THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction)
DATED : 6th April, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.14 of 2022
Appellant : Kishore Gurung
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Mr.
Simeon Subba, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan
Sunwar and Mr. Shakil Raj Karki, Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the State-Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. By its Judgment dated 31-05-2022, in Sessions Trial
(POCSO) Case No.36 of 2018, the Learned Trial Court convicted the
Appellant under Section 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"). On the same
date, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand) only. The sentence of fine bore a default clause of
imprisonment and set off the period of imprisonment undergone
during trial. He was however acquitted of the offence under
Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved, the Appellant now
assails both the Judgment of Conviction and the Order on
Sentence.
2. The victim, P.W.1, aged about 16 years, lodged Exhibit
1, the FIR before the concerned Police Station on 10-08-2018, at Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 2
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
1650 hours, informing that, on 01-01-2018 she and her friend had
gone on a picnic to Gangtok. As it was late in the evening, her
friend (hereinafter, "S") telephonically called her friend to drop
them home, he arrived at 'Jalipool' where they had awaited him,
accompanied by another boy. Both boys suggested that all four of
them spend the night together. 'S' was agreeable to the proposition
despite the insistence of the Prosecutrix to return home. 'S' and
her boyfriend slept on one bed while the Prosecutrix slept in
another bed. At night, one "Sudesh Rai" forcibly sexually assaulted
her. After the incident, she did not meet him, however she
stopped menstruating. On 10-08-2018, two of her teachers, P.W.4
and P.W.5, took her to the Hospital for a medical check-up where
she was found to be pregnant. Thereafter, the Doctor forwarded
her to the Police Station with two personnel from the "Child Care",
hence she sought legal action against the said "Sudesh Rai".
(i) Zero FIR was registered on the same date under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"),
read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, against "Sudesh Rai" and
forwarded to the jurisdictional Police Station where it was duly re-
registered. The matter was endorsed to P.W.12 for investigation,
upon completion of which Charge-Sheet was submitted against the
Appellant "Kishore Gurung" under Section 376(i) of the IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Learned Trial Court framed
Charge against the Appellant under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO
Act, punishable under Section 6 of the same Act, to which the
Appellant entered a plea of "not guilty". Trial commenced
consequently whereby 12 (twelve) witnesses were examined by the
Prosecution. Thereafter, the Appellant was examined under Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 3
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
"Cr.P.C."). On consideration of all materials on record and final
arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties, the
Appellant was convicted and sentenced as reflected hereinabove.
3. In the arguments advanced by Learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant it was contended that the FIR was lodged against
one "Sudesh Rai", but the trial proceeded against "Kishore Gurung"
with no reasons put forth by the Prosecution as to how both were
identified by them to be one and the same person. That, the
Learned Trial Court had concluded that the Appellant was the
perpetrator of the offence sans Test Identification Parade (for
short, "TI Parade") and chose to rely on the evidence of the victim
who had deposed that the actual name of the Appellant was
"Kishore Gurung" and not "Sudesh Rai" although she admitted to
having learnt of it from the police sources. It was urged that it was
at the behest of the Police that the victim identified the Appellant
as the perpetrator and it was not her independent identification.
That, the Trial Court erroneously observed that identification of the
Appellant even after about one year and three months of the
alleged incident could not be doubted as the victim and the
Appellant spent one whole night in the room. That, in Exhibit 1,
the Prosecutrix had informed that all of them slept in one room and
she occupied one bed separately, contrarily in her deposition before
the Court, she stated that the accused came and slept with her
while his friend slept with 'S'. That, again contrary to the above
statements, in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim had
stated that 'S' and her boyfriend went to one room and she was
given one extra room where she slept, thus conjuring up one room Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 4
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
suddenly. That, "Sudesh Rai" came to her room after parking the
vehicle and forcibly removed her clothes and sexually assaulted
her. This allegation also found no place either in the FIR or in her
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. That, in light of the foregoing
contradictions in her statements, the victim's evidence is
unreliable.
(i) It was further argued that the Learned Trial Court
without cogent proof reached a finding that the victim was a minor
at the time of incident, based on the evidence of P.W.8, the
victim's School Headmaster and P.W.11, the victim's grandmother,
despite the evidence of P.W.8 who while furnishing the School
Admission Register pertaining to the years 2001-2020, Exhibit 10,
stated that he could not confirm whether "27-03-2002" was the
actual date of birth of the minor victim. That, he had issued
Exhibit 9, the Certificate of Date of Birth of the victim based on the
entries in the Register and he was unaware of the author of the
entries in Exhibit 10. That, P.W.11 was produced as a witness to fill
up the lacuna in the Prosecution case with regard to the victim's
date of birth, but she could furnish no documentary evidence of
proof of date of birth of the victim.
(ii) That, the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the
victim under cross-examination admitted that she had physical
relations with other persons after 01-01-2018, hence the Appellant
cannot be saddled with the offence as the perpetrator, on nebulous
identification.
(iii) That, however, the Learned Trial Court correctly
disregarded the DNA Test results which sought to establish the
paternity of the Appellant, as the Prosecution failed to put forth Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 5
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
plausible evidence concerning the collection of blood samples,
Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 and its dispatch to the concerned Centre for
the Expert's opinion.
(iv) That, the Prosecution case is totally dependent on the
evidence of 'S', the victim's friend and "S's" boyfriend, both
however remained untraceable during trial and the Prosecution
reported that they had already left for Nepal and dropped them
from the list of Prosecution witnesses. That, in such circumstances,
the very existence and the statements of 'S' and her friend are
suspect.
(v) In light of the arguments advanced, the impugned
Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Trial Court
deserves to be set aside.
4. In the contra arguments advanced by Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, it was urged that mere absence of T.I.
Parade would not prejudice the Prosecution case as the unequivocal
identification of the Appellant by the victim as the perpetrator of
the offence, suffices to establish the Prosecution case, as she had
seen the Appellant at close quarters. The victim's age has been
duly established by the School Headmaster, P.W.8 and the victim's
grandmother, P.W.11 requiring no further proof. That, in her
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim has denied having any
relations with other persons apart from the Appellant and after the
night of 01-01-2018 she had not been sexually assaulted by any
other person. Consequently, the Appeal be dismissed.
5. We have considered the entirety of the rival
submissions put forth by Learned Counsel before us and
meticulously perused all documents and evidence on record. This Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 6
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
Court has thus to determine; (i) Whether the Learned Trial Court
was correct in concluding that the victim had identified the
Appellant as the perpetrator of the offence, the actual name of the
Appellant being "Kishore Gurung" and not "Sudesh Rai"; and (ii)
Whether the finding of the Learned Trial Court that the victim is a
minor passes the muster of legal proof?
6. We deem it essential to firstly deal with the question
relating to the identification of the Appellant. The Learned Trial
Court observed that, the minor victim had categorically deposed
before the Court that it was only later that she came to know that
the actual name of the accused was "Kishore Gurung" and not
"Sudesh Rai". The Court recorded at Paragraph 28 as follows;
".............. (the records would reveal that the tinted glass partition in the Court room was removed after her evidence was recorded for identification of the accused. She categorically identified him). .........."
(i) It was further observed that merely because no TI
Parade was conducted in the matter, her identification of the
accused cannot be doubted as she had spent one whole night with
the accused in a room, where he had committed penetrative sexual
assault. We are afraid we have to differ with the findings of the
Learned Trial Court for the reasons enunciated hereinafter;
(ii) Admittedly, Exhibit 1 was lodged by P.W.1 against one
"Sudesh Rai" who according to her, had sexually assaulted her on
the relevant night. She had not met him prior to that day nor did
she encounter him anytime after the incident, as per her
deposition. She admitted with clarity under cross-examination that
she came to "know from Police sources" that the actual name of
the accused was "Kishore Gurung" and not "Sudesh Rai". That, the
accused had initially introduced himself to her as "Sudesh Rai". Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 7
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
That having been said, a careful perusal of the victim's evidence
nowhere reflects that she had affirmatively identified the Appellant
by his face, in the Court room, as the perpetrator of the offence,
contrary to the observation of the Learned Trial Court. Thus, the
Prosecution has failed to extract a statement of positive
identification of the Appellant from P.W.1. The Court on closure of
the evidence of P.W.1 has enigmatically recorded as follows;
"........................................................
In terms of Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, the accused, who was behind the tinted glass partition, was identified by the victim after completion of her examination on the removal of the partition.
..........................................................."
(iii) Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act reads as follows;
"33. Procedure and powers of the Special Court.--........................................
(2) The Special Public Prosecutor, or as the case may be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording the examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re- examination of the child, communicate the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the child.
....................................................................."
In the above circumstances, on reading the above provision of law
it emerges that Section 33(2) of the POCSO Act has no relevance
to the identification of an accused. It is unfathomable as to how
the Prosecution is insistent upon their stand that the Appellant is
"Sudesh Rai" and that both "Kishore Gurung" and "Sudesh Rai" are
one and the same person.
(iv) In this context, it is necessary to notice that the
Investigating Officer (I.O.) P.W.12, in her evidence has not
elucidated as to how she concluded that the person who had
committed the offence and was identified as "Sudesh Rai" by the
victim was in fact "Kishore Gurung". Her statement is not Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 8
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
augmented by the production of any documents of either "Kishore
Gurung" or "Sudesh Rai" and she has admitted as much. No TI
Parade was conducted by the Prosecution to identify the Appellant.
We cannot help but observe that the investigation on this aspect is
totally lacking and lackadaisical. When the victim had identified
the offender as "Sudesh Rai", even if the Prosecution and the I.O.
concluded, for reasons only known to them, that, he was in fact
"Kishore Gurung", evidence ought to have been placed on record to
indicate that a thorough investigation had been carried out on this
aspect and no anomalies persisted. This would have assured the
Court of the veracity of the Appellant's identification. The victim
appears to be toeing the line to support the Prosecution case, sans
her own conviction of such identity. P.W.6 the Officer-in-Charge of
the Jurisdictional Police Station has made a concerted effort to
improve the Prosecution case, regarding the identification of the
Appellant, by stating that P.W.1 had filed a written FIR before him,
alleging sexual assault by one "Sudesh Rai alias Kishore Gurung".
Exhibit 1 however belies such statement, P.W.1 clearly not having
mentioned any "alias" in Exhibit 1. P.W.6 further claimed to have
registered a case against "Sudesh Rai alias Kishore Gurung", this
again is belied by Exhibit 2, which categorically reveals that the
registration was against the alleged accused "Sudesh Rai", devoid
of "any alias". P.W.12, the I.O. by her evidence sought to convince
the Court that the accused had introduced himself to P.W.1 as
"Sudesh Rai alias Kishore", which however finds no place in the
evidence of P.W.1 herself, she having consistently identified one
"Sudesh Rai" as the perpetrator. P.W.2 the Officer-in-Charge of
the Police Station where the Zero FIR was registered admitted that Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 9
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
Exhibit 1 was lodged at her P.S. initially and the victim had not
stated in the FIR that the accused had given a false name.
(v) The above circumstance of non-identification of the
Appellant is further exacerbated by the fact that, the Prosecution
failed to establish that the blood samples of the Appellant, the
victim and the baby born to her were ever collected and forwarded
for Expert opinion. No evidence emerged to fortify this stand of
the Prosecution. The Trial Court has correctly ignored the DNA
report where no proof of drawing of blood of all three was
established, added to the fact that it was unproved that the alleged
blood samples were stored as required, to prevent deterioration or
contamination. In light of these gaping lacunae, as detailed above,
found in the Prosecution case, it thus rings clear as a bell that the
identification of the Appellant is nebulous, unconfirmed and
inconclusive. The Prosecution has to attain the bar of proof beyond
reasonable doubt and no Court can made deductions, sans cogent
proof, especially with regard to an accused who stands to loose
productive years of his life, by reason of erroneous identification
and callous investigation. It would do well to recall that the
Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
1 Maharashtra cautioned as follows;
"179. We can fully understand that though the case superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.
180. It must be recalled that the well established rule of criminal justice is that "fouler the crime higher the proof". In the instant case, the life and liberty of a subject was at stake. As the accused was given a capital sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous approach was necessary to be made."
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 10
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
(vi) In Khekh Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2 the
Supreme Court observed that;
"33. It is a common place proposition that in a criminal trial, suspicion however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution to succeed has to prove its case and establish the charge by adducing convincing evidence to ward off any reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused. For this, the prosecution case has to be in the category of "must be true" and not "may be true". This Court while dwelling on this postulation, in Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar [(2015) 16 SCC 369] dilated thereon as hereunder : (Rajiv Singh case, SCC pp. 392-93, paras 66-69)
"66. It is well-entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty on pure moral conviction. Howsoever grave the alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring the conscience of any court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof. The well- established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the crime higher the proof". In unmistakable terms, it is the mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt.
..........................................................................."
(vii) It is also an established proposition of criminal law that
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, the
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted [See Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh3 and Ajit Savant 4 Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka ].
(viii) Now, while addressing the issue pertaining to the age
of the victim, the Learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the
Prosecution was able to prove that the victim was a minor at the
time of the incident, although her parents adduced no evidence and
her birth certificate was not furnished in proof thereof. The
2 (2018) 1 SCC 202 3 (1973) 2 SCC 808 4 (1997) 7 SCC 110 Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 11
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
Learned Trial Court was impressed with the evidence of P.W.8, the
Headmaster of the victim's school, who categorically deposed that,
as per the school records the date of birth of the victim was "27-
03-2002" having produced the School Admission Register
containing the entries. The Learned Trial Court was aware that
P.W.8 had no personal knowledge of the entries in Exhibit 10 and
he had no knowledge whether the Aadhaar Card on the basis of
which the entries of the date of birth of the victim was made, was
her own or that of her parents. There was no investigation in this
context. Nevertheless the Court went on to observe that, in any
event P.W.11 had deposed that the victim's date of birth was "27-
03-2002". P.W.8 received a requisition Exhibit 8, dated 30-10-
2018, from the I.O. P.W.12, requesting for issuance of Birth
Certificate of the victim. P.W.8 verified the details, particularly the
School Admission Register and issued the date of birth of the minor
victim as "27-03-2002". However, it emerges that P.W.8 is
oblivious of the identity of the person who had made the relevant
entries in 2014, in Exhibit 10, as he had joined the school as its
Headmaster in 2018. Evidently, the victim was admitted in the 6th
standard of the school on 14-02-2014, without proof of where she
had attended Kindergarten or production of supporting documents
thereof for proof of age. P.W.8 was also unaware as to whether
the victim's parents had filed her Birth Certificate during her
admission to school. Thus, the birth certificate of the victim was
not furnished nor were her parents produced as witnesses to
substantiate the fact of her date of birth. Her parents had
separated but it is not the Prosecution case that they were
untraceable. The grandmother of the victim was examined as Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 12
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
P.W.11, obviously after P.W.8, in an attempt to improve the
Prosecution case. She deposed that the date of birth of her
granddaughter is "27-03-2002", sans clarity as to how she recalled
her granddaughter's date of birth or whether she did so on account
of her presence at the time of the birth of P.W.1, or during her
school admission. Pausing here briefly, apposite reference may be
made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahadeo s/o
Kerba Maske vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 5 holding that the
age of the juvenile has to be gauged by the following methods;
"12. ...........................................................................
"12. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, by the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat;"
Under Rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of a juvenile, in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of ascertaining the age of a victim as well."
[emphasis supplied]
The above prescribed method for gauging the age of a juvenile can
be applied for the purposes of assessing the age of a victim as well,
but was apparently not resorted to by the Prosecution in the
absence of a birth certificate.
(ix) The I.O. ought to have considered as to whether the
certificate Exhibit 9, issued by the Headmaster, P.W.8 would pass 5 (2013) 14 SCC 637 Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 13
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
the muster of legal proof, failing which an Ossification Test or any
other latest medical test for age determination could have been
resorted to, to verify the age of the victim, which is sadly lacking.
All that the Court can fall back on with regard to the age of the
victim is, sans documentary evidence, the statements of P.W.11
and that of P.W.8, which does not fulfil the legal parameters
prescribed for proof of a document.
(x) In Madan Mohan Singh and Others vs. Rajni Kant and 6 Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at Paragraph 18 inter
alia that, even if the entry was made in an official record by the
official concerned in the discharge of his official duty, it may have
weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose
information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry
so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof
required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases.
The persons on whose information entries were made in Exhibit 10
were not produced. There is, therefore, no unimpeachable evidence
to establish the age of the victim in the absence of which she
cannot be declared to be a minor.
(xi) While addressing the concerns raised by Learned
Counsel for the Appellant pertaining to the unreliability to the
victim's evidence, in view of the contradictions apparent in her
statement before the Court and under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we
notice that the victim has indeed made contradictory statements
requiring the Court to be especially circumspect while appreciating
her evidence. Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement she stated that
her friend and her boyfriend went to one room, while she was
6 (2010) 9 SCC 209 Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 14
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
given one extra room. In contradiction thereof, before the Court, it
was her testimony that the residence of her friend's boyfriend was
a single room with two beds. This is confirmed by her cross-
examination where it is her admission that, on the relevant night
four of them had stayed in one single room. In Exhibit 1, she had
reported that 'S' and her boyfriend slept on one bed and she slept
on another bed. She did not indicate that there was another room
with a bed which she occupied. In her Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement she has stated that the said "Sudesh Rai" sexually
assaulted her that night, but before the Court in exaggeration of
her earlier statement, she deposed that, he repeatedly assaulted
her sexually that night. Her evidence appears to have been
embellished and the new facts that emerge in her evidence appear
to have been made in order to fortify the Prosecution case. Such
contradictory statements cannot be considered by the Court as
gospel truth to nail the Appellant, when the Prosecution has failed
to discharge its responsibility of proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt. In passing it is noticed that 'S' has conveniently
disappeared from the annals of the Prosecution case along with her
boyfriend, which makes the genesis of the Prosecution case itself
doubtful.
(xii) In Pramjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand7 the Supreme
Court held as extracted hereinbelow;
"10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would
7 (2010) 10 SCC 439 Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 15
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions". Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. ............."
The Court thus has to be wary and declare a person guilty only on
sound, cogent and clinching evidence, which assures the Court that
the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In light of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the Prosecution has failed to attain the high
bar set for to it to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Consequently, Appeal is allowed.
9. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant
vide the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence of the
Learned Trial Court are set aside.
10. The Appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section
3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act.
11. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be
detained in any other case.
12. Fine, if any, deposited by the Appellant in terms of the
impugned Order on Sentence, be reimbursed to him.
13. No order as to costs.
Crl.A. No.14 of 2022 16
Kishore Gurung vs. State of Sikkim
14. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information along with its records.
15. Copy of this Judgment also be forwarded to the Jail
Authority at the Central Prison, Rongyek, for information and
compliance.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
06-04-2023 06-04-2023
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
