State Of Sikkim vs Pintso Bhutia
2023 Latest Caselaw 28 Sikkim

            THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
                             (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
                                  Dated : 23rd May, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   ---




SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Crl.A. No.11 of 2022
              Appellant                :       State of Sikkim

                                                     versus

              Respondent               :        Pintso Bhutia

                    Appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of the
                      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Appearance
            Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan
            Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant.
            Mr. Udai. P. Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
            Respondent.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The question that falls for determination before this

Court is; Whether the impugned Judgment, dated 27-04-2021, in

Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.10 of 2018, of the Learned Special

Judge (POCSO), East Sikkim, at Gangtok, acquitting the

Accused/Respondent can be said to be perverse, the word

"perverse" meaning "against the weight of evidence".

(i) The Prosecution narrative is that, Exhibit 1, the First

Information Report (for short, the "FIR"), was lodged by P.W.1, the

Ward Panchayat of the concerned area, before the concerned Police

Station, on 18-12-2017, on having received a verbal report from

P.W.4, the victim‟s mother, informing him that the Respondent had

attempted rape on the victim, P.W.3, aged about 10 years, on 17-

12-2017, around 05.30 a.m. at the house of P.W.13, her aunt.

Exhibit 1 was duly registered on the same date, under Section 8 of

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(hereinafter, the "POCSO" Act), against the Respondent and

endorsed to P.W.15, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for

investigation, on completion of which, Charge-Sheet was submitted

against the Respondent under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the "IPC") read with Section 8 of

the POCSO Act. The Learned Trial Court on taking cognizance of

the offence, proceeded to frame charge against the Respondent

under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 10

to which the Respondent entered a plea of "not guilty". Trial

commenced and 15 Prosecution witnesses including the I.O. of the

case deposed in order to prove the Prosecution case. On closure

of Prosecution evidence, the Court examined the Respondent under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,

the "Cr.P.C."), enabling him to explain the incriminating

circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. He claimed

to have been falsely implicated in the case by the victim and her

mother and denied having sexually assaulted the victim. He chose

not to examine any witness. The verbal arguments of Learned

Counsel for the parties were then heard. On consideration of all

the evidence on record, the Learned Trial Court acquitted the

Respondent of the offence that he was Charged with.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-

Appellant canvassed the contention that the victim at the relevant

time was 10 years old, while the Respondent was a married man,

aged about 39 years and had children. The date of offence was

17-12-2017 and the FIR came to be lodged immediately on 18-12-

2017, after the victim confided in her mother about the sexual

assault. That, the victim has unwaveringly stated in her evidence

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

before the Court and also in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that

the Respondent had pinched her right breast and as it caused her

pain, she got up from the bed and went outside the room. On

returning to her home that day she narrated the incident to her

mother. She was then taken to the Police Station by her mother

and P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.11, the Doctor examined the victim

and found pain and tenderness on the victim‟s right breast, which

was recorded by her in Exhibit 7. That, P.W.8, the Childline Team

Member, corroborated the evidence of the victim, to the effect that,

she was told by P.W.3 that the Respondent had inserted his hand

inside her clothing and pinched her breast, while she was watching

videos at the residence of her relative on the relevant morning.

She showed her the pinch mark on one of her breasts‟. That,

P.W.4, the victim‟s mother also corroborated the statement of

P.W.3 to the effect that, her daughter had narrated to her that the

Respondent had pinched her on her breast and had tried to insert

his hand on her private part. The mother had also removed the

jumper which the victim was wearing and found that one of her

breasts‟ was swollen, the evidence of the P.W.3, P.Ws 4, 8, 11 and

15, the I.O., are all corroborative. That, in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal

Gupta (Dr.) and Others vs. State of Maharashtra

, it was held that the

evidence of the victim is sufficient to convict the Respondent.

Hence, the impugned Judgment of acquittal be set aside and the

Respondent be convicted of the offence under Section 9(m) of the

POCSO Act.

3. The arguments in contra raised by Learned Legal Aid

Counsel for the Respondent was that the victim and the

Respondent were not alone in the room when the act was allegedly

(2010) 13 SCC 657

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

committed. One Kumar Tamang who had spent the night in the

same house was not examined by the Prosecution, leading to an

adverse inference against the Prosecution case. That, there are

inconsistencies in the statement of the victim, P.W.3, P.Ws 1 and

4, as P.Ws 1 and 4, have stated that the Respondent attempted to

rape P.W.3, while P.W.3 herself has made no such allegation and

only speaks of the Respondent pinching her breast. There are

anomalies with regard to which breast was pinched since P.W.11,

the Doctor, has stated that there was pain and tenderness present

on the victim‟s right breast, which P.W.3 confirmed in her Section

164 Cr.P.C. statement, but contrarily in Court said it was the left

one. That, P.W.11, in her cross-examination deposed that, breast

tenderness could be due to hormonal changes and there were no

external injuries on the body of the victim. P.W.8 could not state

on which side the breast was swollen. P.W.13, the house owner

has stated that nothing untoward happened in her house that night

and neither did the Respondent commit any offence in her house.

Hence, the impugned Judgment warrants no interference and the

Appeal be dismissed.

4. The reasons put forth for acquittal of the Respondent

by the Learned Trial Court were as follows;

(i) The evidence of the victim did not inspire confidence,

was shaky and unworthy of any credence.

(ii) That, according to her statement in Court, on the

morning of the incident when she was in bed playing video games,

on her mother‟s cell phone, the Respondent suddenly came to her

bed and pinched her „left breast‟ with his hand with sexual intent.

(iii) That, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

(Exhibit 10), she had accused the Respondent of suddenly coming

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

to her bed and pinching her „right breast‟, by putting his hand

under her jacket.

(iv) The Court also observed that, when P.W.3 informed her

mother, P.W.4, about the incident, she told her that apart from

pinching her breast, the Respondent had even tried to insert his

hand into her private part (vagina).

(v) That, in Exhibit 10, the victim made no mention of the

Respondent having attempted to commit rape on her or having

tried to insert his hand into her private part, but P.W.4 has stated

so in her evidence.

(vi) That, in the FIR lodged by P.W.1 at the instance of

P.W.3 and P.W.4, it was alleged that the Respondent had tried to

commit rape on P.W.3, contrary to the evidence of P.W.3.

(vii) That, from Exhibit 10, it was noticed that P.W.3 stated

that initially her aunt P.W.13 was also watching the video with her.

Suddenly, the Respondent came there and forced P.W.13 to leave

the room asking her to light the incense sticks. After much

persuasion, P.W.13 left the room.

(viii) In Court, P.W.3 had not whispered anything with

regard to P.W.13 being with her on the concerned morning and

about the Respondent having insisted upon P.W.13 to leave the

room.

(ix) P.W.13 gave no evidence of the Respondent

persuading her to leave the room neither was she declared „hostile‟

by the Prosecution.

(x) P.W.3 left her aunt‟s house after having tea. That, her

conduct and demeanour did not suggest that she was nervous or

affected by the alleged act of the Respondent which the Court

found highly unusual given her tender age.

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

(xi) That, all the facts and circumstances above, militate

against her bald claims.

(xii) That, P.W.13, her aunt and P.W.2, her aunt‟s husband,

respectively, did not note anything unusual on the concerned

morning.

(xiii) The other witnesses examined by the Prosecution,

according to the Learned Trial Court, had not deposed anything

worthy on the basis of which the Respondent could be held guilty of

any sexual assault, while at the same time recording that as per

P.W.8, the concerned Childline Team Member, who had counselled

the victim at the child‟s residence in connection with this case, had

found P.W.3 initially in a state of trauma.

(xiv) The Learned Trial Court noted that P.W.11, Dr. Deepika

Gurung had examined P.W.3 and found pain and tenderness on the

victim‟s „right breast‟, but disbelieved such evidence, as P.W.3 had

claimed before the Court that the Respondent had pinched her „left

breast‟.

(xv) The Court however noted and was thereby aware that,

P.W.3 during the counselling narrated to P.W.8 that the

Respondent had inserted his hand inside her clothes and pinched

her breast, on the concerned morning.

(xvi) The Court also observed that the statement of P.W.3,

Exhibit 10, varied with what she had stated before the Court and

opined that it would not matter whether formalities prescribed

under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter,

the "Evidence Act") was complied with or not, as it was the duty of

the Court to go through the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

(xvii) The Court opined that the material variations and

discrepancies go to the root of the case and affect the victim‟s

credibility. Reference was made to Sujoy Sen alias Sujoy Kr. Sen vs.

State of W.B , Jang Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan

and Yudhishtir

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh .

5. In consideration of the grounds put forth by the

Learned Trial Court for disbelieving the evidence of the Prosecutrix,

I have carefully perused the above Judgments relied on by the

Learned Trial Court. It is worth noticing that in Jang Singh (supra),

the Supreme Court found that the Prosecution case hinged solely

upon the oral testimony of P.W.1, who had lodged the FIR, stating

that two persons had died. In his evidence, however, he stated

that after lodging the FIR while he was at the Police Station, the

Sub-Inspector arrived at the Hospital and said one of the persons

was in Hospital, while one died. This circumstance was found to be

"unimaginable" by the Supreme Court, who found P.W.1 to be an

untruthful witness and acquitted the Appellant.

(i) In the case at hand, there is no such erroneous

statement made in the FIR, it is only the language employed.

Instead of P.W.1 reporting it as "sexual assault", he has used the

words "attempted rape", besides, he is a hearsay witness and did

not witness the incident. The offence, whether described as a

sexual assault or attempt to rape indicates a sexual offence

affecting the human body, that too perpetrated on a child. Only

the evidence furnished would indicate the exact nature of the

offence.

(2007) 6 SCC 32

(2001) 9 SCC 704

(1971) 3 SCC 436

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

(ii) In Sujoy Sen (supra), the murder of a girl was based on

circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court discussed the

evidence and found that the FIR was lodged by the father of the

deceased, who had not stated that he saw the accused leaving the

house of the deceased, when the informant was entering. He

stated so, only subsequently, in his evidence before the Trial Court

that, the accused was leaving his house when he entered. The

Supreme Court held that the discrepancy in the FIR was a major

discrepancy, had the first informant seen the accused entering into

the house at the time of the incident, he would have definitely

mentioned the fact in the FIR. The Appellant was found entitled to

the benefit of the doubt.

(iii) In the case at hand, there is no such glaring

discrepancy in the FIR for the reason already discussed above. The

language used in the FIR ought not to divert the attention of the

Court from the evidence of the victim pertaining to the incident,

which has been cogent and consistent. Apart from which, the

Court is required to give purposive interpretation to the provisions

of the POCSO Act. The purpose of enacting the POCSO was to

have a self contained comprehensive legislation inter alia to

provide for protection of children from the offences of sexual

assault, sexual harassment and pornography, with due regard to

safeguarding the interest and well being of the child at every stage

of the judicial process. Disbelieving a minor‟s evidence despite its

consistency and cogency defeats the purpose of the legislation.

The Court cannot be pedantic in its appreciation of the victim‟s

evidence.

(iv) In Yudhishtir (supra), the Appellants were convicted by

the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC,

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court found

that the evidence given by P.Ws 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 clearly

establishes that the Appellants were seen running away from the

house by the back door. But that circumstance, the Court

observed, by itself without any direct evidence, regarding their

participation in the crime or any other circumstantial evidence,

which will conclusively lead to an inference of their participation,

will not justify a Court in finding them guilty of an offence of

murder.

(v) The circumstances of that case are not even relevant or

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant matter,

which is not based on circumstantial evidence.

(vi) That having been said, in the first instance it is relevant

to note that the Learned Trial Court reached a finding that the

victim was below 10 years of age at the time of the incident based

on Exhibit 5, her Birth Certificate. Her date of birth therein is

reflected as 01-11-2008. While examining the evidence on record,

P.W.1 reveals that on 18-12-2017, the victim‟s mother approached

him and verbally reported that the Accused had sexually assaulted

her victim daughter, aged 10 years. Cross-examination could not

decimate this statement. It is also worth noticing that to a

common man hailing from a village, the act of the Respondent

perhaps was equivalent to an „attempt to rape‟. While sifting the

chaff from the grain of the Prosecution evidence on record, it

categorically emanates that the Respondent had perpetrated the

act on the victim.

(vii) The victim deposed that, she was pinched on her

breast, this evidence is buttressed by the evidence of the Doctor,

P.W.11, who examined the victim on 18-12-2017, a day after the

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

incident and found pain and tenderness present on the victim‟s

right breast. The evidence of P.W.8, lends further credence to the

Prosecution case as it is her testimony that when she went to

counsel the victim on 20-12-2017, she found her in a state of

trauma. P.W.3 told her during counselling that the Respondent had

pinched her breast and showed her the pinch mark on one of the

breasts‟. The Learned Trial Court despite noting the evidence of

P.W.8 as seen from the impugned Judgment blindsided it. P.W.4

on removing the jacket of P.W.3 had also seen the swollen breast.

It is relevant to notice that the evidence of P.Ws 3, 8 and 11 have

not been decimated in cross-examination. No evidence was

furnished by the Respondent to indicate that the victim could have

conjured up the incident nor is it the Respondent‟s case that they

had acrimonious relations between the victim‟s family and that of

the Respondent, or for that matter any other reason, nor is it the

Respondent‟s case that the victim was tutored.

(viii) The Court observed that the victim did not appear to be

nervous or affected by the alleged act, thereby insinuating that

such an act did not take place. It is worth remarking that the

Court failed to appreciate the shock and consternation that the

child evidently experienced which left her dumbstruck for some

time and made her reticent about discussing it even with her

mother. That apart, the psychology of every person to a traumatic

incident differs and consequently so does the reaction. There is no

strait jacket formula for reactions to sexual assaults, more so,

when the victim is a bare 10 year old and unable to comprehend

the perverse act of an adult married man.

(ix) There cannot be mathematical precision in the evidence

furnished by different witnesses, articulated by each in their own

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

individual style and manner, but consistency pertaining to the crux

of the case indeed subsists in the evidence of the Prosecution

witnesses, and does not affect the core of the Prosecution case,

being that of sexual assault.

(x) In Sunil Kumar (supra), it was held that;

"30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.(Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587].)

...........................................................................................................

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 219], Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P. [(2003) 1 SCC 761], Budh Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 9 SCC 731], S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy [(2008) 5 SCC 535], Arulvelu Singh v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206], Ram Singh v. State of H.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 445] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189].)." (emphasis supplied)

(xi) Hence, minor contradictions such as which breast was

pinched and whether the victim mentioned about P.W.13 being

persuaded to leave the room do not affect the core of the case.

6. Further, the Learned Trial Court instead of considering

that the victim had not been confronted with her Section 164

Cr.P.C. statement proceeded to observe as extracted below;

"18. ........................................... It may further be pointed out that though the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused did not specifically invite the attention of PW3 to the contents of her statement given before the Ld. Magistrate, she has nonetheless herself categorically deposed that she had given the said statement. Further, it has been identified by PW12. This Court cannot, therefore, overlook the same. It would not matter here whether the formalities prescribed under Section 145 of the Indian

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

Evidence Act, 1872 were observed or not. Rather, it becomes the duty of the Court to go through such statement. ............................................."

(i) It is now no more res integra that the contents of

Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement are not substantive evidence and if

the Court has to consider its contents then the author of the

contents, in other words P.W.3, ought to be confronted with it and

the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act complied with. It

is also trite law that the contents of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement

ought to have been identified by the victim and not P.W.12, the

Learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded it and who obviously

cannot vouch for the veracity of the contents. The Learned Trial

Court was in error on this facet and failed to appreciate the legal

perspective and provision correctly. The Court cannot reach an

independent conclusion of the contents of any document without

proof of its contents, as concluded by the Learned Trial Court in its

observation regarding Section 145 of the Evidence Act and Section

164 Cr.P.C. extracted supra. It is an elementary requirement of

the Evidence Act that the contents need to be proved in terms of

the provisions of the Act. Beneficial reference in this context is

made to the observations in Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar

Mukherjee and Others

wherein it was inter alia held that;

"37. It is true that ordinarily if a party to an action does not object to a document being taken on record and the same is marked as an exhibit, he is estopped and precluded from questioning the admissibility thereof at a later stage. It is, however, trite that a document becomes inadmissible in evidence unless the author thereof is examined; the contents thereof cannot be held to have been proved unless he is examined and subjected to cross- examination in a court of law. The document which is otherwise inadmissible cannot be taken in evidence only because no objection to the admissibility thereof was taken." (emphasis supplied)

(2009) 9 SCC 221

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

(ii) In R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala6 it was held as follows;

"26. Evidence given in a court under oath has great sanctity, which is why the same is called substantive evidence. Statements under Section 161 CrPC can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statements under Section 164 CrPC can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. In a case where the Magistrate has to perform the duty of recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC, he is under an obligation to elicit all information which the witness wishes to disclose, as a witness who may be an illiterate, rustic villager may not be aware of the purpose for which he has been brought, and what he must disclose in his statements under Section 164 CrPC. Hence, the Magistrate should ask the witness explanatory questions and obtain all possible information in relation to the said case.

27. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 is concerned, the object is twofold; in the first place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement; and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164, his evidence in court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. .......

28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 CrPC, such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence." (emphasis supplied)

(iii) On the anvil of the above mentioned principles, Exhibit

10, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim is thus

disregarded by this Court as being an unproven document, for the

foregoing reasons.

7. Reliance by the Learned Trial Court on State of Rajasthan

vs. Kartar Singh

is erroneous while discussing Section 145 of the

Indian Evidence Act, for the reason that the witness therein Mst.

Kartar Kaur was confronted with the statement made before the

Committal Court. The Public Prosecutor had read to the witness the

whole of the witness‟s statement before the Committal Court and

asked her whether it was her statement. She admitted that it was

a true record of what she had stated before the Committal Court,

(2013) 14 SCC 266

AIR 1970 SC 1305

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

but it was a false statement, given under Police pressure. This was

not what transpired in the instant case as revealed by the

foregoing discussions.

(i) In Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Punjab8 also referred to

by the Learned Trial Court, the Supreme Court while referring to

the evidence of one witness therein, Jagir Singh, who had been

examined as P.W.4 found on examination of his evidence that the

formalities prescribed by Section 145 of the Evidence Act were

complied with. His cross-examination shows that every

circumstance intended to be used as contradiction was put to him

point by point and passage by passage. The Supreme Court

observed that immediately after the witness had been questioned

about each separate fact point by point, the whole statement was

read out to him and he admitted that he had made it in the

Committing Court. Accordingly, the procedure adopted there was

in substantial compliance of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The

Court clarified that all that is required is that the witness be treated

fairly and be afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining the

contradictions after his attention has been drawn to them in fair

and reasonable manner. The Court was satisfied that this was

done in the said case. It is no one‟s case that P.W.3 herein was

confronted with the contents of Exhibit 10 for contradiction or

corroboration.

8. Besides, it is evident that the victim is a mere 10 year

old child at the time of offence, her level of articulation and

understanding of the act perpetrated on her has to be taken into

consideration. The Learned Trial Court failed to consider that the

evidence in Court was recorded six months after the statement of

AIR 1952 SC 214

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

the victim Exhibit 10 was recorded, which in any event as

discussed supra bore no evidentiary value. The Learned Trial Court

was also of the view that P.Ws 2 and 13 did not witness anything

untoward, despite evidence pointing with clarity to the fact that

both were not in the room when the incident took place. The

Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim nowhere

stated that the Appellant perpetrated other acts of sexual assault,

besides the act referred to by her, as she was the only witness to

the assault perpetrated on her. Besides, she was not even

confronted with the contents of Exhibit 1 to enable her to affirm or

deny the words used therein. The victim cannot be foisted with the

responsibility of exacerbation of the act of the Respondent as

narrated to P.W.1, by her perhaps well intentioned mother, P.W.4.

9. The observation of the Learned Trial Court that other

witnesses had not given evidence to enable conviction of the

Respondent is superfluous as there were no eye witnesses to the

incident. It is settled law that if the evidence of the witness is

cogent, consistent and unwavering she qualifies as a sterling

witness, upon whose evidence conviction of the perpetrator can be

based. I am of the considered opinion that the witness P.W.3 is

indeed a sterling witness.

10. In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the

detailed discussions, the irresistible conclusion would be that the

Respondent had sexually assaulted the minor victim.

11. The impugned Judgment of the Learned Trial Court is

set aside being perverse/against the weight of evidence.

12. The Respondent is convicted under Section 9(m) of the

POCSO Act punishable under Section 10.

State of Sikkim vs. Pintso Bhutia

13. Let the Respondent surrender before this Court by

02.00 p.m. today, for hearing on Sentence.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 23-05-2023

Approved for reporting : Yes

sdl