1. Whether the Appellant committed the murder of the
2. The Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Special
Case No.01 of 2023 (State of Sikkim vs. Navin alias Nar Bahadur
essential. The Appellant then aged about 29 years, attacked the
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
on her throat on 01-11-2022, around 1130 hours, at Majhi Gaon.
reached at around 1155 hours. The Doctor on Duty PW-2, informed
throat cut, which could possibly be homicidal. At around 1224
Tamang, PW-18 about the assault. At around 1259 hours, the
reasonable doubt. The Appellant was afforded the opportunity of
which he claimed innocence. After hearing the final arguments of
on Sentence.
4. While concluding that the Appellant was responsible for
of the incident they saw the Appellant and the deceased together.
(iii) PW-1, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-18 all heard a lady scream.
ground. The Appellant looked towards them and fled towards the
riverside. PW-10 and PW-18 both noticed a profusely bleeding cut
employed. MO-1 was identified by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-9 as the
article found in the possession of the Appellant. It was retrieved
phone, MO-6 lying on the ground which he handed over to PW-18.
The articles were later formally seized by PW-12. PW-6
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
Material Objects, i.e., MOs 1, 6 and 7. PWs 6, 7, 13 and 20 were the
that she was "brought dead". PW-2 suspected it to be a case of
(xiii) PW-17 the Scientist at the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory (CFSL), Kolkata, established that MOs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7
articles belonging to the Appellant, contained blood stains which
matched the dried blood samples MO-8, of the deceased.
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
(xiv) Although they were declared hostile by the Prosecution,
the Court took into consideration the relevant evidence of PW-3 and
PW-5 about the Appellant producing the surgical blade MO-1,
containing blood stains, from his pocket.
(xv) The Court also considered the evidence of PW-11, the
Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the victim and found an
incised wound on her and opined that, the cause of death was to the
best of his knowledge, due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of
the cut injury in her throat. PW-11 identified MO-8 two filter papers
which contained the blood samples of the deceased, collected by
him.
(xvi) PW-14, the Head Constable proved that on 19-11-2022
he had submitted one sealed box MO-12, containing the Material
Exhibits listed in Exhibit P-19/PW-14 to the office of the Deputy
General of Police (sic, Deputy Inspector General of Police), Crime
Branch, CID, Police HQ, Gangtok (hereinafter, "DIG, Crime Branch,
PHQ").
(xvii) PW-14 proved that, on 28-06-2023, he received the
sealed box MO-12, containing the Case Exhibits, along with the
opinion report, from the office of the DIG, Crime Branch, PHQ.
(xviii) The evidence of PWs 15 and 19 and the contents of
Exhibit P-21/PW-15, Movement Order and Exhibit P-22/PW-15
Authorisation Letter, established that both PWs 15 and 19 were
authorised to proceed to the CFSL, Kolkata to deliver the articles and
later collect the examined Case Exhibits from the CFSL along with
opinion/report, which they complied.
(xix) PW-16, according to the Court, had proved that on 01-
11-2022 the Officer-in-Charge PW-12, handed over to him the
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
sealed Case Exhibits, seized by the PW-22 Investigating Officer (IO).
PW-16 entered the details of the Case Exhibits in the Malkhana
Register, Exhibit P-23/PW-16 as per the details mentioned in the
Seizure Memo furnished PW-12.
(xx) PW-16 proved that all the Case Exhibits in a sealed and
packed condition were received by the Rangpo PS from CFSL and
forwarded to the Court, through Head Constable PW-14.
(xxi) The Court thus concluded inter alia that, the
circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution unerringly
pointed to the guilt of the Appellant and had thereby proved beyond
reasonable doubt that, the death of Suk Maya alias Man Maya
Biswakarma, the victim, had been caused by the Appellant.
5. Before this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
raised the contentions that (a) the articles alleged to have been
seized from the Appellant, i.e., MO-1, MO-6, MO-7, were in fact
seized from the possession of PW-18 and not from the Appellant,
raising doubts about its origin. (b) That, the seizure of MO-1 raises
doubts about the veracity of the Prosecution case as PW-1 stated
that PW-18 took MO-1 from the possession of the Appellant, while
PW-18 stated that the Appellant handed over MO-1 to him. (c) The
Appellant was forwarded for medical examination to the Rangpo
PHC, at 02.50 p.m. under Police escort and thereby Police custody,
but the Prosecution relies on the alleged voluntary extra-judicial
confession of the Appellant, whereby he confessed to PW-2 that he
had injured the victim, which resulted in her death. This alleged
statement relied on by the Learned Trial Court is in fact inadmissible
in evidence, having been made whilst he was in Police custody and
thus hit by the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act,
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
1872 (for short "IEA"). (d) The evidence of PW-1, who deposed
that, on seeing them the Appellant stated that, he wanted to
surrender and walked towards them, PW-2 who under cross-
examination by the Prosecution stated that the Appellant told them
that he wanted to surrender before the Police, PW-5, who under
cross-examination by the Prosecution stated that the Appellant told
Dawa Police, PW-18, that he cut the throat of the deceased by using
the surgical blade and the evidence of PW-18 that, the Appellant
took out one surgical blade from the back pocket of his pants and
told them that he had cut the old lady with the said article, are all
inadmissible in evidence having been made when he was in Police
custody, PW-18 being a Police personnel and having apprehended
the Appellant. Strength was garnered from the observation of the
Supreme Court in Perumal Raja alias Perumal vs. State, Rep. By
Inspector of Police where in a similar context, it was reasoned that,
the so called confession were ex facie inadmissible in evidence as
the accused persons were presented at the Hospital by the Police
Officers, having been arrested in the said case. The Supreme Court
was therefore not inclined to accept the admission of the accused as
incriminating pieces of evidence, relevant under Section 21 of the
IEA. (e) It was next contended that there was a delay of twenty-
eight days in forwarding the Material Objects to the RFSL for
scientific examination and the chain of custody of the Material
Objects lacks documentation. The CFSL guidelines with regard to
custody of Material Objects were also not complied with rendering
the MOs exhibited by the Prosecution as inconsequential. (f) MOs 2
and 3 instead of being seized by the Police was seized by the Doctor
2024 SCC OnLine SC 12
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
(PW-2) and made over to PW-22 I.O., sans a Seizure Memo as also
MO-8 which was obtained by PW-11 and made over to PW-22
without a Seizure Memo. These circumstances vitiate the
Prosecution case making the evidence unreliable. Strength on this
count was drawn from the decision of the Supreme Court in
Allarakha Habib Memon and Others vs. State of Gujarat . (g) The next
contention was that PW-20 is a stock witness and his evidence lent
no credence to the Prosecution case, towards this end reliance was
placed on Dharamveer Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Another3. (h)
That, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish
the identity of the Appellant as he was unknown to the Prosecution
witnesses, reliance was placed on Abdul Waheed Khan alias Waheed
and Others vs. State of A.P. , where the Supreme Court elucidated the
purpose of conducting a TIP. It was urged that in view of the
anomalies that have been pointed out in the Prosecution case, the
Appellant deserves an acquittal by setting aside the impugned
Judgment and Order on Sentence.
6. Per contra, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
contended that, the Prosecution witnesses including PW-1, PW-9,
PW-10 and PW-18, unequivocally identified the Appellant and also
stated that the Appellant was present at the riverside and in
possession of MO-1, which they all witnessed. The evidence of PWs
1, 9 and 10 further corroborates the sequence of events of the
incident and the fact that the Appellant fled from the place of
occurrence after he assaulted the victim. The prolonged interaction
of these witnesses with the Appellant thereby proves that they
(2024) 9 SCC 546
(2020) 12 SCC 492
(2002) 7 SCC 175
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
recognise him, which establishes his identity. There is no reason to
doubt it in light of the evidence produced. The forensic report of
PW-17 supports the Prosecution case that the wearing apparels of
the Appellant contained the victim‟s blood samples, while the
recovery of MO-6 and MO-7 was proved by PW-6, augmented by the
Appellant admitting to PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW-10 of his
complicity in the offence by way of the extra-judicial confession. For
an extra-judicial confession to be considered by the Court, the
primary requirement is the voluntariness of the Appellant‟s
statement which has been duly proved by the aforementioned PWs.
The evidence unerringly points to the guilt of the Appellant,
therefore the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence warrant
no interference.
7. Due consideration has been afforded to the arguments
advanced before us, the documents including the evidence and the
impugned Judgment have been carefully perused.
8. Dealing first with the non-holding of the TIP and thus the
alleged nebulous identity of the Appellant, it is relevant to notice
that PW-1 heard a lady scream loudly on 01-11-2022, at around 11
a.m. when he along with his colleagues were resting in their
barracks after their night duty. He witnessed the Appellant dressed
in MO-2, in a state of panic, who on noticing PW-1 and his
colleagues, loosened his grip on the lady, who fell to the ground
while he fled towards the riverside. PW-3 was declared hostile and
under cross-examination by the Appellant asserted that his
statement was not recorded by the Police in connection with this
case. He nevertheless admitted that the Appellant had shown him a
blood stained surgical knife near the river, which was handed over to
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
PW-18. PW-9 a colleague of PW-1, also saw the Appellant, running
towards the river, after they heard a lady screaming opposite their
barracks. PW-10 corroborated the evidence given by PWs 1 and 9 in
this context. PW-18 fortified their evidence on the identity of the
Appellant. It thus emerges that these witnesses have seen the
Appellant not only at the crime scene but also at the riverside where
he had fled. They have evidently had a prolonged interaction with
him, affording them adequate time and opportunity to identify him.
The Supreme Court in Matru alias Girish Chandra vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh propounded that identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence and are primarily meant for the purpose of
helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their
investigation is on the correct path. The identification can only be
used as corroborative evidence of the statement in Court.
(i) It may be elaborated here that the purpose of holding
TIP is to assist the investigating agency with an assurance that their
progress with the investigation into the offence is on the right track,
and to ensure that a wrong person is not identified as the
perpetrator of the offence. That, the memory of the witnesses is
reliable with regard to the identification of the Appellant. However, it
is not necessary when the accused is arrested at the place of
occurrence, enabling witnesses to identify the accused by way of his
physical features and other special features and thereafter
producing him before the Police. Such an encounter provides
sufficient time for the witnesses to look at and identify the accused.
TIP is therefore, not imperative in every case, but is only for the
purpose of preventing mistaken identity. In Abdul Waheed Khan
(1971) 2 SCC 75
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
(supra) relied on by the Appellant the afore-detailed principles have
been enumerated. The credible and cogent evidence of the above
Prosecution Witnesses with graphic details, thereby establishes the
identity of the Appellant. We do not find any reason to doubt the
Prosecution case on this aspect.
9. Addressing the issue of extra-judicial confession, the
Appellant was taken to PW-2 for his medical examination, before
whom he voluntarily disclosed that he had injured the victim, using
a surgical blade, upon which she succumbed to her injury. Although
Exhibit P-2/PW-2, the medical requisition, bears the date, 01-11-
2022, the time is not recorded. As per PW-2 she examined him at
02.50 p.m. As per the I.O., the Appellant was apprehended by
locals at the river banks at around 12.55 hours. The Arrest Memo,
Exhibit P-31/PW-22, indicates that the Appellant was arrested on
01-11-2022, at 16.08 hours. He was therefore sent to PW-2 before
the formal arrest. That having been said, would the mere forwarding
of the Appellant by the Police, for medical examination, under Police
escort, render his extra-judicial confession to PW-2 inadmissible in
evidence and was the Appellant in Police custody or not at 02.50
p.m., in view of the fact that he was formally arrested only at 16.08
hours as per the Arrest Memo, Exbt P-31/PW-22.
(i) At this juncture, apposite reference is made to Kishore
Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh the question that arose before
the Court was whether extra-judicial confession made by an accused
to a village Pradhan in the company of whom the accused was left,
by the Police Officer, after apprehending him, would be said to have
been made while in Police custody. While answering the question in
(1991) 1 SCC 286
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
the affirmative a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as
follows and also observed therein as to why such a statement would
be inadmissible in evidence;
"8. Admittedly PW 10 and the appellant
do not belong to the same village. From the
narrative of the prosecution story it is clear that
PW 27, and PW 10 came together and
apprehended the appellant from his village and
was taken to Jassur for identification. After he
was identified by PW 7 and PW 8 it was stated
that he was brought back to Gaggal village of
PW 10 and was kept in his company and PW 27
left for further investigation. Section 25 of the
Evidence Act provides that no confession made
to a police officer shall be proved as against a
person accused of any offence. Section 26
provides that no confession made by any person
while he is under custody of the police officer,
unless it be made in the immediate presence of
a magistrate, shall be proved as against such
person. Therefore, the confession made by an
accused person to a police officer is irrelevant by
operation of Section 25 and it shall (sic not) be
proved against the appellant. Likewise the
confession made by the appellant while he is in
the custody of the police shall not be proved
against the appellant unless it is made in the
immediate presence of the magistrate, by
operation of Section 26 thereof. Admittedly the
appellant did not make any confession in the
presence of the magistrate. The question,
therefore, is whether the appellant made the
extra-judicial confession while he was in the
police custody. It is incredible to believe that the
police officer, PW 27, after having got identified
the appellant by PW 7 and PW 8 as the one last
seen in the company of the deceased would have
left the appellant without taking him into
custody. It is obvious, that with a view to avoid
the rigour of Sections 25 and 26, PW 27 created
an artificial scenario of his leaving for further
investigation and kept the appellant in the
custody of PW 10, the Pradhan to make an
extra-judicial confession. Nothing prevented PW
27 to take the appellant to a Judicial Magistrate
and have his confession recorded as provided
under Section 164 of the CrPC which possesses
great probative value and affords an unerring
assurance to the court. It is too incredulous to
believe that for mere asking to tell the truth the
appellant made voluntarily confession to PW 10
and that too sitting in a hotel. The other person
in whose presence it was stated to have been
made was not examined to provide any
corroboration to the testimony of PW 10.
Therefore, it would be legitimate to conclude
that the appellant was taken into the police
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
custody and while the accused was in the
custody, the extra-judicial confession was
obtained through PW 10 who accommodated the
prosecution (sic appellant). Thereby we can
safely reach an irresistible conclusion that the
alleged extra-judicial confession statement was
made while the appellant was in the police
custody. It is well settled law that Sections 25
and 26 shall be construed strictly. Therefore, by
operation of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the
confession made by the appellant to PW 10 while
he was in the custody of the police officer (PW
27) shall not be proved against the appellant. In
this view it is unnecessary to go into the
voluntary nature of the confession etc."
10. In Ram Singh vs. Sonia and Others7 the Supreme Court
observed inter alia, that, the crucial test as to whether an accused is
in police custody when his confession is recorded is whether at that
time he is a free man or his movements are controlled by the police,
either by themselves or through some agencies employed by them,
for the purpose of securing the confession. A temporary absence of
a policeman or a police officer would not terminate his custody and
the accused shall be deemed to be in the custody of the police in
such circumstances.
11. Thus, on the anvil of the observations above, evaluating
the word „custody‟, which has not been defined in the IEA, the
implication is that there must be some restraint or surveillance,
upon the liberty of the citizen, either directly or indirectly, caused by
the Police, it does not necessarily mean custody after formal arrest.
In the present case the evidence of PWs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 reveals
that the Appellant was apprehended on the river banks, by several
persons including PW-18 a Police personnel. As per PW-1, when he
and his colleagues reached the riverside they were informed by two
small boys that, the Appellant was sitting by the river. Some other
persons also arrived there. On seeing them the Appellant stated
(2007) 3 SCC 1
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
that he wanted to surrender and walked towards them. The cross-
examination of PW-3 revealed that the accused told him and the
IRBn personnel, who accompanied him, that, he wanted to
surrender before the Police. The evidence of PW-4 corroborated
that of PW-3. PW-5 evidently had no personal interaction with the
Appellant. As per PW-6, when they enquired about the incident
from the Appellant, he showed the blade (MO-1), which he took out
from his pocket and informed them that he had cut his grandmother
with the same blade. As per PW-9 the Appellant told them that "he
tried to kill since long and on the said day he killed". The surgical
blade was taken out by the Appellant from his pocket and as per
PW-9 handed over to "one plainclothes duty personnel". PW-10
deposed that some people of the locality asked the Appellant about
the incident, upon which he took out one surgical blade from his
pocket and told them that he slit the lady‟s neck with the blade.
PW-18 fortified the evidence of all the aforementioned witnesses
with regard to the self-incriminating confession made by the
Appellant. The all important query which prevails upon us now is
whether the identity of PW-1, PW-9 and PW-18 as Police personnel
was in the knowledge of the Appellant. From an examination of all
relevant witnesses it appears that the Appellant was unaware of
their identity as the Appellant‟s evidence reveals that he wanted to
surrender "before the police", despite the presence of the three
Police personnel. While navigating through the circumstances in the
Prosecution evidence, we are not inclined to consider the extra-
judicial confession made by the Appellant to PW-2, as he was,
without a doubt in Police custody then having been accompanied by
a Police constable for his medical examination, upon which Section
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
26 of the IEA kicks into place. However, the extra-judicial
confession made before the other Prosecution Witnesses as already
discussed are voluntary extra-judicial confessions and can well be
accepted and considered for the purposes of his conviction.
12. While addressing the arguments regarding the seizures
of the MOs, the formal seizure of MO-1 was made by PW-12. The
then SHO, Rangpo PS, who deposed that he seized MOs 1, 6 and 7
from the possession of PW-18 (who had produced the Appellant
before the Rangpo PS) duly preparing a Seizure Memo Exbt. P-
6/PW-6 in the presence of independent witnesses PW-6 and PW-7.
This evidence was corroborated by PW-18. The Appellant was also
present at the time of the seizure. Although it may relevantly be
noticed that, PW-7 deposed that MOs 1, 6 and 7 were lying on the
table of PW-12, when he was summoned to the PS to witness the
seizure. PW-18 himself testified that, the Appellant took out MO-1
from his trouser pocket near the river and on his asking handed over
MO-1 to PW-18. He along with the Appellant then reached the crime
scene and the Appellant was taken to the PS by the I.O. PW-22 and
PW-12 accompanied by PW-18. From the evidence that has been
extracted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that no
suspicion arises with regard to the seizure of MO-1 as the
Prosecution witnesses have given categorical evidence on the
recovery and seizure. The seizure of the blood stained MOs 6 and 7
find fortification in the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 12.
(i) MO-4, 2 ml. of dried blood sample of the Appellant was
collected by PW-2, inserted into MO-5 (envelope) and handed over
to the Police as also MO-2 and MO-3 wearing apparels of the
Appellant. No cross-examination was conducted with regard to the
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
absence of Seizure Memos on MOs 2, 3 and 4 being handed over to
PW-22 by PW-2 and such objection has been raised in Appeal for the
first time.
(ii) PW-11 proved the collection of MO-8 in two numbers
(collectively) as the filter papers which contained the blood samples
of the deceased and MO-9 the envelope containing MO-8. These
facts stood undecimated under cross-examination of the witnesses.
Although no Seizure Memo was prepared for MOs 8 and 9, here too,
no cross-examination was conducted. There are no major
contradictions in the evidence with regard to the seizures which
would strike at the root of the Prosecution case or render the
seizures inadmissible in evidence.
13. The next argument pertained to the chain of custody of
the Material Objects detailed hereinabove. PW-12 was cross-
examined with regard to MOs 1, 6 and 7, but no question was put to
him about the chain of custody. PW-14, was the Head Constable
posted at the Rangpo PS at the relevant time, who submitted MO-12
one sealed box containing the Case Exhibits to the DIG, Crime
Branch, PHQ, on 19-11-2022. He identified Exhibit P-19/PW-14 as
the same scanned copy of Case Exhibit details, with the seal and
signature of the Inspector General of Police, on the box. On 28-06-
2023 PW-14 received back the Exhibits, along with the original
opinion, from the Office of the DIG, Crime Branch, PHQ, which he
identified as Exhibit P-20/PW-14. These facts stood the test of
cross-examination.
(i) PW-15 and PW-19 were responsible for taking the Case
Exhibits to the CFSL, Kolkata, vide the Movement Order, dated 30-
05-2023, issued by the DIG, Crime Branch, PHQ. On 08-06-2023,
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
the DIG, Crime Branch, PHQ issued another Authorisation Letter to
PWs 15 and 19, directing them to collect the Case Exhibits with the
opinion/report from the Office of the Director, CFSL, Kolkata, which
they complied with.
(ii) PW-15 and PW-19 admitted to the absence of Handing
and Taking Over Memos with regard to the Exhibits ferried to and fro
by them, however the existence of the Authorisation Letters and
compliance by PW-15 and PW-19 thereto remained undemolished.
(iii) PW-22 the IO of the case, detailed the journey of the
Case Exhibits, from seizure, to the Expert at the CFSL, Kolkata, in
terms of the Movement Order, issued by the concerned authority
and its return. The deposition of PW-14, PW-15 and PW-19
therefore find corroboration in the evidence of PW-22.
(iv) The CFSL Expert PW-17 deposed that, one sealed cloth
packet forwarded by the DIG, Crime Branch, PHQ, was received by
him through Special Messenger and the matter assigned to him for
DNA analysis on 15-02-2023, which he commenced on the same
day and completed on 28-02-2023. The articles MOs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17 were identified by him. The witness at no
point lamented that the Exhibits forwarded to him had either
deteriorated or were rendered unfit for examination in any other
manner nor was he aggrieved with the quantities forwarded for
conducting the relevant scientific tests. It is not the Appellant‟s case
that the articles were contaminated by the Prosecution by the
delayed forwarding, to the detriment of the Appellant.
(v) Learned Counsel for the Appellant had relied on
Dharamveer Prasad (supra) to augment his submission regarding the
chain of custody. Having perused the matter, we find that it deals
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
with non-compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is irrelevant for the
present purposes, the Act being self-contained and dealing with
controlled substance, drug abuse and matters thereto. In Prakash
Nishad alias Kewat Zinak Nishad vs. State of Maharashtra the Supreme
Court was considering the delay in sending the samples, which
remained unexplained, and raised the possibility of contamination
and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value which could
not be reasonably ruled out. Consequently, it was observed that
"without any delay" and "chain of custody" aspects which are
indispensible to the vitality of such evidence were not complied with
and accordingly, the DNA report was not taken into consideration by
the Supreme Court.
(vi) In the present matter, despite a prolix cross-examination
of PW-14, PW-15, PW-19 and PW-22, no question were put to the
witnesses with regard to the chain of custody or the delay that
occurred in forwarding the Material Objects to the CFSL for
examination. In such circumstances, it cannot be assailed before
the Appellate Forum for the first time. The CFSL guidelines pressed
into service before this Court, were in fact never brought to the
notice of the witnesses during their cross-examination.
(vii) The allegation that PW-20 is a stock witness is not borne
by any evidence on record nor was any such evidence furnished by
the Appellant.
14. In conclusion, it emerges that PW-2 admittedly failed to
identify MO-4 as the blood sample of the Appellant. PW-17 although
identified Exhibit „J‟ as the two pieces of cotton gauze bearing the
(2023) 16 SCC 357
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
blood samples of the Appellant (Exhibit P-29/PW-17), but made no
mention of Exhibit „J‟ in his report, except that along with Exhibit „K‟
it was subjected to DNA isolation. Thus, no positive identification of
Exhibit „J‟ was made by PW-17. The Prosecution thereby failed to
prove that MO-4 or Exhibit „J‟ are the blood samples of the
Appellant.
(i) Nonetheless, PW-17 found that the blood stains on the
wearing apparels of the Appellant, being MO-2 and MO-3 were of
the deceased, having compared them with Exhibit „K‟ (MO-8) blood
sample identified to be that of the deceased by PW-17. PW-17 not
only found the blood of the victim on the wearing apparels of the
Appellant, but also on the surgical blade (MO-1). The above
evidence augmented by the evidence of the Appellant that he had
cut his grandmother with a knife and sought to surrender before the
Police establishes that the Appellant had committed the offence.
Even if we are to exclude the extra-judicial confession, though made
entirely voluntarily by the Appellant to the Prosecution witnesses,
the other evidence on record unequivocally establishes the fact that
the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the Appellant for committing the murder of his grandmother.
15. The impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence are
accordingly upheld.
16. The Appeal is dismissed and disposed of.
17. No order as to costs.
18. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information along with its records.
Navin alias Nar Bahadur Baraily vs. State of Sikkim
19. A copy of this Judgment be made over to the
Appellant/convict through the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,
Rongyek and to the Jail Authority for information.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
09-06-2025 09-06-2025
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
