. Upon consideration of facts and evidence of the present
case, this Court finds that the occurrence is stated to have been occurred
on 31.7.2004 at around 2.30 p.m. But the complaint was lodged on the
next day on 1.8.2014 at 12.30 p.m. As stated supra, the complainant was
not examined. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that at 3.00 p.m. on the said
date, he heard that Penmi was brought back to his house due to beaten
and he went to the house of Penmi. Thus, it is clear that when P.W.1
rushed to the house of Penmi, Penmi was alive and he died only at 5.00
p.m. However, P.W.1 and others, including his elder brothers have not
taken efforts to send the injured to the hospital for treatment. They have
also not taken efforts in informing the police about the death of Penmi
immediately on 31.7.2004 at 5.00 p.m. Though the delay in lodging the
complaint is not fatal, the silence adopted by P.W.1, the complainant and
the other family members of the deceased in not taking the injured Penmi
immediately to the hospital and in not informing the policeabout the
Incident gives a doubt about the death of the deceased Penmi.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[46] In the present case, except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no
independent evidence to lend assurance of the correctness of the evidence
of P.W.1 and to corroborate his version. P.W.2 turned hostile and P.W.3
stated that he had signed the inquest report. However, there is
contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 qua the preparation of
inquest report.
[47] It appears that the prosecution has failed to produce material
witnesses to prove its case. Further, the prosecution has failed to cure the
discrepancies in the statements qua timing of conducting inquest and post-
mortem over the dead body of the deceased.
[48] It is true that every small discrepancy or minor contradiction
which may erupt in the statements of a witness because of lapse of time,
keeping in view the educational and other background of the witness,
cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court must
examine the statement in its entirety, correct perspective and in the light of
attendant circumstances brought on record by the prosecution.
[49] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by referring to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Munna Kumar
Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (2012) 6 SCC 174 and SanatanNaskar and
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
another v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249 submitted that in the
present case, though there is no eye witness, but the attendant
circumstances have fully been established by theprosecution that the
appellants-accused committed the crime.
[50] In Munna Kumar Upadhyay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:
"29. To this entire occurrence, there is no eyewitness but the
attendant circumstances have fully been established by the
prosecution. The forensic expert as well as the neighbours and the
investigating officers had seen the bloodstained walls, the floor,
having been washed with phenyl and acid, which was sticky and
various incriminating items seized in the presence of the witnesses
after (sic recording) confessions of the accused."
[51] In SanatanNaskar(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"27. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the
occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be
punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial
evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances
which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the
suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the
case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the
basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the
accepted principles in that regard."
[52] It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and ail the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must
be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it
must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
[53] In the case on hand, on a thorough examination of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case in correct perspective and there is totally missing of
chain of evidence which would conclusively establish the guilt on the part
of the appellants-accused. However, the trial Court erred in arriving at the
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
conclusion that the chain of evidence is so complete and there is no other
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it clearly shows that in all human probability the act had been
done only by the appellants-accused. This Court findsthat such a finding
arrived at by the trial Court has no basis.
[54] It is settled law that criminal jurisprudence begins with the
presumption that unless otherwise proved the person facing the trial would
be deemed to be Innocent. The burden to prove the charge against the
accused is on the prosecution and not on the accused. The prosecution, if
fails to connect the act of the accused with ultimate crime and where the
material links constituting the chain of circumstantial evidence are found
missing, then the benefit of the same goes in favour of the accused.
[55] Every criminal trial based on direct and circumstantial
evidence. Whereas, the former directly establishes the commission of
offence while the later does so by placing unbroken chain of circumstances
which can lead to irresistible inference of guilt. In the facts of the present
case, as stated supra, there is no direct evidence to prove the commission
of the crime of murder by the appellants-accused, the appellants herein,
and the case primarily rests upon the circumstantial evidence only.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[56] In a case based on circumstantial evidence one of the
important circumstance is that deceased was last seen alive in the
company of accused. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that
deceased Penmi left with the company of the appellants-accused. As
stated supra, the trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of P.W .1 who
stated that the appellants-accused chased the deceased Penmi. However,
his evidence was not supported by any other witness. In fact, the
prosecution has failed to examine any other independent witness to prove
the circumstance that the appellants-accused chased the deceased. Mere
chasing does not amount to killing the deceased. We thoroughly
scrutinized the evidence adduced by P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 is
not enough to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused. In the present
case, the main flaw is that the complainant was not examined on the side
of the prosecution.
[57] When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and
none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable ofexplanation of any other hypothesis than
that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused butshould be inconsistent
with his innocence."
[58] In Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed the following five principles:
"1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on anyother hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved, and
5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete 4s not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
Innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused."
[59] It is a trite law that where the case is based on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and
they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the Innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[60] In every case based upon circumstantial evidence and in this
case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether
prosecution has established the circumstances and whether all the links in
the chain of circumstances is so complete pointing to guilt of the accused
to rule out possibility of innocence of the accused.
[61] It is settled law that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of the guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent
with their innocence.
[62] In Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, 2013 (7) SCALE 535,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case totally hinges on
circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see the circumstances
which lead towards the guilt of the accused should have been fully
established. The germane portion of the judgment is extracted herein
below:
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
"10. It is seemly to state here that the whole case of the prosecution
rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Judge as well
as the High Court has referred to certain circumstances. When a
case is totally hinges on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of
the Court to see that the circumstances which lead towards the guilt
of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a
singular conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule
out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of
innocence of the accused."
[63] If we examine the present case in the light of the settled
position of law whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the
sequence of circumstances which can be called conclusive in nature, this
Court finds that there is no sequence of circumstances. Interestingly, no
blood stain was seized from the place of occurrence. That apart, as stated
supra, no material articles were sent to the forensic and science
department for chemical analysis and also the photographer who has taken
Ex.P7 to 11-photographs has not examined. Thus, there is no proper
investigation and the prosecution has also failed to prove on record the
strong motive on the part of the appellants-accused, or any such
circumstance which could provoke them to the extent of taking such a
drastic step of eliminating the deceased Penmi.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[64] The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no eye
witnesses to the incident and that the case was based on circumstantial
evidence. For appreciating the law based upon circumstantial evidence,
the trial Court mainly took into consideration the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Munna Kumar Upadhayay v. State of A.P.,
(2012) 6 SCC 174 and SanatanNaskar and another v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the
appellants-accused alone caused physical assault to the deceased, which
resulted in his death, there is no question of bringing the appellants-
accused under Section 304 Part II IPC and convicting them. When the
prosecution failed to link the appellants-accused to the alleged crime, the
question of considering sudden provocation or committing of crime without
premeditation does not arise.
[65] The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not
established by cogent evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not form complete chain to point to the guilt of the
appellants-accused. When reasonable doubts arise as to the prosecution
version, the benefit of which is to be given to the appellants-accused.
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
[66] Upon analysis of the evidence, this Court is of the considered
view that the circumstances cumulatively do not form a complete chain
pointing to the guilt of the appellants-accused and the uncorroborated
evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to connect the appellants-accused with
the crime alleged. The conviction cannot be based even on a strong
suspicion and it should be only on the strict proof of the same by the
prosecution. Reasonable doubts arise as to prosecution case and
therefore, the conviction of the appellants-accused cannot be sustained. In
the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in
convicting the appellants-accused even for the offence under Section 304
Part II IPC and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
[67] In the result,
a) The conviction of the appellants-accused in S.T. Case
No.10/2006/11/2006 on the file of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Manipur East dated 15.07.2013 and
the order of sentence dated 25.07.2013, are set aside
and these jail appeals preferred by the appellants-
accused are allowed;
b) The appellants-accused are not found guilty of the
offence for which they were charged, tried and finally
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and
accordingly, they are acquitted.
c) The fine amount, if any, paid by them are ordered to be
refunded to them. In case, if 50% of the fine amount
paid to the heirs of the deceased as per the judgment
of the trial Court, the same cannot be recovered from
the heirs of the deceased and the appellants-accused
are entitledfor refund of only 50% of the same.
d) The appellants-accused are directed to be released
forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
[68] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both
the parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
-Larson
Criminal Jail Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 with Criminal Jail Appeal No.5 of 2013
