E GOPAL SINGH v. STATE OF MANIPUR

[4] Upon completion of investigation, the prosecution laid charge-sheet No. 7 of 2012 dated 03.11.2012 against Elangbam Gopal Singh and his father, Elangbam Ibochou Singh. However, Elangbam Ibochou Singh expired thereafter and by order dated 28.03.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, took note of his death and the criminal proceedings against him were closed. Upon committal of the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, framed a charge on 08.05.2014 against Elangbam Gopal Singh. The charge reads as follows:

'First - That you on 23/11/2000 at about 7:30 pm at near Toubul Micro Bazar committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Mayanglambam Premananda Singh, S/o M. Bijoy Singh of Toubul Mayai Leikai by stabbing with a knife and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.'

Elangbam Gopal Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial commenced in July, 2014. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked in evidence Exhibits P/1 - P/11. The weapon was marked as M.O.1. Elangbam Gopal Singh, the sole accused, did not choose to adduce any evidence, oral or documentary. He was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge Bishnupur, held him guilty of the charged offence and sentenced him accordingly.

[5] At the outset, it may be noted that the case on hand turns upon the evidence of eye-witnesses to the incident. Therefore, this is not a case built on circumstantial evidence. The oral evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Judge may now be examined.

[6] P.W.1 was working as a Constable at Bishnupur Police Station at the relevant point of time. He stated that he knew the accused. He further stated that

3

on one day in the year 2000, photographs and negatives of the accused were produced by ASI O. Modhumangol Singh (P.W.3) in connection with the present case and were seized by SI Yaiskul (P.W.13) of Bishnupur PS under Seizure Memo dated 13.12.2000 (Ext. P/1). He identified his signature therein as a witness. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no photographs of the accused were seized in his presence and that he had not figured as a seizure witness in connection with the present case.

[7] P.W.2 also worked as a Constable at Bishnupur Police Station at the relevant time. He stated that he knew the accused and confirmed that in July, 2000, two photographs and negatives were seized by SI Yaiskul Singh (P.W.13) upon production by ASI O. Modhumangol Singh (P.W.3) under Ext. P/1 Seizure Memo. He stated that he affixed his signature therein as a witness. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that no photographs of the accused were seized in his presence and that he had not been a seizure witness in connection with the present case.

[8] P.W.3 worked as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Bishnupur between the years 2000 and 2005. He stated that on 25.11.2000, during the morning hours, Sub-Inspector Ng. Yaiskul Singh (P.W.13) of Bishnupur Police Station, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in the present case, called him into his office room and he found two civilians there, namely, Oinam Ibotombi Singh and RK Jillasana Singh. He further stated that in their presence, S.I. Yaiskul Singh (P.W.13) interrogated the accused and he admitted that he killed Mayanglambam Premananda Singh by using a kitchen knife. The accused further stated that he had concealed the said knife at a place at Toubul Awang Leikai and he could

4

point out the place of hiding. S.I. Yaiskul Singh (P.W.13) recorded the statement of the accused in their presence and thereafter, he along with the two civilians, S.I. Yaiskiul Singh (P.W.13) and a police team proceeded to Toubul Awang Leikai. There, the accused pointed to a place near the gate of a house and showed where he had hidden the knife, i.e., under a tree. The area was covered with dry leaves and at that time, P.W.3 said that he took photographs with his camera. The I.O. was stated to have seized the knife under a seizure memo (Ext. P/5). P.W.3 stated that he developed the photographs taken by him and handed over the same to the I.O. along with the negatives. The I.O. was stated to have seized the photographs (Exts. P/2 and P/3) and the negatives under Seizure Memo (Ext. P/1) dated 13.12.2000. Marking of the photographs was objected to before the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that they were not submitted along with the Charge Sheet and the negatives thereof were not produced. Exhibition of the two photographs was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge with the rider that the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused would be considered at the time of hearing. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 denied the suggestion that the accused had never pointed out where the crime weapon was concealed and never produced it before the police. He also denied the suggestion that the accused was not examined on 25.11.2000 as the I.O. was engaged in other works. He further stated that he had brought the camera to take photographs as instructed by the I.O. He denied the suggestion that the two photographs (Exts. P/2 and P/3) were handed over to the I.O. only in the year 2002. He also denied the suggestion that he was not present in the office room of the I.O. on 25.11.2000 and never heard any statement made by the accused in connection with the death of Mayanglambam Premananda Singh. He also denied

5

the suggestion that he did not see Oinam Ibotombi Singh and RK Jillasana Singh in the office of the I.O. on 25.11.2000. He admitted that he personally did not know whether the accused had killed the deceased and he came to know of it only from his statement.

[9] P.W.4 is the complainant who got the FIR registered on 24.11.2000. He stated that he knew the accused who was sitting in the dock as he was from his locality. He further stated that on the 23^rdday of a month which he could not remember exactly, about 14 years ago, at about 7:00 to 7:30 pm, he went to the Micro Bazar of Toubul Village and found some persons gathered near a paan shop. Amongst the people gathered there, he found his nephew, Premananda Singh, the son of his elder brother, along with the accused and others. When he just reached the place, the accused suddenly stabbed Premananda Singh with a knife on the left side of his belly and ran away. Mayanglambam Premananda Singh fell down on the ground, holding the injured portion with his hands. P.W.4 said that he immediately hired the auto-rickshaw belonging to Thoudam Beikul Singh and took Premananda to the District Hospital, Bishnupur, but the doctor there referred him to J.N.Hospital, Porompat. However, Premananda expired at J.N.Hospital. P.W.4 stated that he reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Bishnupur Police Station, on the next day. The report/Original Ejahar was written by the auto-rickshaw driver, Thoudam Beikul Singh, after he narrated the incident and he put his signature on the same. He further stated that on the day of the incident, there was no electric light but he could see the persons who were at the Micro Bazar and the stabbing of his nephew, Premananda, by the accused by the moonlight. He identified Ext. P/4 as the Original Ejahar/report lodged by him and also his signature therein. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 said that he could only

6

write his name as he had read only upto Class-II and he consulted with Beikul Singh and, thereafter, Beikul Singh wrote the Original Ejahar/report. He stated that he had no knowledge whether any report was submitted to the Officer-in- Charge, Bishnupur, regarding the incident. He stated that the incident took place while he was returning from his locality and there were some villagers at Micro Bazar, Toubul, who had seen the confrontation between the accused and Premananda and one of the villagers stated to him that his nephew, Premananda, was fighting with the accused. He further stated that he, along with one Soraisham Chaobi Singh, Thoudam Manihar, and his younger brother, Nimai Singh, had taken Premananda to the District Hospital, Bishnupur, for medical treatment. Thereafter, they left the District Hospital, Bishnupur, at about 8:00 pm for J.N.Hospital and reached there at about 9:00 pm. Premananda died at about 12:00 mid-night. He further stated that the police had never recorded his statement at any point of time. According to him, at the time of the incident, Premananda was facing towards north-eastern side but he did not know in which direction the accused ran away. He further stated that he did not see Premananda holding any weapon on that day. He also stated that he did not see the accused holding any weapon in his hand but he saw the stabbing of Premananda by him. He denied the suggestion that he did not see any blood on the body of Premananda at that time. P.W.4 stated that he could not remember the color of the wearing apparel of Premananda on that day. He denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident, it was very dark and it was very difficult to see each other. He said that the color of the blood on the body of Premananda was red. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eye-witness and that the accused never killed Premananda. He also denied the suggestion

7

that the father of the accused, Elangbam Ibochou Singh, had stabbed Premananda with his Shangai (a kind of knife) and not the accused.

[10] P.W.5 is also an eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he was a cultivator by occupation and that he knew the accused sitting in the dock. He stated that till the year 2002, he was running a paan shop at Micro Bazar, Toubul, and on 23.11.2000, at about 7:00-7:30 pm, while he was at his paan shop, as a routine matter, his grandmother came there to enable him to go and have dinner. He then came out of his paan shop and at that time, he heard some noise on the south-western side at a distance of about 50 feet from his paan shop and then, he saw the accused standing facing towards the northern side and Premananda standing facing towards the southern side near a shop which was earlier run by one Mangileima Devi at the crossing point of three roads but at that time, the said shop was closed. Thereafter, he saw the accused holding the neck of Premananda with his left hand and pushing his right hand at the belly of Premananda and the accused ran away immediately. When he was running away, P.W.5 stated that he saw the accused holding a knife in his right hand. He also saw the deceased holding his belly with his hands and in the meantime, one Soraisham Chaobi Singh came there and held the belly of the deceased with his hands. P.W.5 said that, at that time, his grandmother fell unconscious on seeing the scene and he took her to his house. He further stated that, at that time, there was electric light at the spot as there was a street lamp and there was also electric light at Thoudam Leirak, which runs towards the southern side from the main road. According to him, there was another electric light at KYC Club and its opposite shops. He stated that on the next day, he heard that Mayanglambam Premananda Singh had expired due to his injuries. In his cross-examination,

8

P.W.5 stated that he could not say why the accused and Premananda were fighting. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eye-witness to the crime. He stated that it was true that, at time of the incident, there was no moonlight. He further denied the suggestion that the accused did not stab Premananda and it was his father, namely, Ibochou, who stabbed him with his Shangai knife. He further stated that he did not know whether Premananda was a member of the UNLF. He admitted having given a statement to the police at the house of Mayanglambam Premananda Singh regarding the incident. He denied the suggestion that his statement that Chaobi Singh held the belly of the deceased was false. He also denied the suggestion that there was no light on the day of the incident at and around the spot. He stated that he came to know the date, month and year of the incident from the prosecution's case record as the incident had happened a long time ago. He further stated that he came to know the date, month and year of the incident from the Resolution copy of the meeting held at Toubul Village regarding the incident. The said Resolution was shown to him by the elder brother and sister-in-law of the deceased when he enquired about the matter on receiving summons from the Court for giving evidence. He stated that his statement before the police was recorded as stated by him. His attention was drawn to the statement made by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Portions thereof were marked as X/1 and X/2. X/1 is a statement in Manipuri language to the effect that 'he took 5 or 6 steps rapidly towards them.' X/2 portion reads to the effect that 'he was taken to the Doctor by hiring a car.' P.W.5 however stated that he had not given these statements to the police and agreed that some statements were recorded in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement which were not narrated by him. He however denied the suggestion that the accused did not

9

murder the deceased, Premananda, but admitted that he did not know on which side of the belly of the deceased the accused had assaulted him. Finally, he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.

[11] P.W.6 is another eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he knew the accused and that, on 23.11.2000 at about 6:30 pm, while he was washing his hands and feet at his residence after returning from the paddy field, the accused along with his son, Ingo Singh, came to his house and asked him whether his younger brother, Mayanglambam Premananda Singh, was at his house or not. P.W.6 stated that he replied that he was not there and the accused told him that when Premananda came to his house, he wanted to meet him. The accused then left his house and proceeded towards the northern side. After about two or three minutes, the accused's father, Elangbam Ibochou Singh, came to P.W.6's house and called his mother and asked her whether Mayanglambam Premananda Singh was at home or not. He also said that if he was not at home, he should arrange to meet with him. At that time, P.W.6's mother asked him about the matter and Ibochou's reply in Manipuri language was to the effect that 'they should dig the grave of their son' and then he left the place. Thereupon, P.W.6's mother instructed P.W.6 to find out about the matter and he went from his house towards the main Toubul Road. When he was still standing at the gate of his house, he saw Mayanglambam Premananda Singh come out from the house of his aunty, namely, Soraisham (O) Kulapati Devi, which was situated on the northern side of Toubul Road. P.W.6 stated that he told Premananda about the accused and his father asking about him and he replied that he had (not, sic) done any wrong to the accused and he had to apologize to him. Saying so, he went towards the eastern side. P.W.6 stated that he followed him at a distance of

10

about 15 feet. When Premananda reached the crossing of roads at Micro Bazar, P.W.6 stated that he saw the accused standing there facing toward southern side and Premananda stood facing him towards the north. At that time, Premananda is stated to have said to the accused in Manipuri: 'what mistake have I done?' and suddenly, the accused stabbed Premananda with a knife. P.W.6 stated that he also saw the son of the accused, namely, Ingo Singh, standing near the accused. On seeing the incident of Premananda being stabbed by the accused, P.W.6 stated that he shouted in Manipuri that "Gopal stabbed my brother" and ran back towards his house to get weapons. However, his family members stopped him at his house and kept him inside the room by closing the door. When he came out from the house, he found that Premananda had been taken to Bishnupur Hospital for medical treatment and then, he, along with his mother, wife and elder cousin brother, Mohindro, who was no more, went to the hospital. Then, as referred by the doctor at Bishnupur Hospital, they took Premananda to J.N.Hospital, Porompat, for further treatment, by Ambulance. However, he succumbed to his injuries. On the next day, at about 1:30 pm, the police personnel of Bishnupur Police Station came to J.N.Hospital and they brought the dead body to RIMS morgue for post-mortem examination. At the time of conducting the post-mortem examination, Mohindro, the cousin brother of P.W.6, identified the deceased. P.W.6 identified Ext. P/2 postmortem report and the signature of his cousin brother, Mohindro, therein. He further stated that he saw the knife with which the accused stabbed Premananda and he could identify the knife if it was shown to him. He said that the knife used by the accused may have been about one and a half feet in length. The knife seized by the police was shown to P.W.6 and he stated that the pointed portion of the knife was similar to the knife used by the

11

accused on that day but it seemed that the handle of the knife was somewhat different. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that he had given his statement before the I.O., who wrote it down. He, however, stated that some of the statements recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were not given by him. His attention was drawn to certain portions in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and they were marked as X/3, X/4 and X/5. X/3 is the portion in Manipuri language which reads to the effect that Premananda was standing at the Micro Bazar facing south and the accused Gopal, along with his son, Rabi, were also facing south. X/4 is the portion in Manipuri language which reads to the effect that Premananda was taken to Bishnupur Hospital by hiring a car. X/5 is the portion in Manipuri Language to the effect that Gopal then said that they should dig the grave before sunrise. P.W.6 stated that he did not make these statements to the I.O. of the case. He volunteered that his brother, Premananda, was standing facing towards the north, that his brother was taken to the hospital by an auto-rickshaw and that the statement marked as X/5 was made by the father of the accused, namely, Ibochou Singh. He admitted that, at the time of the incident, many unlawful organizations had shifted to Toubul Village but denied the suggestion that Premananda was a member of the UNLF organization. He admitted that, on the day of the incident, his brother had consumed alcohol and that he used to scold him about it. He denied the suggestion that the accused, Gopal, was kicked by Premananda on the day of the incident and for that, the accused was searching for him for revenge. He further stated that at the time of the incident, Premananda was wearing jeans and a full-sleeved red shirt. He further stated that, at the time of the incident, electric light was available and the sky was also clear. He denied that, at the relevant time, his deceased brother

12

was holding a gun and an iron rod. He denied the suggestion that the accused never stabbed Premananda and that he was stabbed by Ibochou Singh with his Shangai knife. He admitted that Premananda was bigger and taller than the accused and that, if there had been any fight between the two of them, his brother could have defeated the accused. He stated that he did not know whether Premananda and one Iranda Singh were fighting on that day. He denied having stated to the I.O. that Premananda entered their house and again went out from their house and he followed him. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that he never saw the incident on that day.

[12] P.W.7 is also an eye-witness. He is Soraisham Chaobi Singh. He stated that he knew the accused as he was from his locality. He further stated that, on 23.11.2000 at about 7:30 pm, he went to Micro Bazar, Toubul, to have paan and while he was front of the shop of Thokchom Nityai, he saw the deceased, Premananda, and his brother, Mayanglambam Romen Singh, near the said shop. Romen Singh asked Premananda to come to his house. After about 15 minutes, Premananda again came to Micro Bazar and P.W.7 stated that he saw the accused standing in front of Premananda facing towards the south. At that time, he heard shouting and rushed towards the place of occurrence. He saw Premananda lying down on the ground with his head on the southern side and he saw that Premananda was assaulted by the accused with a knife. He saw the accused running away to the western side. Thereafter, Premananda was taken to the hospital by his family members and on the next day, he was brought back dead. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that the incident occurred at about 7:30 pm, but he could not remember how many paan shops were there around the place of occurrence at that time, due to lapse of time. He said that he knew

13

the date and time from the family of the deceased but he did not consult with them. He stated that he did not know why the deceased was asked to go to his house by his brother, Romen Singh. He denied the suggestion that he was a member of the UNLF Organization at that time. He said he did not know whether the deceased Premananda was a member of the UNLF Organization. He stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and that place where he was standing on that day was about 30 feet but he could not remember whether 23.11.2000 was a day without moonlight. He said that he did not see any weapon in the hand of the deceased, Premananda, at that time of the incident. He also did not see any weapon in the hand of the accused. He did not know the size and the kind of weapon (thang, meaning knife). He denied the suggestion that he did not see the accused assaulting the deceased with the knife. He stated that he did not give any statement before the police regarding the case at any time. He said that he could not remember the names of the persons who were present on that day. He said that the deceased, Premananda, was taken away by a Maruti Van. He further stated that the accused and his family members were not residing at Toubul Village after the incident as they were not allowed to stay.

[13] P.W.8 is an inquest witness. He stated that he was a Lecturer by profession and knew the accused who was from his village. He stated that on 23.11.2000 at about 7:30 pm, while he was at home, he was informed by his family members that the accused had assaulted Mayanglambam Premananda Singh with a knife and on hearing this news, he went to the house of Premananda. When he reached there, Premananda was stated to have been taken to the hospital. He stated that Premananda succumbed to his injury at RIMS hospital and at the morgue of RIMS Hospital, the inquest over his dead

14

body was conducted by Yaiskul Singh. I.O. (P.W.13), in his presence. He stated that at that time, he saw one injury on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased. He identified Ext. P/3 Inquest Report and his signature therein. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 was tested on his memory skills and he stated that he had put his signature in Ext. P/3 Inquest Report after the police read out the contents thereof, but he could not remember the same at the time of his deposition. He further stated that he did not see the assault on Premananda by the accused and he did not know about the knife used by the accused.

[14] P.W.9 is also a witness to the Inquest Report, Ext. P/3. He stated that he was a Social Worker by profession and knew the accused. He further stated that on one day in the month of November, 2000, he was on the way to his house from his paddy field at around 7:00 pm-8:00 pm and the father of the accused, Ibochou Singh (now, deceased) along with others came to the house of Premananda and asked about him but Premananda was not found in his house. Then, the said persons threatened the family members of Premananda that they would kill Premananda and to arrange for his funeral. He stated that this incident happened in his presence and he heard whatever was said by them on that day. Thereafter, he returned to his house. After about half an hour, his son, Bishochandra, came and told him that Premananda has been assaulted by the accused with a knife in front of his gate, now known as Micro Bazar. On hearing this, he ran out from the house and found Premananda lying on the ground. Premananda was then taken to the hospital and P.W.9 stated that he did not accompany him. At about 10:30/11:00 pm, he was informed that Premananda was no more. He then went to JNIMS hospital and on the next day, the deceased was taken to RIMS morgue for post-mortem. The inquest over the dead body was

15

conducted at RIMS morgue in his presence and he affixed his signature. P.W.9 identified Ext. P/3 Inquest Report and his signature therein. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 denied the suggestion that his son, Bhisochandra, never told him about the assault of Premananda by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that the statements made by him about the father of the accused and some persons going to the house of Premananda and threatening to kill Premananda were false. He stated that information of Premananda's death was informed to him by one Soraisam Rajen Singh, but he did not know the exact time. He denied the suggestion that the incident did not happen at his gate. He admitted that Premananda was related to him, as one of his sisters was married to the younger brother of Premananda's father. He denied the suggestion that the accused never assaulted the deceased. He stated that he had no enmity with the accused and that he gave his evidence before the Court in order to punish the accused. Lastly, he denied that he had deposed falsely.

[15] P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased. He stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on 24.11.2000 at about 1:10 pm at RIMS morgue. He spoke of 3 (three) external injuries -

(1) Stitched surgical wound - 17 cm long in mid-line in abdomen, vertically placed, 10 cm. Above xymphysis pubis,

(2) Stitched wound - J shaped, 5 cms long on left iliar fossa.

(3) Contusions - 6 x 0.6 cm. Semi-circular shaped on left side front of chest, 8 cm.

16

He stated that, in his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock resulting from a stab injury on the abdomen with a sharp weapon. He further stated that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and they were fresh at the time of death. He identified Ext. P/2 as the Post-mortem Report and his signature therein. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 denied the suggestion that he never conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of Premananda on 24.11.2000 at 1:10 pm at RIMS Morgue. He stated that he was an expert doctor, having conducted more than 500 post-mortem examinations. He further stated that he could not say the exact width of the weapon used in the offence but it could not be more than 5 cm.

[16] P.W.11 is a witness to the Seizure Memo dated 25.11.2000. He, however, turned hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he said that he was a carpenter by occupation and thereafter worked as a cook in the Bishnupur Police Station. He further stated that he could only write his name and did not know about the recording of the statement of the accused by the police. He further stated that he did not put his signature in any paper before the police personnel. At this stage, he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. He then denied having given any statement before the I.O. in connection with the present case. He denied hearing the statement made by the accused while it was being recorded for the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also denied having put his signature on the statement of the accused recorded by the I.O. His attention was drawn to the said statement and he was asked whether the signature appearing therein was his or not. He replied that he never put his signature. He also denied having seen the seizure of the weapon. His attention was drawn to the Seizure Memo dated 25.11.2000 and he was asked whether the

17

signature appearing therein was his or not. He replied that the signature therein was very similar to his signature but he did not put his signature in any police paper in connection with the case. He admitted that the accused and he were living in the same Ward at Bishnupur but he did not know when the accused shifted to the present address. He denied that he was deposing before the Court so as to save the accused. In his cross-examination by the accused, he denied the suggestion that he had made false statements before the Court.

[17] P.W.12 is a relation of the deceased. She stated that she knew the accused who was from the same village and that, on 23.11.2000 at about 7:00 pm, the accused came with his wife and some other persons to their house in an angry mood and asked for her younger brother-in-law, Premananda, who was living with them at that time. She said that she came out from the house and asked about the matter. The accused enquired about Premananda and she replied that he was not in the house. Then the accused told her in Manipuri:

'today is the last day for him, dig a grave for him.' Upon hearing this, P.W.12 stated that she requested the women folk who accompanied the accused to make him calm but they did not bother. Thereafter, her husband came to the place and asked the accused about the matter but the accused again said the same sentence in Manipuri language and then left their house. Feeling suspicious about the accused and his party, her husband also followed them and after about 30 minutes, he returned hurriedly to her house and informed her that the accused had assaulted Premananda with a knife and he also tried to go out holding a knife. She stated that she stopped him and locked him inside the house. After a few minutes, she opened the door as demanded by her husband and he went out. She followed him but when she reached the gate, which was adjacent to the

18

Bishnupur Toubul road, her brother-in-law, Premananda, had already been taken to the hospital. On the next day morning, she heard that her brother-in-law had expired due to his injuries at J.N.Hospital. Thereafter, the accused was arrested by the police on the charge of killing her brother-in-law. In her cross-examination, P.W.12 stated that the I.O. of the case had taken her statement. Her attention was drawn to her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the I.O. and a portion therein was marked as X/6. This portion in Manipur language reads to the effect 'today is the last day for him, dig the grave for him,' and she stated that it was true and it was the same as she had stated before the Court. She denied the suggestion that she had never requested the women folk accompanying the accused to pacify him. She denied the suggestion that her brother-in-law, Premananda, was not killed by the accused but by the father of the accused, namely, Ibohchou singh.

[18] P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, is an Inspector in the Manipur Police Department and he was posted at Bishnupur Police Station at the relevant time. He stated that, on 24.11.2000 at about 8.00 am, Mayanglambam Dhonjaoba Singh (P.W.4) filed a written report stating that, on 23.11.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., his brother's son, viz., Mayanglambam Premananda Singh, was accosted by the accused, Elangbam Gopal Singh, along with others, viz., Elangbam Boje Singh, Elangbam Seitya Singh and the son of Elanbam Gopal Singh, whose name was not known to him, and he was assaulted by Elangbam Gopal Singh on the left side of his abdomen with a deadly weapon i.e., knife. On the same evening, Premananda Singh was taken to the District Hospital, Bishnupur, but he was then referred to JNIMS Hospital. On the same night at about 12 midnight, Premananda Singh succumbed to his injury. Basing on the

19

written report, FIR No. 98(11) 2000 BPR P.S. was registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and the same was given to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, P.W.13 stated that he examined the complainant and then proceeded to the spot at Toubul Micro Bazar. He prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence but found no incriminating articles at the spot. He raided the house of the accused, Elangbam Gopal Singh, but could not find the accused there. Upon returning to the police station, he was informed that the accused, Gopal Singh, had surrendered before the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur. On the same day at about 10.00 a.m., he stated that he proceeded to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur, and brought the accused to the police station. He left the accused in police custody and proceeded to JNIMS Hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body of Premananda Singh. After completion of the inquest, the body was brought to the RIMS morgue for post- mortem examination at about 12.45 p.m. On that day, the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H.Nabachandra Singh (P.W.10) and his junior associates. At about 4.00 pm on the same day, P.W.13 stated that he reached the police station and interrogated the accused, E.Gopal Singh. The accused was stated to have admitted that he had committed the crime. He further stated that on 23.11.2000 at about 7.00 pm, he along with one Smt. Sinmei Kabuini of Toubul Kabui Village went to the house of one Thokchom Pholen Singh to collect a kitten. After collecting it, they returned to the house of Smt. Sinmei Kabuini and left the kitten there. Thereafter, the accused stated that he consumed two glasses of country liquor and was returning back to his house and while crossing Toubul High School, two unknown youths stopped him and asked him if he had consumed liquor. The accused stated that he replied that he had consumed a

20

small quantity and upon hearing the same, the two youths assaulted him and after beating him up, they left the place and proceeded towards their home. The accused stated that he followed the two persons and on reaching the gate of one of the said persons, he overheard one of them saying 'good night, Premananda' and he, therefore, came to know of the identity of the person who had assaulted him. The accused stated that he then reached his house and took a knife (Sori) and then proceeded to the house of Premananda. At that time, his family members followed him, trying to pacify and stop him. However, he continued to proceed to the house of Premananda and on reaching there, he asked the family members of Premananda whether he was there. The mother of Premananda, namely, Thabalei told him that he was not at home. The accused stated that he told the mother that he had to meet her son on the same night without fail otherwise he would die and to prepare for his funeral. He then left the house of Premananda with his family members and proceeded towards Toubul Micro Bazar. Upon reaching there, the accused and others saw local women folk and the mother of Premananda standing there. The accused stated that they proceeded towards them and Premananda suddenly appeared on the scene and confronted him about the earlier incident. The accused stated that he pulled out the knife from under his left sleeve, held the victim by his collar and stabbed him on the left side of his abdomen. Premananda then fell on the ground and the accused stated that he ran away from the place along with the knife. He further stated that, he then wiped the blood stains on the knife on the grass inside the ingkhol (homestead compound) of one Elangbam Brajamani Singh and, thereafter, he concealed the knife under a fig tree by covering it with dry leaves. The accused further stated that he could point out the place where he had

21

concealed the knife. P.W.13 then stated that, on 25.11.2000 at about 7.00 a.m., he recorded the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of two witnesses, viz., R.K.Yaiskul Singh (P.W.11) and Oinam Ibohanbi Singh of Bishnupur Ward No.7. The accused stated that he had concealed the knife under a fig tree and covered it with dry leaves. Thereafter, P.W.13 along with the two witnesses and the accused proceeded to the said place where the accused had concealed the knife. Upon reaching the ingkhol (homestead compound) of E.Brajamani Singh, the accused pointed out the place under the fig tree where he had concealed the knife. He produced it from under the dry leaves and at that time, O.Modhumangol Singh, ASI (P.W.3), took photographs of the accused while he was retrieving the knife from the place where he had kept it. P.W.13 stated that he then seized the knife under a seizure memo in the presence of the witnesses. They then returned to the police station along with the seized knife. On 13.12.2000, P.W.13 stated that he seized the photographs and negatives upon their production by O.Modhumangol Singh, ASI (P.W.3). He stated that he made attempts to arrest the remaining accused but failed to so, as they had absconded. He stated that, during the investigation, he examined 13 persons and collected the post-mortem examination report. He further stated that he could not complete the investigation as he was transferred and left Bishnupur PS on 13.01.2001.

Ext. P/1 is the Seizure Memo dated 13.12.2000 for seizing two photographs and negatives. Exts. P/2(ii) and P/3(ii) are the photographs. Ext. P/2(i) is the Post-mortem Report. Ext. P/3(i) is the Inquest Report. Ext. P/4 is the Original Ejahar. Ext. P/5 is the Seizure Memo dated 25.11.2000 for seizing the knife with a wooden handle. Ext. P/6 is the sketch map of the place of

22

occurrence. Ext. P/9 is the statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. M.O.1 is the knife seized by P.W.13.

[19] In his cross-examination, P.W.13 stated that he did not furnish a copy of the FIR to the complainant, M.Dhonjaoba Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had mentioned or written any excess words while recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that five persons were named as the accused in the FIR but the son of the accused, E.Gopal Singh, was not named therein. He further stated that, during the course of his investigation, he arrested only E.Gopal Singh. He admitted that the crime weapon seized by him was found without any blood stains on it. He also admitted that he did not send the crime weapon for clinical examination to any Forensic Science Laboratory. He denied the suggestion that R.K.Yaiskul Singh (P.W.11) and O.Ibohanbi Singh were not present at the time he examined the accused, E.Gopal Singh, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the seizure memo for seizing the crime weapon at the police station and not at the place of recovery. Ext. P/1 was shown to P.W.13 and he admitted that the date and hour mentioned at the top of the seizure memo (Ext. P/1) and the date on which he had put his signature thereon were different. He volunteered that the dates must have been tampered by someone. He further agreed that there may have been some differences between the Original Ejahar and his deposition regarding the contents thereof due to lapse of time. He denied the suggestion that the accused, Gopal, never stabbed or killed Mayanglambam Premananda Singh. He also denied the suggestion that E.Ibochou Singh had stabbed Premananda Singh by using his Shangai (short knife, having a long

23

handle). He denied the suggestion that the seized crime weapon was not the actual crime weapon.

[20] P.W.14, the second Investigating Officer, was the Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Bishnupur Police Station from 02.01.2012. He stated that the case was endorsed to him for further investigation on 16.03.2013. He further stated that he perused the pending case records and found that though E.Gopal Singh, the accused, was already arrested by the previous I.O., Elangbam Boje Singh, Elangbam Seitya Singh and Elangbam Ibochou Singh, father of Gopal Singh, had been picked up by the previous I.O. but released without recording their statements. He further stated that he picked up Elangbam Boje Singh and Elangbam Seitya Singh on 14.06.2012 and recorded their statements. He further stated that they were released as their involvement in the case could not be established. Thereafter, he stated that E.Ibochou Singh was arrested by him on 24.09.2012 and produced before the Court. He was released on bail on the same day. P.W.14 stated that during the course of his investigation, he found prima facie evidence against the accused, E.Gopal Singh and E.Ibochou Singh. He stated that he submitted a charge-sheet against both of them. Ext. P/10 is the charge-sheet. Ext. P/11 is the FIR.

In his cross-examination, P.W.14 stated that he could not say whether it was the time of full moon or new moon on the date of the occurrence, i.e., 23.11.2000. He admitted that during the last week of the month, the sky is dark. He stated that he did not know how many people had taken Premananda Singh to the District Hospital, Bishnupur, on the day of the occurrence. He admitted that neither the previous I.O. nor he had sent the seized crime weapon

24

to the Forensic Science Laboratory for clinical examination or for fingerprints. He denied the suggestion that the deceased accused, Elangbam Ibochou Singh, had stabbed the victim, Premananda Singh, to death with his Shangai (a knife, having a long handle). He admitted that he had submitted the charge-sheet without arresting the remaining accused persons, viz, E.Boje Singh, E.Seitya Singh and E.Ingo @ Rabi Singh. He denied the suggestion that the accused, E.Gopal Singh, had never stabbed the victim, Premananda Singh, to death. Lastly, he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

[21] This, being the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, it would be apposite now to consider the precedential law on the subject. Both sides pressed into service a plethora of judgments in support of their respective contentions. However, as already noted at the outset, the case on hand is not based on circumstantial evidence as the prosecution produced as many as four eye-witnesses, viz., P.W. Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7, who stated that they actually saw the attack on the deceased by the accused. Therefore, the law laid down in cases based on circumstantial evidence is wholly irrelevant. That apart, recovery of the alleged crime weapon, the knife (M.O.1), which would have assumed great importance had the case been based on circumstantial evidence, does not have much significance in the present case as the eye-witnesses' evidence would prevail and have primacy over the requirement of establishing that link in the chain of evidence. Be it noted that, in Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 2 SCC 310], the Supreme Court observed that it can seldom happen that information leading to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution's case and it is only one link in the chain of proof and other links must be forged in a manner allowed by law. Eye-witness

25

testimony, if found credible, would be sufficient in itself to convict the accused with nothing more. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, in the context of the recovery of the alleged crime weapon, viz., the knife, the alleged irregularities committed in the seizure thereof and other attendant issues, need not trouble this Court. This appeal can as well be considered, altogether eschewing issues pertaining to the recovery of the weapon and its impact on the prosecution's case. In consequence, decisions cited in that context also need no mention and are accordingly left out of consideration.

[22] In Iqbal Moosa Patel Vs. State of Gujarat [(2011) 2 SCC 198], the Supreme Court observed that, though it is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, it would not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. The principle as to what degree of proof is required was culled out from Miller Vs. Minister of Pension [(1947) 2 All ER 372]: 'That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence: 'of course it is possible, but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.'

[23] In Satbir Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2009) 13 SCC 790], the Supreme Court observed that it is now a well settled principle of law that only because witnesses are not independent witnesses, it may not, by itself, be a ground to discard the prosecution's case. It was noted that if the prosecution's case is supported by witnesses and no cogent reason is

26

shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon. Similarly, in its earlier decision in State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and another [(2008) 17 SCC 587], the Supreme Court observed that the law is long settled that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and for the mere reason that an eye- witness can be said to be an interested witness, his/her testimony need not be rejected. It was pointed out that most of the time, eye-witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because, unless a crime is committed in a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence.

[24] Prior thereto, in Sucha Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab [(2003) 7 SC 643], the Supreme Court observed that merely because a witness is a close relative, the ground that he would be a partisan witness and should not be relied upon has no substance. Further, it was observed that even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding the acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It was also noted that it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. It was pointed out that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and witnesses cannot be branded as liars. Lastly, the Supreme Court noted that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence, as justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. It was observed that letting the guilty escape is not doing justice and a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. The

27

Supreme Court cautioned that proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline and not a fetish and vague hunches cannot take the place of judicial evaluation. Again, in Sunil Kundu and another Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2013) 4 SCC 422], the Supreme Court expressed its distress at the way in which the investigation in that case had been carried out and noted that acquitting an accused merely on the ground of lapses in the investigation would amount to putting a premium on the deprecable conduct of an incompetent investigating agency, at the cost of the victim, which may lead to encouraging perpetrators of crime. It was further observed that lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored, subject to the rider that they could be so ignored only if the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and such evidence is of sterling quality. It was further held that lapses or irregularities would not go to the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of the prosecution's case and they can be ignored.

[25] Much earlier, in Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC 518], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of defective investigation. Expressing unhappiness over the nature of the investigation, the Supreme Court observed that the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of a defect as to do so would tantamount to play into the hands of Investigating Officers, if the investigation is designedly defective. It was further observed that to acquit solely on the ground of defective investigation would be adding insult to injury. On the same lines, in Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David [(2011) 5 SCC 509], the Supreme Court observed that minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on

28

which the accused can rely to prove his innocence, when there is strong circumstantial evidence deduced from the investigation which logically and rationally points towards the guilt of the accused. Closer home, in Bimal Sinha Vs. State of Tripura [1996 (II) GLT 216], the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that, as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was pointed out that the veracity of the prosecution's evidence has to be tested on the touch-stone of probability as everything that glitters is not necessarily gold. The claim of eye-witnesses that they saw the incident was disbelieved as it was highly improbable that exhibition of a cinema show in a village would continue up to 1.00 am or that the deceased would remain busy preparing his accounts in front of such a cinema hall till about 2.45 am or that the deceased and the members of his family would take dinner at that unearthly hour of the night.

[26] More recently, in Jaikam Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Cril. Appeal No.434436 of 2020 decided on 15.11.2021), the Supreme Court observed that the golden principle to be followed in criminal jurisprudence was laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 277] wherein it was observed as follows: - 'Para.23.- A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of the interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about

29

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 have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Court should not, at the same time, reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.'

[27] Thereafter, in Rahul Vs. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, and another [Cril. Appeal No.611 of 2022, decided on 07.11.2022], the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and if they fail to do so, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime. It was noted that, it may be true that if the accused involved in a heinous crime goes unpunished or is acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to society and, in particular, the family of the victim, but law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone as no conviction can be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. The Supreme Court cautioned that every case has to be decided strictly on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by outside moral pressure or otherwise.

[28] Reliance sought to be placed by Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, on all the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C is unacceptable. Some of those statements were not even put to the witnesses during their cross-examination. It is legally well settled that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can only be used for the purpose of contradicting the witness concerned and no more. In Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

30

another [(2007) 7 SCC 378], the Supreme Court pointed out that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof in the manner laid down in the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a manifest error of law therein by relying upon wholly inadmissible evidence, i.e., by taking into account the statements of six witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the event such a statement is used for the purpose of contradiction, a portion thereof would be marked as an exhibit. Only such marked portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, put to witnesses during the trial for the purpose of contradiction, can be looked into by this Court and not the other Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, which were not pressed into service at all. For instance, Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, would rely upon the statement of Mayanglambam Dhonjaoba Singh (P.W.4), recorded by the police under Section

161 Cr.P.C., but perusal of his deposition in Court reflects that no portion of the said statement was put to him during his cross-examination so as to contradict him. Therefore, the said Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement cannot even be looked into by this Court. However, in the case of P.W.6, his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was specifically put to him during his cross-examination and portions thereof were marked as X/4 and X/5.

[29] It is well settled that the wholly reliable evidence of a single eye-witness can be the basis of a conviction [See: Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793], Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam [(1993) 3 SCC 282], Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614] and Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani Vs. State of Karnataka

31

[(2006) 11 SCC 323]. Much earlier, in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614], the Supreme Court had held that convincing testimony of a sole witness can be the basis for conviction in a given case, if such testimony is found to be entirely reliable. It is equally well settled that testimony of eye-witnesses, riddled with discrepancies, should be discarded or it may result in the conviction of innocent persons. [See: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Makhan alias Madan and others [(2008) 10 SCC 615] and Ganesh Datt Vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2014) 12 SCC 389].

[30] Failure of the prosecution to examine before the Court some of the listed witnesses, who were stated to be eye-witnesses, would not be of consequence if the examined eyewitnesses' testimony is found to be sufficient. It is not a mandatory requirement that the prosecution should examine each and every eye-witness to the crime. It is possible that all such eye-witnesses may no longer be available or be willing to appear before the Court after passage of some time, be it for whatever reason, and once the prosecution is able to adduce cogent and credible testimony of at least some of the eye-witnesses, it would suffice to establish the case against the accused.

[31] Presently, two of the eye-witnesses, viz., P.W.s. 5 & 7, are independent witnesses while P.W.4, the complainant, is the uncle of the deceased, being his father's younger brother, and P.W.6 is the cousin brother of the deceased. However, in the light of the case law referred to hereinabove, their relationship with the deceased is not a ground, in itself, to discredit their evidence. That apart, the evidence of the independent eye-witnesses, if found credible, would be sufficient to convict the accused and it would not even be necessary to consider the testimony of these interested eye-witnesses. The

32

testimony of P.W.5, an independent eye-witness, inspires confidence, as it is not only credible and consistent but also remained unshaken during cross- examination. So too, the evidence of P.W.7, who spoke succinctly about what he had seen. Minor discrepancies in their evidence are of no consequence, given the fact that they did not touch upon crucial aspects, and were to be expected given the passage of fourteen long years since they witnessed the incident.

[32] In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657], the Supreme Court laid down that only omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to the discredited. In A.Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 2011 SC 2302], the Supreme Court observed that in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. However, where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements while deposing in the Court, the Supreme Court held that such evidence would not be safe to rely upon. It was, however, observed that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. It was pointed out that exaggeration per se does not render the evidence brittle but it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the

33

prosecution's version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.

Again, in Brahm Swaroop and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011)

6 SCC 288], the Supreme Court observed that minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, should not prompt the Court to reject the evidence of a witness in its entirety. It was further observed that after exercising care and caution, sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court must come to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Per the Supreme Court, undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the witness.

[33] In this regard, it may be noted that P.W.5, who was standing at some distance, stated truthfully that he saw the accused hold the neck of the deceased by his left hand and push his right hand at the belly of the deceased. He then stated that when the accused was running away, he saw that he was holding a knife in his right hand. He also stated that he saw the deceased holding his belly with his hands. Connecting these statements, the inference is clear as to what he saw. Further, he asserted that there was electric light available at the spot and gave details thereof. Logically, in a market area at 7:00-7:30 p.m., there is bound to be some light available, as there were shops open there and people were still going about their business. Significantly, his evidence as to the lights which were available there, whereby he could see what had happened, was not even touched upon in detail during his cross-examination. Only a weak suggestion was made that there was no light on the day of the incident at and

34

around the spot, which he denied promptly. Notably, in Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal [(2010) 2 SCC 583], the Supreme Court held that when no suggestion was put to the witness that there was no source of light, his evidence that he had seen the accused running away from the place could not be doubted. P.W.7 also explained his presence at the spot on the fateful evening and the same remained unshaken. He was standing at a distance of about 30 feet and asserted that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased, Premananda. The consistent testimony of both these independent eye-witnesses, who had nothing to gain from their testimony against the accused, carried great weight. Significantly, in State of U.P. Vs. M.K.Anthony [AIR 1985 SC 48], the Supreme Court observed that if the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form an opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the Appellate Court which does not have such benefit has to attach due weight to the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons, weighty and formidable, it would not be proper to reject such evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in trivial details.

[34] In Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of A.P. [(2003) 9 SCC 277], the Supreme Court observed that it is not expected from a rustic village woman to remember an incident that had taken place after a lapse of four years with mathematical precision as it is but, quite natural, that human memories are apt to blur with the passage of time. Therefore, they could not be expected to recall precise and pin-pointed details of the attack that they had witnessed long ago. In any event, in the case on hand, what the eye-witnesses saw that is of great relevance is the fact that the accused attacked the deceased

35

on that fateful evening and ran away. P.W.5, an independent witness, saw that he had a knife in his hand while he was running away. They also saw the deceased falling to the ground with a bleeding stomach and they all saw him being taken away to the hospital for treatment. In that context, the discrepancy as to whether he was taken to the hospital by an auto-rickshaw or a Maruti Van is not of such great significance that it would belittle their testimony. As already stated supra, passage of time is bound to have some impact on their recollection of facts and all the more so, when they were speaking in the solemn atmosphere of a Court.

[35] Further, the eye-witness testimony is to the effect that the accused stabbed the deceased only once. However, P.W.10, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body, stated that there were three external injuries - (1) a stitched wound, which was 17 cm in length, which required to be stitched on the abdomen, (2) a J-shaped wound, which was 5 cm long, on the left iliar fossa. (3) a contusion of semi-circular shape, on the left side of the chest, below the nipple. In this regard, it may be noted that none of the eye-witnesses were standing in close proximity to the accused and the deceased, whereby they could have noted the attack in precise detail. They were all standing at some distance and the attack took place at around 7:30 pm and not in bright daylight. That apart, the incident took place on 23.11.2000 while the eye-witnesses thereto were examined between August, 2014 and December, 2014, i.e., a lapse of nearly 14 years. Further, as the eye-witnesses saw the attack on the deceased by the accused from a distance and, in effect, they saw the stabbing motion by the accused on the left side of the belly of the deceased, the medical evidence that there were two stab injuries on the abdomen of the deceased does not dilute the

36

creditworthiness of their testimony. The fact remains that they saw the actual stabbing of the deceased by the accused and P.W.5 also saw the accused running with the knife in his right hand. In any event, on the issue of discrepancies between eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, the law is well settled that ocular testimony would outweigh medical evidence, if in a given case the circumstances exist therefor. In Rakesh and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 9 SCC 698], the Supreme Court observed that it is a settled legal position that ocular evidence would have primacy unless it is established that the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with medical evidence. The Supreme Court further observed that ocular testimony of a witness would have greater evidentiary value over medical evidence and only when medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, such ocular evidence would have to be disbelieved.

[36] The argument of Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, that, even if proved, this was not a case of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cannot be countenanced. The contention of Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, that the ingredients of Section 300 IPC are not made out cannot be accepted. If the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would be sufficient under the third clause of Section 300 IPC. As the stabbing of the deceased in the stomach was an act which was likely to cause his death, the third clause of Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted. Be it noted that, in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another [(1976) 4 SCC 382], the Supreme Court observed that in a case where no significant injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body and the accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death, the

37

question would arise whether the offence would be murder or merely culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Referring to its observation in Anda and others Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1966 SC 148], that the injuries intended to be caused were clearly sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, even if it could not be said that his death was intended, the Supreme Court held that it would be sufficient to bring the case within the third clause of Section 300 IPC.

[37] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel, also contended that the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge went about dealing with the case left a lot to be desired. He would point out that the evidence of some of the P.W.s was not even discussed and certain aspects relating to recovery of the weapon were not dealt with. He would further point out that the marking of the photographs {Exts. P/2(ii) and P/3(ii)} was subject to the rider that the objection raised to their marking would be considered at the time of arguments, but the learned Sessions Judge failed to address the said objection altogether. However, lapses in the manner and style of dealing with the case and the writing of the judgment may not always be of significance. Such lapses would have to be tested on the touch-stone whether they caused serious prejudice to the accused or resulted in injustice being done to him. As already stated supra, the issue of recovery of the weapon is considered irrelevant as the case on hand is based on eye-witness evidence and not circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the lapses, if any, committed by the learned Sessions Judge in dealing with the issue of recovery of the knife (M.O.1) and the scribing of the judgment in that regard are wholly irrelevant and do not tilt the scales in favour of the accused.

38

[38] On the above analysis, this Court finds no valid and tenable grounds made out to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bishnupur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 8 of 2014, against the appellant herein.

Cril Appeal No. 7 of 2017 is accordingly dismissed.

In consequence, MC (Cril. Appeal) No. 6 of 2017, filed for interim relief, is also dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR

Sandeep/Opendro

39