Ngangbam Premjit Singh vs The State Of Manipur
2022 Latest Caselaw 487 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM byKABORAMBAM                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SANDEE SANDEEP                               AT IMPHAL
                  SINGH
        Date: 2022.11.03
        14:52:07 +05'30'
P SINGH


                                    CRIL. (JAIL) APPEAL NO.2 OF 2018

          Ngangbam Premjit Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o Ngangbam Ibobi Singh,
          a permanent resident of Khurkhul Makha Leikai, P.O. Leimakhong &
          P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur (now in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa).

                                                                                        ...Appellant
                                                   -Versus-
          The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary (Home),
          Government of Manipur.
                                                                                    .... Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

For the Appellant :: Mr. S.Chittaranjan, Advocate For the Respondent :: Mr. Athouba Khaidem, PP Date of reserving Judgment & Order :: 10.10.2022 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order :: 03.11.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Hon'ble CJ:

[1] Yumlembam (Ningol) Ngangbam (Ongbi) Latabi Devi, a newly wedded

young woman of about 20 years of age, was killed on 02.03.2013. Ngangbam

Premjit Singh, her husband, was charged with her murder. Ngangbam Ibobi Singh

and Ngangbam (Ongbi) Channou Devi, his parents, were charged with offences

punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 498-A IPC

read with Section 34 IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the trial in Sessions Trial Case No.3 of 2015/10 of 2015 on the file of the

learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 1 marked in evidence 11 exhibits. Material Objects 1 to 6 were also marked. All the

accused were subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C but they did not

choose to adduce evidence. Thereupon, by judgment and order dated 17.04.2018,

the learned Sessions Judge convicted Ngangbam Premjit Singh of the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC but acquitted his parents of all charges. By

judgment of sentence dated 18.04.2018, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced

Ngangbam Premjit Singh to rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of

`10,000/-. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Ngangbam Premjit Singh is

in appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

[2] Heard Mr. S.Chittaranjan, learned counsel for the appellant; and

Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

[3] The case of the prosecution: Yumlembam Chourajit Singh, the father

of the deceased, lodged a written report on 02.03.2013 with the Officer-in-Charge,

Sekmai Police Station, alleging that his daughter was killed by strangulation at her

husband's house at around 2.30 pm on that day. He alleged that this was done by

her husband and his family members and requested that the culprits/accused

persons be arrested. The Original Ejahar was marked as Ex.P-1. On the strength on

Ex.P-1, FIR No.24 (03) 2013 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge, Sekmai Police

Station, at 3.20 pm on 02.03.2013, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The accused

were shown therein as 'Ngangbam Premjit Singh and his family members'. The FIR

was marked as Ex.P-10. The case was thereupon endorsed to Oinam Nungshijao

Singh, Inspector of Police (PW-12), for investigation. He stated before the Sessions

Court that, upon receiving the endorsement, he took up investigation by examining

the complainant who corroborated what was stated in the Original Ejahar. He then

went to the place of occurrence at about 3.45 pm, along with a police party. He Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 2 investigated the spot and found that the body of the deceased was lying on a kouna

mat on the floor in her bedroom. He found bruise marks around her neck. He

prepared a Rough Sketch Map (Ex.P-11) and also got photographs taken

(MOs 2 to 6). He claimed that the husband of the deceased, who was present there,

admitted to having killed her by strangling with a Chuni. He also told him that the

Chuni was lying on the bed of the deceased. PW-12 seized the Chuni under a

Seizure Memo (Ex.P-2). He requested the District Magistrate, Imphal West, to

depute an Executive Magistrate for conducting an inquest over the dead body.

Within sometime, W. Itocha Singh, Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai (PW -7), came to

the place of occurrence and conducted an inquest over the dead body in the

presence of witnesses. His Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P-4. PW-12 also

conducted an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in the presence of witnesses and

his Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P-3. PW-12 thereupon arrested Ngangbam

Premjit Singh and his father, Ngangbam Ibobi Singh. The body of the deceased was

sent for post mortem examination to Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal,

at about 7.45 pm. The Post Mortem Examination Report was marked as Ex.P-6.

Dr. Memchoubi Ph., Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS,

Imphal (PW-11), conducted the autopsy of the deceased and opined that her death

was due to strangulation and was homicidal in nature. She also confirmed that the

deceased was pregnant at that time and the age of the foetus was more than four

months. On 04.03.2013, PW-12 arrested Ngangbam (Ongbi) Channou Devi, the

mother-in-law of the deceased. PW-12 completed the investigation and filed

Charge-Sheet No.3/Sek-PS 2013 dated 31.07.2013 against the accused for the

offences alleged therein. The Charge Sheet was marked as Ex.P-9.

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                               Page 3
 [4]         This being the investigation undertaken in the case, it would be

appropriate now to examine the evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.

PW-1, the father of the deceased, stated that, about three months after his

daughter's marriage to Ngangbam Premjit Singh, he was informed that she had

expired at the house of her husband. He stated that he went to the said house and

found his daughter lying dead in her room. He further stated that he made a report

to the Officer-in-Charge, Sekmai Police Station, on suspicion and confirmed that

Ex.P-1 was the Original Ejahar. In his cross-examination, he stated that his son,

late Udoy Singh, informed him of the death of his daughter at around 2-2.30 pm

on that day. He admitted that he did not go to Sekmai Police Station on the date of

the occurrence and that he made a report verbally to the police personnel of Sekmai

Police Station who came to the place of occurrence. He further stated that he could

not read and write English language and he did not know who wrote Ex.P-1. He

also confirmed that he simply put his signature therein at the instance of the police

personnel without knowing the contents. He denied the suggestion that he did not

make any report to the police.

[4a] PW-2 was a witness to the Inquest Reports (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4) and

the Chuni Seizure Memo (Ex.P-2). In his chief examination, he stated that he was

a Store Keeper in the Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department,

Government of Manipur, and was informed, while he was in office, about the expiry

of Latabi Devi. He stated that he went to the house of the accused persons, who

were known to him as they were from his locality, and found her dead body in her

room. He stated that the family of the accused told him that she had killed herself

but he suspected that she was killed by strangulation. He admitted that he signed

Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 as a witness. He identified MO-1 (Chuni). He also Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 4 admitted that he was a witness to the Seizure Memo (Ex.P-5) in relation to 5(Five)

photographs (MOs-2 to 6). He further stated that he found strangulation marks on

the neck of the deceased but did not find any other injury on her body. He stated

that she had expired about 2-3 months after her marriage to Ngangbam Premjit

Singh. He was not subjected to cross-examination.

[4b] PW-3 was the Secretary of the Nupi Lup (Women's Group) of the

village in the year 2013. She stated that she knew Latabi Devi even prior to her

marriage. She stated that on 02.03.2013 at about 3.00 pm, while she was at her

house, she heard that Latabi Devi had died at her husband's house. She called all

the members of the Nupi Lup (Women's Group) and they went to the house of the

accused. She stated that she saw the dead body lying on a mat in the house and

when she asked the mother-in-law of the deceased how Latabi Devi had died, she

replied that she did not know anything. Thereafter, the mother-in-law fell

unconscious. She inquired with the sister-in-law of the deceased, who replied that

she also did not know anything but had been informed by the mother-in-law of the

deceased that she tried to hang herself. The sister-in-law produced the Chuni which

was allegedly used by the deceased to hang herself. PW-3 stated that they

suspected the cause of death and the father of the deceased accordingly reported

the matter to the police. A team from Sekmai Police Station came to the place of

occurrence around 4.30 pm and an inquest was conducted over the body in her

presence. She also figured as a witness to the Chuni Seizure Memo (Ex.P-2). In her

cross-examination, PW-3 denied that she did not put her signature in Ex.P-2 Seizure

Memo as a witness and that the same was false and fabricated. She also denied

the suggestion that she did not know MO-1 and that it was also a fabricated exhibit.

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                                Page 5
 [4c]           PW-4 is a relation of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was

the daughter of her elder brother. She stated that on 02.03.2013 at about 2.00 pm,

while she was at her house, Udoy Singh called her through her mobile and informed

her that his younger sister, Latabi Devi, did not wake up from her sleep. She

thereupon called the husband of the deceased on his mobile phone and asked for

information. He replied that Latabi Devi did not respond and did not wake up from

her sleep. He also told her that he went to the ground which was situated behind

his house after distribution of Invitation cards for a Shradha ceremony. She then

went to the house of the accused and upon entering the bedroom of the deceased,

she found her lying on her bed. Immediately, the body was taken down from the

bed and laid on a mat on the floor. She looked at the body and saw a mark of

strangulation with a chain on her neck. PW- 4 stated that Latabi Devi had married

Ngangbam Premjit Singh on 24.12.2012 after eloping with him. She claimed that

when she went to her parental home on 28.01.2013, Latabi Devi also came there

and told her that she was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home on that

day. PW-4 claimed that when she asked her to go back to her matrimonial home,

Latabi Devi told her that she could not tolerate the torture of her mother-in-law.

While saying this, she was crying. Again, in the evening, PW-4 told Latabi Devi to

go back to her matrimonial home as her marriage was just a month old and it would

be better for her to go back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Latabi Devi went

back to her matrimonial home. PW-4 further stated that, on 21.02.2013, she went

to the house of the accused and the mother-in-law of the deceased was in the

verandah. She stated that she sat near the mother-in-law of the deceased and

Latabi Devi also came out and sat next to her. The mother-in-law angrily told

PW-4 that Latabi Devi had conceived prior to her marriage and she suspected her Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 6 behavior. The mother-in-law further stated that she disliked Latabi Devi remaining

as her daughter-in-law and that she had purchased one san of gold for Latabi Devi

from the money received as gifts during the performance of the marriage and from

her own money. The mother-in-law also told her that she desired to get the

pregnancy of Latabi Devi aborted but Latabi Devi refused to do so as her husband

did not want to abort her pregnancy. PW-4 further stated that she took some

vegetables on that day but the mother-in-law refused to accept the same.

PW-4 stated that during her lifetime, Latabi Devi told her that her mother-in-law

and Louriyam (O) Pambi Devi, sister of Ngangbam Premjit Singh, frequently

tortured her. In her cross-examination, PW-4 stated that Latabi Devi came to her

parental home after PW-4 reached there at about 8.30 am on 28.01.2013. Latabi

Devi was dropped by her husband on a motor cycle. She denied the suggestion that

Latabi Devi never told her that she was subjected to ill treatment by her mother-in-

law. She denied the suggestion that Latabi Devi never told her that she could not

go back to her matrimonial home on account of ill treatment by her mother-in-law.

She also denied that the suggestion that she did not visit the matrimonial home of

the deceased on 21.02.2013 and did not meet the mother-in-law. Lastly, she denied

the suggestion that the mother-in-law did not tell her that she had asked the

deceased to get the child aborted

[4d] PW-5 is also a relation of the deceased. She stated that Latabi Devi

was the daughter of her uncle, the younger brother of her father. She said that,

on 28.01.2013, there was a Swasti Puja at her parental home and she had gone

there. While she was there, the grandmother of Latabi Devi informed her that Latabi

Devi had come to their house and, thereupon, she went to the house of her uncle,

Chourajit Singh, and met Latabi Devi. She asked Latabi Devi the reason for coming Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 7 to her parental home. Latabi Devi told her that she had left her matrimonial home

and was dropped by her husband. She also told her that she had been quarrelling

with her husband and her mother-in-law also frequently tortured her. She stated

that she was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home and on further inquiry,

she told PW-5 that she had left her matrimonial home without the knowledge of

her mother-in-law. Upon hearing these words, PW-5 asked Latabi Devi to go back

to her matrimonial home but she refused to do so. Thereafter, PW-5 returned to

her parental home for attending the Swasti Puja and when she was on her way to

her own matrimonial home, she saw that Latabi Devi was going with her

grandmother towards her matrimonial home. She stated that, on 02.03.2013, she

was informed by her sister-in-law that Latabi Devi had expired at her matrimonial

home due to suspected strangulation. In her cross-examination, PW-5 stated that

the parental home of Latabi Devi was situated just adjacent to her parental home.

She denied the suggestion that she did not meet Latabi Devi on 28.01.2013 and

that Latabi Devi had never told her that she was quarrelling with her husband. She

also denied the suggestion that Latabi Devi never told her that she was frequently

tortured by her mother-in-law.

[4e] PW-6 is the elder brother of Latabi Devi. He stated that she got

married to Ngangbam Premjit Singh three months prior to her death. According to

him, Latabi Devi came to the parental home one or two times after her marriage

and during her visits, she told him that she was subjected to torture by her mother-

in-law and sister-in-law. He further stated that about three years prior to his

deposition, one Lor Singh, husband of his aunty, informed him that something had

happened to his sister at her husband's house and asked him to come immediately.

He thereupon went to the house of Ngangbam Premjit Singh and found his sister Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 8 lying dead on a mat in front of her bed. Before he reached the house, a team of

police personnel of Sekmai Police Station had already reached there. He felt

suspicious that his sister had been killed by her in-laws and her husband. He stated

that police conducted an inquest over the body of his sister in his presence and

prepared an Inquest Report (Ex.P-3), wherein he signed as a witness. He also

admitted that he was a witness to the Post Mortem Examination Report (Ex.P-6).

In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he had never visited his sister at her

matrimonial home. He further stated that except the statement attributed to his

deceased sister in respect of the alleged torture by her mother-in-law, he had never

seen any such torture. He however denied the suggestion that his sister never told

him that she was tortured by her mother-in-law.

[4f] PW-7 is the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai, who was deputed to act

as the Executive Magistrate for conducting the inquest over the body of the

deceased on 02.03.2013. He stated that he prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P-4)

after following the due procedure and also attended the post mortem examination

of the deceased at RIMS morgue. Nothing worth mentioning was elucidated in his

cross-examination.

[4g] PW-8 is an ASHA worker in the Primary Health Centre, Khurkhul. She

stated that, one day in February, 2013, in the morning, the mother-in-law of the

deceased came to her residence and told her that her daughter-in-law, Latabi Devi,

had conceived and asked her to come to her house to discuss her pregnancy.

PW-8 stated that, on the evening of the next day, she went to the house of the

accused and upon reaching there, she asked Latabi Devi whether she had

conducted a pregnancy test by means of Velocit test kit. Latabi Devi told her that

she had done so and showed her the Velocit test result and PW-8 found it to be Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 9 positive. PW-8 stated that, on 06.02.2013, she went to the Primary Health Centre,

Khurkhul, along with Latabi Devi for check-up. After her examination at the Primary

Health Centre, the Doctor confirmed that Latabi Devi was pregnant. PW-8 stated

that they came back home happily and she did not meet Latabi Devi thereafter.

About a month later, she heard that Latabi Devi had expired. Her cross-examination

did not elicit anything worthwhile.

[4h] PW-9 lived on the eastern side of the house of the accused. He knew

the deceased as well as the accused. He stated that Ngangbam Premjit was his

'local friend'. He further stated that in the month of March, about three years prior

to his deposition, at about 7 am, he and Ngangbam Premjit Singh had distributed

Invitation cards amongst the villagers of Khurkhul for the Shradha ceremony of one

Chaobi Devi of their locality. He stated that they completed distribution of the

Invitation cards at about 9.30 am and came back. The Invitation card of one

Thingujam Kula Singh however remained with them. At that time, Ngangbam

Premjit Singh returned to his house and PW-9 stated that he went to the house of

Thingujam Kula Singh to give his Invitation card. He stated that he then went to

Leimakhong to purchase some medicine and returned home at about 11.30 am. At

about 2.00 pm, while he was at home, he claimed that he heard sounds of crying

from the house of the accused and upon reaching there on his bicycle, he found

some persons crying but did not enter the house. The people who had gathered at

the gate of the house of the accused told him that Latabi Devi had died. He stated

that he came back home thereafter. At about 4.00 pm, he again came out of his

house and went towards the house of the accused. He saw the body of Latabi Devi

lying on the ground outside the gate of the house, covered with white cloth.

PW-9 was not cross-examined.

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                                Page 10
 [4i]           PW-10 is the Medical Officer who was posted at the Primary Health

Centre, Khurkhul, at the relevant time. He stated that, on 06.02.2013, he examined

Latabi Devi and found that she was 12 weeks pregnant. PW-10 was not

cross-examined.

[4j] PW-11 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of

the deceased. She stated that she was working as an Associate Professor in the

Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Imphal, since the year 2001. She further

stated that, on 04.03.2013 at 11.25 am, she had conducted the post mortem

examination of the body of the deceased, Latabi Devi. She gave details of the two

ligature marks which were found on the neck of the deceased and also the internal

injuries that she had noted. She confirmed that her opinion was that death had

been caused by strangulation and was homicidal in nature. She also confirmed that

the time of death was about 36 to 48 hours prior to her examination and the injuries

noted were ante mortem in nature and were fresh at the time of death. She

confirmed that Ex.P-6 was the Post Mortem Examination Report and it bore her

initials. In her cross-examination, medical literature was put to PW-11 and she

stated her agreement with what was noted in the text books. She, however, stated

that in her opinion, both the external injuries mentioned in her Post Mortem

Examination Report were capable of causing the death of the deceased. She denied

the suggestion that the deceased did not die from strangulation but from some

other cause. She also denied the suggestion that Ex.P-6 Post Mortem Examination

Report was false and fabricated.

[4k] The gist of the chief examination of PW-12, the Investigating Officer,

has already been set out hereinabove and does not require reiteration. However, in

his cross-examination, PW-12 stated that the bruise marks found on the body of Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 11 the deceased did not encircle the whole circumference of her neck. He affirmed that

he did not find any mark of struggle or violence other than the injury on the neck

of the deceased. He admitted that the matrimonial home of the deceased was not

properly fenced and that a stranger could easily gain access into the house. He

stated that PW-5 had not told him that Latabi Devi had told her that she had been

quarreling with her husband, when he examined her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He

also admitted that, before the death of the deceased on 02.03.2013, he did not

receive any information either from her parental family or anyone else about the

alleged cruelty of the deceased's in-laws towards her.

[4l] PW-13 is the photographer who took pictures of the body of the

deceased. He stated that he was called by the local women's group to take

photographs on that day and he went to the house of the accused along with his

camera. On reaching there, he found the deceased, Latabi Devi, lying on a bed and

took her photographs. He stated that he saw some bruise mark on her neck. He

further stated that he did a video recording of the post mortem examination of the

deceased and that he handed over video cassette as well as the photographs to the

police. Nothing worth mentioning was elucidated in his cross-examination.

[5] Thirty-two questions were put to Ngangbam Premjit Singh during his

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Most of the questions run into long

paragraphs but his answers were mostly in a single line. When asked as to whether

he had anything to say in connection with the case, he stated that he was innocent;

that he was falsely implicated in the case; and that he did not commit the murder

of his wife. He further stated that he would not lead any evidence for his defense,

when asked whether he would lead such evidence.

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                               Page 12
 [6]            The prosecution's version and the oral evidence clearly demonstrate

that there was no eye-witness to how Latabi Devi came to meet with an unnatural

death. The case, therefore, rests purely on circumstantial evidence. This is not a

case where the 'last seen' theory can be applied, as Latabi Devi was not seen by

any independent witness in the company of her husband or others prior to her

death. The evidence of PW-9 indicates that the husband returned home at about

9.30 am on the fateful day after distribution of cards. According to PW-4, the

husband told her that he went to the ground which was situated on the back of his

house after distribution of the Invitation cards. No evidence was adduced by the

prosecution of the husband being seen in the company of the deceased after 9.30

am or as to how long he was in the ground behind the house, if at all true. There

is also no evidence on record as to whether the father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the deceased were in the house throughout and, if so, whether they were with her.

The Rough Sketch Map (Ex.P-11) prepared by PW-12 does not give any indication

of where the parents-in-law of the deceased had their rooms and living quarters. It

is, however, not in dispute that they lived with their son and daughter-in-law.

[7] It is well settled that in a case based entirely on circumstantial

evidence, it is for the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of events

unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. In Hanumant Govind Nargunkar

vs. State of MP (AIR 1952 SC 343), the Supreme Court observed that, in a case

where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which a

conclusion of guilt has 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. It was pointed out that the circumstances should be of a

conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 13 hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, per the Supreme

Court, 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, in all human probability, the act must have

been done by the accused. Again, in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P

[1989 Supp.(2) SCC 706], the Supreme Court reiterated that when a case rests

solely 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; 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 of explanation 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 but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

[8] In Nizam vs. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 1 SCC 550], the

Supreme Court held that, where there are missing links and the chain of

circumstantial evidence cannot be said to be concluded in any manner, the last seen

theory cannot be applied as it could be a case where more than one inference can

be drawn and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. Further, as

pointed out in Sahadevan vs. State of T.N. [(2012) 6 SCC 403], in a case

resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to

prove the complete chain of events which points towards the guilt of the accused.

Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                                  Page 14
 [9]            These being the legal requirements in a case built on circumstantial

evidence, it is manifest that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain

of events in the case on hand which point unerringly towards the guilt of the

husband of the deceased. The oral evidence highlighted the fact that the deceased

had consistently claimed that it was her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law who

had subjected her to torture and ill-treatment. Only PW-5 stated that Latabi Devi

had told her on 28.01.2013 that she had been quarrelling with her husband.

Significantly, PW-12 stated in his cross-examination that PW-5 had not mentioned

to him that Latabi Devi had told her that she was quarrelling with her husband when

he recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, the said S.161

statement was never put to PW-5 during her cross-examination for contradiction

and, therefore, the same cannot be considered by this Court. However, the evidence

of PW-4, another near relation of the deceased, clearly indicates that it was not the

husband of the deceased who wanted her to abort the child but it was the mother-

in-law. In fact, this witness stated that the mother-in-law told her that she desired

Latabi Devi to abort her pregnancy but Latabi Devi refused to do so as her husband

did not want her to abort her pregnancy. There is, therefore, no indication of any

rupture of relations between the deceased and her husband due to the pregnancy.

On the other hand, the statement of PW-4 indicates to the contra that he was happy

with Latabi Devi's pregnancy and wanted her to continue with it. In effect, there

was no motive for the husband to resort to the extreme act of killing his young wife

of just a few months with whom he had eloped and who was pregnant with his

child. In Wakkar and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 3 SCC

306], the Supreme Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the

motive of the accused for committing the crime assumes importance. In the case Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 15 on hand, no motive has been established for the accused to kill his wife. It is not

brought out that the husband was so much under the thumb of his mother that he

would have succumbed to her pressure owing to her desire to abort his child.

Reliance is placed on Jarnail Singh and another vs. State of Haryana, [1993

Supp (3) SCC 91] by Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, wherein it

was held that, if the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and

reliable, the question of motive would not be of importance. This principle is

inapplicable presently as the chain of evidence built up by the prosecution is not

conclusive and does not unerringly implicate the husband. Equally inapplicable is

the ratio laid down in Sucha Singh and another vs. State of Punjab [(2003)

7 SCC 643]. Therein, the Supreme Court held that if a major portion of the

evidence is found to be deficient but the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of

an accused, it would be the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff

as the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India. The

Supreme Court therefore stressed that it has to be appraised in each case as to

what extent the evidence is worthy of credence and merely because, in some

respects, the Court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it

would not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all

respects. However, as already noted supra, there is no evidence worth the name

which directly links the accused husband to the untimely death of his wife.

[10] Though much stress was laid by Mr. S.Chittaranjan, learned counsel,

upon how the examination of the accused husband was undertaken under Section

313 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that it would not be necessary to touch

upon that issue inasmuch as the circumstantial evidence placed on record by the

prosecution is wholly insufficient to support the conviction of the husband. Reliance Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 16 placed on case law by both sides in that regard is therefore eschewed from

consideration.

[11] The Sessions Court placed much reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence

Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act of 1872'). It would, therefore, be apposite to examine

the applicability of this provision in the present scenario. In this regard, it may be

noted that in Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar [(2021) 10 SCC 725], the

Supreme Court held that the burden, as per Section 101 of the Act of 1872, would

always be on the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt but Section 106 thereof constitutes an exception. Reference was

made to Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404] which

had stood the test of time and held to the effect that Section 106 of the Act of 1872

is not intended to relieve the prosecution of the duty of discharging the burden of

proof but is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be

impossible or, at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to

establish facts which are 'especially' within the knowledge of the accused and which

he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court therefore

affirmed that Section 106 of the Act of 1872 would apply only to cases where the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable

inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are

within the special knowledge of the accused and when the accused fails to offer

proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the Court can always

draw an appropriate inference.

[12] In the case on hand, though the Sessions Court pressed into service

Section 106 of the Act of 1872 and held that the accused husband failed to explain

as to what happened within the house where he was with the deceased wife after Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 17 he returned home at about 9.30 am., this approach completely overlooked the fact

that the accused husband was not alone at home with the deceased as his parents

were also there with them. Therefore, it was not a case where he alone could have

offered an explanation as to what happened within the four walls of the matrimonial

home. All the more so, when he claimed that he had gone to the ground behind

the house for some time and that claim remained untested. Unless it was shown,

in no uncertain terms, that it was the accused husband alone who remained within

the bedroom with his wife all through, the question of imposing the burden upon

him under Section 106 of the Act of 1872 would not arise. The Sessions Court

therefore erred in applying Section 106 of the Act of 1872.

[13] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned Public Prosecutor, would place reliance

on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharastra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] in

support of his contention that when an offence like murder is committed within the

secrecy of a house, the initial burden to establish a case would be upon the

prosecution but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the

charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial

evidence. He would point out that it was held in the aforestated judgment that the

burden would be of a comparatively lighter character and in view of Section 106 of

the Act of 1872, there would be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the

house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed and they

cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the

supposed premise that the burden to establish the case lies entirely upon the

prosecution. The Supreme Court also held that in a case based on circumstantial

evidence where no eye-witness account is available, when incriminating

circumstances are put to the accused but the accused either offers no explanation Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 18 or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an

additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. However, this

decision is of no avail to the State as it was not only the accused husband who was

within the house but also his parents. Significantly, they were not even charged

with the offence of murder but only with abetment under Section 109 IPC. In terms

of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a duty is cast upon all the inmates to

explain what had happened within the four walls of the house but when the charge

against them was not the same, the picture is entirely different. Had all the inmates

been charged with the murder of the deceased by incorporating Section 34 IPC, the

case would have stood on a different footing and they could have all been held

liable to explain, by application of Section 106 of the Act of 1872. That being not

the case presently, the accused husband cannot alone be burdened with the duty

of an explanation under Section 106 of the Act of 1872 and be saddled with guilt

for failing to offer one. Thus, on a conspectus of the evidence and material adduced

by the prosecution, the picture that emerges is that Latabi Devi and her husband,

Ngangbam Premjit Singh, eloped and got married about three months prior to the

fateful incident and she was pregnant by the time of her marriage. However, it

appears that it was only her mother in-law who was averse to her pregnancy and

the accused husband, on the other hand, did not want her to abort her pregnancy.

The evidence also demonstrates that it was the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law

of the deceased, who subjected her to ill-treatment and torture. Except for a stray

sentence from PW- 4, there is no evidence of the accused husband even quarrelling

with his wife. In the absence of the husband being averse to the pregnancy of his

wife with his child, there is no motive established to explain as to why he would

resort to such a dastardly act. That apart, there is no unbroken chain of events Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018 Page 19 established by the prosecution leading to the sole inference that it could only be

the accused husband and none other who could have killed his wife. His return to

the house at 9.30 am, with nothing further, is insufficient in itself to hold that he

alone was with the deceased all through, whereby he could have been called upon

to explain as to what had happened within the house, by invoking Section 106 of

the Act of 1872. The prosecution therefore failed to establish an unbroken chain of

events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused husband, leaving no

hypothesis which is compatible with his innocence. On the other hand, the presence

of the father-in-law and mother-in-law within the house, who did not even stand

trial for the offence of murder, is sufficient to extend to him the benefit of doubt.

[14] Viewed thus, the conviction of Ngangbam Premjit Singh for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC in relation to the homicidal death of his wife,

Latabi Devi, cannot be sustained. The charge against him was not proved beyond

reasonable doubt and he was entitled to claim the benefit of doubt. The judgment

of conviction dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West,

in Sessions Trial Case No.3 of 2015/10 of 2015 is accordingly set aside. In

consequence, the judgment of sentence dated 18.04.2018 passed against him by

the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, is also set aside. The fine amount, if any,

paid by him shall be refunded by the State. Ngangbam Premjit Singh, the appellant,

shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his continued incarceration is validly required

in connection with any other case.

                                JUDGE                            CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Opendro


Cril. (J) Appeal No.2 of 2018                                                   Page 20