High Court of Meghalaya
2024:Mlhc:742-Db vs The State Of Meghalaya Through The ... on 16 August, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2024:MLHC:742-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.No.25/2023 with
Crl.M.C.No.83/2023 Reserved on : 14.08.2024
Pronounced on: 16.08.2024
Shri.Thombor Shadap ... Appellant
-Vs-
1. The State of Meghalaya through the Superintendent of Police, East
Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Saipung Police Station, East Jaintia Hills
District, Meghalaya.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Adv with
Mr. J. Shylla, Adv
Mr. P.P. Medhi, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Gurung, GA with
Mr. J. Thabah, GA
Ms. S. Shyam, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Page 1 of
19
2024:MLHC:742-DB
JUDGMENT
(By the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The Appellant, who is an Accused person in Sessions Case No.50
of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge/Addl.DC(J), East Jaintia Hills
District, Khliehriat, was convicted by the Trial Court on 30.03.2023 for
offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Trial Court had
given liberty to the family of the deceased to claim compensation from
the State and in the event of payment of compensation by the State, the
same may be recovered from the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment
and the order of the Sessions Judge/Addl.DC(J), East Jaintia Hills
District, Khliehriat, dated 30.03.2023, the Appellant has preferred the
instant Criminal Appeal before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that based on the
complaint given by one Smti Rimeki Paslein on 31.12.2011 that her
husband Shri Shawas Pymgap was beaten to death at a place called
Briwar Elaka Nongkhlieh, a case / FIR (Ex.P3) in Saipung Police Station
Case No.1 (2) 2012 under Section 302/34 IPC came to be registered.
Immediately thereafter the case was entrusted to one C. Shylla, Sub
Inspector of Police, who examined the complainant and two independent
witnesses and on his transfer, handed over the CD file to another SI C.
Page 2 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
Shylla. Subsequently, two suspected persons were arrested, namely, the
appellant herein and one Nidamon Chullet, who had admitted that under
the influence of alcohol, they picked up quarrel with the deceased and
the next day, they came to know that the deceased was murdered. The
further case of the prosecution is that the dead body was sent for post-
mortem after conducting inquest over the dead body and after
investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the then DC of Khliehriat
Court in C.S.No.6/2015 dated 29.07.2015 and was subsequently, made
over to the Sessions Judge/Addl.DC(J), East Jaintia Hills District,
Khliehriat for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences
against the accused persons, examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 6
documents. On the side of the accused, neither witnesses were examined
nor documents marked. Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were
obtained from P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused were questioned under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the charges levelled against them. The Trial
Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the
appellant herein guilty of offence and convicted him as stated supra and
acquitted the other accused finding no incriminating materials against
him.
Page 3 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/accused
submitted that the name of the appellant was not found mentioned in the
FIR initially and based on the statements made by P.Ws.1 and 2, who
were claimed to be eyewitnesses, the accused was implicated in this case
by creating a new prosecution theory. Moreover, the depositions of
P.Ws.3 and 4 / mother and wife of the accused were not aware of the
identity of the appellant herein and the P.W.3 in fact admitted that there
was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR. Even the wife of the
deceased deposed that she was informed by someone about the murder
of her husband and there was no mention of the name of the assailant.
He further submitted that though the occurrence had stated to be taken
place on 29.12.2011, their statements were recorded only on 02.03.2012,
after a lapse of more than two months. The depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2
do not instill confidence and lack credibility and trustworthy for the
reason that they deposed before the Court that they forgot about the
incident due to lengthy passage of time. Having given such a statement,
a Test Identification Parade ought to have conducted to identify the
accused persons and failure of the part of the Investigating Agency,
which had not been taken into account by the Trial Court, is a fatal to the
prosecution theory. He also submitted that inclusion of the name of the
Page 4 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
appellant in the crime in a hasty manner on the basis of the depositions
of P.Ws.1 to 3 raises doubts about its trustworthiness and that apart,
naming the appellant during the deposition of P.W.3 was only an
afterthought. When the entire case of the prosecution rests on the
witnesses of P.Ws.1 and 2, it must be provided beyond reasonable doubt
and correlated with oral and documentary evidences.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in support of his
submission, strongly relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court:
i) Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1973 (2)
SCC 808, wherein it has been held as follows:
"We find it difficult to accept this part of the deposition of Parma Nand.
Parma Nand admits that he came to know of the murder of Dhianu and
Nanti about four days after those persons were found to have been
murdered. It would therefore, follow mat Parma Nand came to know of
the murder of Dhianu and Nanti on or about October 4, 1968. Had the
accused left for the house of Dhianu deceased on the evening of
September 29, and had Parma Nand PW come to know that Dhianu and
Nanti were murdered in their house, this fact must have aroused the
suspicion of Parma Nand regarding the complicity of the accused.
Parma Nand, however, kept quiet in the matter and did not talk of it.
The statement of Parma Nand was recorded by the police on December
11, 1968. If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating
circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the
witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said
incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating
to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason,
is bound to lose most of its value. No cogent reason has been shown to
us as to why Parma Nand kept quiet for over two months after coming
Page 5 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
to know of the murder of Dhianu and Nanti about the fact that the
accused had left for the house of the deceased shortly before the
murder. We are, therefore, not prepared to place any reliance upon the
second part of the deposition of Parma Nand.
The third part of the deposition of Parma Nand PW pertains to the
shout of the accused from outside the shop of Parma Nand at about
mid-night hour on the night of occurrence. This part of the deposition
has not been accepted by the trial court and the High Court and we find
no valid reason to take a different view.
ii) Karmajit Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 150:
"9. It is not the case of the witnesses that they were sleeping on the roof
after participating in the annual Bhog ceremony of late wife of Bhag
Singh. The case put forward by them is that the assailants came in a
group of 15 to 20 from the roof, cut open the same and started firing
from their weapons. It is not clear from their evidence whether any
lights were on at that time or they could see the assailants in the
moonlight or a star lit night. It is not at all clear that when they did not
even know the accused how they could identify him in spite of
darkness particularly when these witnesses do not seem to be on the
roof. In a fleeting moment of attack and the bolting away of the
assailants from the scene they could not have got even a glimpse of the
face of the accused. Thus there was no opportunity at all for them to see
the accused. Further as to how police connected the accused with
having committed the crime in the present case is not at all clear. Help
has not been taken from the so-called eye witnesses in that regard. In
the circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of
PW3 and PW4 does not inspire confidence to convict the accused for
the murder and that too with charges of the severity of offences arising
under TADA. The reasoning given by the learned Designated Judge is
wholly illogical and consists of too naive an analysis of evidence.
There must be a critical examination of the eye witnesses account
before coming to the conclusion one way or the other and such exercise
has not been done by the learned Designated Judge at all."
iii) Peer Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2019 (4)
SCC 582;
Page 6 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
"10. The "Dehati Nalishi" was recorded on the spot itself soon after the
occurrence. As per the evidence on record Mansingh (PW-5) was
present at the spot till 4.00 A.M. During this time, the police was there.
It would have been much better if the "Dehati Nalishi" had been
recorded at the instance of PW-5 who was not only an eye-witness but
could even identify some of the accused. Even if we overlook this
aspect, the fact remains that when the statement of PW-5 was recorded
Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure on the morning of 14th
September, he did not name the three Appellants. When the statement
was recorded in court he stated that when Babusingh was being
attacked he (Babusingh) told the pillion riders to go to his house and
inform that persons of Sobhagsingh are beating him. This fact is totally
different from what is recorded in the "Dehati Nalishi" wherein it is
stated that Babusingh took the names of Sobhagsingh and Thakursingh.
As pointed out earlier Gattu (PW-8) does not say anything in his
statement.
11. When we compare the statements of PW-1 and PW-5 there is
another discrepancy viz. in court, the father Motisingh reiterates that
Mansingh (PW-5) told him that Sobhagsingh, Thakursingh, Harisingh
and Gulabsingh were beating Babusingh. The names of the three
Appellants are absent even in the statement of Motisingh as recorded in
court. Mansingh and the three Appellants belong to the same area and
Mansingh is known to all the three accused, and when he could name
four of the assailants, we see no reason as to why he could not name the
other assailants if he had actually identified them at the place of
occurrence. There is no plausible explanation given from the side of
prosecution as to why the names of these three Accused-Appellants
were missing both in the "Dehati Nalishi" as well as in the statement of
Mansingh recorded Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure
(Exh. D-1). Further, as pointed above, Motisingh again in court does
not say that Mansingh (PW-5) had identified the three Accused-
Appellants as the assailants.
12. Therefore, a grave doubt is raised with regard to the presence of
these three Accused at the place of incidence. The benefit of doubt
obviously has to go to the Accused-Appellants. In view of the above
discussion, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the trial
court dated 19th November, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1993 and
of the High Court dated 27th June, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1354
of 2001 so far as the conviction of the Appellants; Peer Singh,
Page 7 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
Bhagwansingh and Gajrajsingh is concerned. They are acquitted and
directed to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. All
pending applications are accordingly disposed of."
6. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the accused
that even the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.4 initially
stated that she was not aware as to who murdered her husband and
thereafter, changed her version, deposing that it was the appellant who
had committed the offence of murder. There is no adequate evidence to
link accused person with the alleged murder of the deceased and based
on the last seen theory, the accused was made a scapegoat, as there was
a different version in the GDE No.619 dated 31.12.2011, by which the
involvement of one more persons was mentioned, which has been
omitted to be examined by the Trial Court during examination of
P.W.11/IO. Thus, he pleaded that there were several flaws committed
by the prosecution and sought for interference by this Court in the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
7. Per contra, learned GA appearing for the State contended that
it was not a case of simple in nature and since a murder had taken
place, it would be prudent to give reasonable time to investigate and
record the statements of witnesses, as otherwise, there is every
possibility of the accused fleeing away from justice on account of lack
of material evidence. The prosecution proved the case through
Page 8 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
circumstantial evidence that it was the accused, who was the root cause
of the murder of the deceased under intoxication, which was duly
established by the witness of P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover, the Doctor/P.W.6
clearly opined that the death had occurred due to shock and
haemorrhage and thus, based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it was
the accused, who hit the deceased repeatedly and caused his death with
sharp weapon and the post mortem report (Ex.P5) is the corroborative
evidence. He further contended that the next plea raised by the accused
that there was no Test Identification Parade conducted has no relevancy,
because when the witnessed know the identity of the accused clearly,
the conduct of Parade is an abuse of process of passage of time and
after seeking the occurrence, it was P.Ws.1 and 2 who went to the house
of the deceased and informed the same to his mother. To strengthen his
case that delay in recording statement of eye witnesses is not fatal to
the case, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Goutam Joardar vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
MANU/SC/0834/2021, .wherein it has been held as under:
"10. It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of
the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot
result in rejection of their testimonies.
11. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the
Accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not
come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements
Page 9 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to
suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on
their ordinary pursuits.
12. Thus, the eye-witness account unfolded through PW18 and PW19
cannot be discarded. We have gone through their testimonies and are
convinced that their statements were cogent, consistent and trustworthy.
13. We, therefore, reject the submissions advanced by Mr. Raj Kumar
Gupta, learned Advocate. On merits, we do not find any reason to take
a different view in the matter."
8. Learned Government Advocate also referred to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs.
The State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 66 to state that
merely because names of accused are not stated and their names are not
specified in FIR, that may not be a ground to doubt contents of FIR and
the case of prosecution cannot be thrown out on such count.
9. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Romesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1994) SCC
(Cri) 67, wherein it has been held as follows:
"6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in
the absence of test identification parade no reliance can be placed on
the testimony of Ashok Kumar PW3. We do not agree with the learned
Counsel. Ashok Kumar has stated that he knew the appellants and even
otherwise he was in the company of the appellants for about three hours
and had witnessed the killing of Chhinda at their hands. There was,
thus, no question of holding any test identification parade in this case.
7. The learned Counsel then contended that the prosecution story was
highly improbable. According to him the rickshaw puller carried three
assailants and a dead body through the bazars of Ludhiana for 2/3 hours
and came across some persons on the way but he did not tell anyone
Page 10 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
about the occurrence. He further contended that at the fame when
injuries were being inflicted on the person of Chhinda, his hue and cry,
must have attracted the residents of the area to the spot. We see no
force in the contention. The learned Special Judge has fully examined
this aspect of the case. According to him the occurrence took place at
mid-night in the month of February. The possibility of the happenings
in the rickshaw having not been noticed by the midnight walkers
cannot be ruled out. In any case the eye-witness account of Ashok
Kumar as (sic) by Mangit Singh and Jogi Ram proves the guilt against
the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 8. We agree with the reasoning
and the conclusions reached by the Special Judge.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant Bhushan Kumar is on
bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bond to undergo the
remaining sentence of imprisonment."
10. Learned Government Advocate went on to add that in an
appropriate case, the GD entry can be treated as a First Information
Report, based on which, the case may progress in respect of search and
seizure. Thus, he concluded that the prosecution had clearly established
the guilt of the accused through testimonies about the overt act on the
part of the appellant/accused and their testimonies were corroborated
with all material particulars. In sum and substance, it was his
submission that since the prosecution was able to prove the guilt on the
part of the appellant/accused beyond any reasonable doubt and hence,
he is not entitled to any leniency and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and perused the materials available on record.
Page 11 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
12. The questions that arise for consideration in this case, are:
(i) Whether the prosecution, through the testimonies of
witnesses, exhibits and material objects marked, is able to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt?
(ii) Whether the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the
impugned judgment for convicting and sentencing the
appellant/accused are sustainable?
13. The main contention of the accused person was that though
there were eyewitnesses produced by the Police to prove that it was
accused, who had done away with the life of the deceased, their
statements were recorded after a period of more than two months. We
feel it appropriate to refer to as to what was the statements made by the
eyewitnesses and how the prosecution was able to link the accused with
the crime in corroboration with other evidence and documents coupled
with the eyewitnesses of P.Ws 1 & 2. On the side of the prosecution,
there were eleven witnesses produced to prove the guilt of the accused,
of whom, versions of P.Ws l and 2 weighed much importance in the
minds of the Trial Court to convict the accused. P.W.1, in her cross
examination stated as follows:
Page 12 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
"18. It is not a fact that I did not see the persons fighting but just
hear it from people but actually when I used my torchlight I had
seen with my eyes bah Thom was fighting with the deceased.
19. I know the accused person bah Thom prior to the incident and
I have met the accused twice or thrice along with the victim."
14. P.W.2 deposed that he was unable to recollect the incident
that happened at night and he was subjected for examination in chief
and cross in the month of December, 2021, whereas the occurrence had
taken place in the year 2011. He was again re-examined and cross-
examined by the accused and the prosecution. In his initial cross
examination, he deposed thus "8. It is a fact that I was only informed
that the deceased died but I did not see who killed him." Subsequently,
his depositions were as follows:
"Re-examination in Chief:
1. On reaching the PO I saw that the deceased victim was lying on the
ground unconscious and he was bleeding from his face at that time
while the accused Shri. Thom was still hitting him."
Re-Cross Examination:
1. It is not a fact that I did not see the victim bleed at the time of the
incident.
2. It is not a fact that I did not recognize the assailant at the time of the
incident."
15. It is apposite to extract the statements made by P.W 1 under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., which read as follows:
Page 13 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
"On 29th Dec. 2011 at about 9:00p.m, I was present at a market place at
Briwar. I had met the victim (L) Shri.Chawas Phyrngap before he was
beaten/assaulted and killed. After talking with him I went my own way.
After sometime I heard people saying that someone was being beaten
up by some men. I along with Shri Kom Patwet rush to the spot and
saw the victim lying unconscious on the ground. He was bleeding from
his face. At that time, I saw Shri.Thom of Shangpung village who was
stilling hitting the half-dead man. That market at Briwar belongs to Shri
Thom. I do not know his title but only his name and village.
The deceased and myself belongs to the same village, therefore, on
seeing what had happened to him we left the spot and went straight to
the Village and informed his parents. We all went to the spot but his
dead body was taken somewhere else. We then returned to our village
Shnongrim. The next day, i.e.30.12.11 the whole village (all men) went
to make a search and at about 1.00 or 2.00pm we found his dead body
at Wah untler and took him home. On 31st Dec 2011 FIR was lodged
and the Police came and conduct post mortem at his house."
16. The afore-stated version was reiterated by P.W.2, stating that
"same statement was given as that of Shri. Rilang Skhlain.", who is
P.W.1. There is no whisper about the seizure of a torchlight, as P.W.1
was able to identify the accused only with the help of the torchlight on
the reason that the incident had happened during midnight. Other
witnesses, namely, P.Ws 3 and 4/mother and wife of the deceased were
supporting the versions of P.Ws 1 and 2 to the extent that P.Ws 1 and 2
informed about the murder of the deceased and actually, they were not
present in the scene of occurrence.
17. P.W.6 Dr. Wandap Bamon had stated that he went to the house
of the deceased and conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body at
Page 14 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
2:00pm on 31.12.2011 and in the opinion of P.W.6, the cause of death
was due to shock and haemorrhage by multiple wounds hit with
weapons. As per the Post Mortem report/Ex.P5, the wounds were
described as under:
1.EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
1. Conditional of 3.Brusies- 4.Mark of
subject-stout. Possition, size and ligature on nect,
Emaciated, 2.Wounds-position size and character nature dissection etc.
decomposed, etc.
Fresh Laceralia wounds post to Right Ear Abdomen Size N
Inch X ½ Inch Right forehead 2 inch 1x1/2 inch Left I
X1 inch Nose:2inch x1 inch Right upper arm size 1 L
check-1 inchX1/2 inch Chin-2inch x1 ½ x 1 inch Left
inch, Upper lip ½ inch x ½ inch, Left Hand size ½ x ½
lumber regim 1.Chop wound 4 ½ x 1 inch
inch 2.chopo wound-2 ½ inch x 1 inch
1.EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
1.Scale, Skull, Vertebree 2.Membraro 3.Brain and Spinal Cord
Chopan wond Scalp: Left parielat Region size-2 Damage Brain-Damage Spinal cord-
inches x1 inch Fracture of left Parital bone size 1 normal
inch x 1 inch vertebrae - normal
18. Though injuries and wounds found on the dead body were
exhibited by Doctor, there was no particular weapon seized by the
prosecution, with which the deceased was attacked, despite the fact that
the Doctor opined that the death was caused with a sharp weapon.
There was no mention by P.Ws.1 and 2 about the weapon used by the
Page 15 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
accused, while hitting the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that
the Apex in the case of Mahamad Khan Nathekhan vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 589 categorically held that a case
where the charge is sought to be proved only on circumstantial
evidence, motive plays an important part in order to prove the guilt of
the accused. Of course, in the instant case, two witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1
and 2 were cited as eyewitnesses and on the basis of their evidence, the
Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused. Except saying that there
were quarrel between the accused and the deceased, as a result of
which, the deceased was murdered, no witness had spoken about the
motive for such murder. Even the prosecution failed to establish as to
what was the exact motive for the so-called quarrel and subsequent
attack. The Supreme Court in Raju Jagdish Paswan vs. The State of
Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0082/2019, held that manner and motive for
commission of murder, magnitude of the crime, anti-social or abhorrent
nature of crime and personality of victim of murder were certain factors
which had to be taken into account for deciding whether a case would
fall in the category of the rarest of rare cases.
19. The Apex Court in Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit kaur and
another (1972) 3 SCC 280, held that a statement recorded under
Page 16 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive
evidence and it can be used both to corroborate or contradict the
statement of a witness. Moreover, the accused in his statement under
Section 313 denied the consumption alcohol with the deceased and
started the war of words and as such, the prosecution must have
produced sufficient evidences to prove either the previous enmity or
sudden provocation and the like. In a case involving murder, the
witnesses were examined in a casual manner with a delay of more than
two months to record their statement as well as their depositions were
recorded in the Court after a decade, which creates doubts in the minds
of this Court.
20. There was no cogency in the deposition of P.W.2, who, on
one hand deposed that he was only informed about the death of the
deceased, as he ran away from the scene of occurrence and on the other
hand, stated that while returning back, he had noticed the accused
hitting the deceased. In all probable, this Court can assume that there is
a possibility of exaggeration and based on the presumption, a person
cannot be convicted to undergo life imprisonment. If at all, the Trial
Court is convinced with the depositions of P.Ws 1 and 2, in the absence
of motive and intention, which are essential ingredients and factor in a
Page 17 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
murder case punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment could
have been brought within the ambit of Section 300 IPC, a culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In a nutshell the correctness of the
last seen version emanating from P.Ws 1 and 2 becomes doubtful,
especially against the Appellant herein. It was not disputed that the
occurrence had taken place during night hours and the P.W.2 is stated to
have identified the accused only with the help of a torchlight, which has
not admittedly been recovered and what were the weapons used for
hitting the deceased was not known. Thus, we are able to see several
flaws in the theory of the prosecution and with such inconclusive
evidence, we are afraid to uphold the judgment of the Trial Court. As
stated earlier, we have also found that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the alleged motive. In our considered view, the
remaining circumstances relied on by the prosecution and held as
proved by the Court below would not unerringly point to the guilt of
the Appellant. Thus, in our view, it is unsafe on the aforesaid
circumstances to maintain the conviction of the Appellant and we thus
extend the benefit of doubt to him.
21. In view of the above, the judgment dated 30.03.2023 passed by
the Sessions Judge/Addl.DC(J), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat
Page 18 of
2024:MLHC:742-DB
made in Sessions Case No.50 of 2021 is set aside and the appellant is
acquitted of the charge. The appellant is set at liberty, in case his
detention not required in any other case. The bail bond executed, if any,
shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to
the appellant.
22. In fine, Crl.A.No.25 of 2023 is allowed. Consequently,
Crl.M.C.No.83 of 2023 is closed.
(W.Diengdoh) (S.Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
