TllE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4 0F 2005 (Judgment and order on sentence dated 28th March, 2005 and 31St March, 2005 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Division - 11, Sikkim at Gangtok in Sessions Trial Case No. 3 of 2004) -_\ I-n the matter of an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1-976 and in the matter of Pema Tamang, S/o Late Mangal Singh Tamang, R/o Lower Syari, P.O. + P.S. Gangtok, East Sikkim At Present - Sikkim State Jail ,,,,. Convt.cf/Appe//ant. versus State of Sikkim ..... Respondent. For the convict-appellant : Mr. B. K. Gupta, learned counsel. For the respondent: I Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned public prosecutor. C.A.V. on 16th March, 2006 PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JuSTICE BINOD KUMAR ROY, CHIEl= JuSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JuSTICE N. SuRJAMANI SINGH, JUDGE. DATE 0F JUDGMENT = 25th MAY, 2006. Justice N. S. Sin JUDGMENT J. This appeal is directed against ].udgment dated 28.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 31.03.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Special Division-II) Sikkim at `---------... 9, Gangtok in Sessions trial case No. 3 of 2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The prosecution story which lies in a short compass brings to light a sad and shocking incident of a son (accused/appellant) beheading his own fat:her with a sharp Kfwkur/. in a hot alt:ercat:ion over the disruption of a drinking water pipe line in a small village called Lower Syari in East Sikkim. The prosecution versions as unfolded during the trial of the case are as follows: - 3, The deceased Mangal singh Tamang aged about 59 years who was a widower used t:o live with his only son Pema Tamang, the accused/appellant herein in Lower Syari Busty, East Sikkim. One.Miss Mysang Tamang aged about 64 years an unmarried sister of the deceased also used to live with the family of the deceased Mangal Singh Tamang in his house. The accused/appellant Pema Tamang who is aged about 33 years had married one Smt. Ganga Tamang and had two children born out of his wedlock. Sometime after his marriage the accused/appellant separated from his father, the deceased and start:ed lMng separately in his own house built by him nearby the house of t:he deceased in the same compound. The affectionat:e relations between the deceased as t:he father and the accused as t:he son had gone sour over the years on the quest:ion of landed property of the family. The deceased who ts,\cgivz . , I;` j •S a. a had taken to drinking oft:en used to get drunk and hurl abuses at t:he accused/appellant saying that he was not going to give a single piece of land to the accused/appellant and that the accused/appellant should leave the place so that he could dispose of t:he land. 4. On the fateful day, i.e., on Thursday 25.12.2003 at about 3.00 p.in. Mysang Tamang sister of the deceased reached the courtyard of the house of the accused followed by the deceased for checking up the point of disconnection in the wat:er pipe line which was laid through the courtyard. On checking up the pipeline, the deceased found a piece of polythene pipe cut and thrown away and lying in the courtyard. On this, a hot altercat:ion ensued in course of which Mrs. Ganga Tamang wife of the accused attacked the deceased with a heavy st:one. As she had lift:ed the stone and was about t:o hurl the same at the deceased Mysang Tamang (PW3) int:ervened and the st:one fell off to the ground. However, she clut:ched Mysang Tamang so tightly that she could not set herself free. At this point of time the accused Pema Tamang pushed the deceased to the ground and chopped off his neck wit:h a Kf}ukur/. and after severing the head from the body placed the same on the roof top of the nearby chicken coop. After placing t:he severed head on the roof top of the hencoop he spat at it thrice hurling abuses at the same time. Being shocked by the horrifying incident t:hat took place in front of her eyes Mysang Tamang, raised hu.e and cry calling for attention of t:he other a,\c*+ villagers and later on she narrat:ed the whole incident to one Dawa Lama of t:he same locality. 5. The said Dawa Lama lodged a written FIR with police Station at Gangtok on the same day. On receipt of the FIR Sadar Police Station case No.162(12) 03 dated 25.12.2003 under section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the accused/appellant and investigation was taken up by Shri P.M. Rai, O.C. Sadar Police Stat:ion. After the case was registered a police team headed by the I.0. reached the place of occurrence where the police found a headless body of deceased Mangal Singh Tamang lying on the courtyard in a pool of blood, fresh blood still oozing out from the truncated neck and the severed head placed on the roof top of the nearby chicken coop in the same courtyard. The blood stained KhukL/r/. i.e. the weapon of offence was also found placed near the severed head on the roof top of the chicken coop. The police conducted inquest of the dead body, prepared rough sketch of the place of occurrence and also took several photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. After the formalities were completed the police removed the headless dead body along with the severed head t:o S.T.N.M. Hospital at Gangtok for autopsy. The police also arrested Pema Tamang the accused/appellant from the place of occurrence and took him to the police st:ation. At the police station a red cotton T-shirt worned by the accused/appellant with blood stains on it was also seized in presence of witnesses. After the autopsy of the \, `.,-t\::-.: a dead body of the deceased was completed the same was handed over t:o the local Panchayat. In course of t:he investigation, t:he Investigating Officer examined the available witnesses who were acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and also sent the sample of blood soaked in cotton gauge preserved by the Medical Legal Consultant which was already taken into possession, to C.S.F.L. Calcutt:a for forensic examination. 6. On completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitt:ed charge sheet against the accused/appellant under section 302 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (East & North) at Gangtok. Later, on receipt of t:he blood test report and serological report from C.S.F.L. Calcutta, supplementary charge sheets were also submitted. 7. On committal of t:he case by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (East & North) at Gangtok to t:he Court of the Sessions Judge (Special DMsion-II), having found sufficient materials, framed charge against accused/appellant Under Sect:ion 302 IPC. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to t:he charge and claimed trial. The learned trial Court, on going through the mat:erials on record and on hearing Prosecution as well as the defence came to the conclusion that t:he prosecution had been able t:o prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, held accused guilty of causing death of his father, t:he deceased and convict:ed him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous "\ds,?, .9 C) imprisonment of life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- as already noted above. 8. Being aggrieved by the conviction and the order on sentence the appellant has come up with the present appeal before this Court. 9. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned public prosecutor and Mr. B.K. Gupta, learned defence counsel for appellant/petitioner were heard. It was the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the case against the accused appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and order of sent:ence passed on the appellant was appropriate. As against this the learned defence counsel contended that t:he accused appellant had caused the death of the deceased under grave and sudden provocation wit:hout any intent:ion to cause the death. Hence, it was t:he submission of the learned defence counsel that t:he case against the accused falls under Part 11 of section 304 IPC and not: under sect:ion 302 IPC under which he has been convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, it is his further submission that the accused appellant ought to have been convicted under section 304 Part 11 instead of section 302 IPC. 10. As it may be seen from the above, the case of the prosecut:ion that the death of the deceased was caused by t:he accused has not been disputed. The only submission urged by the learned defence counsel in this Court was that the accused/appellant caused the death of the deceased under .1J ",\c9,, .e a grave and sudden provocation without any intention t:o cause death. In view of this his specific submission was that the severe sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed upon t:he accused appellant along with 'the amount of fine under section 302 IPC was uncalled for and unwarranted. 1]. In view of the above, t:he only question t:hat this court is required t:o examine is as to whether t:here are any mitigating circumstances and if so whet:her t:he case against the accused/appellant fall under section 304 Part 11 IPC and not under section 302 IPC. ]2. In order to appreciate the above contention of the learned defence counsel that the accused appellant caused t:he death of the deceased without any intention t:o cause his death, it would be necessary t:o take a look at the overall circumst:ances in which the crime was committed. Even though 11 wit:nesses were examined in all the evidence which brings the relevant aspect of the case into sharp focus, is the evidence of Mysang Tamang (PW3) the only eyewit:ness in the case. No doubt, one Mrs. Ganga Tamang (PW10) wife of the accused was also present on the spot during the occurrence but as correctly observed by the learned trial Court she being the wife of the accused has not: deposed anything about the incident:. Therefore, even though the evidence on record consists of as many as 11 witnesses, the evidence of the sole eye wit:nesses as might be seen presently, would be sufficient to throw light on the exact fact situat:ion prevailing at the time of occurrence. \\ `\givz .9 a Therefore, it would be sufficient to refer to the deposition of Mysang Tamang (PW3) the lone eyewitness, for a graphic account of what happened on the spot. ]3. It would be relevant to note that Mysang Tamang (PW3) the lone eyewitness is the aunty of the accused and unmarried sister of the deceased who was living with the deceased at the relevant time. On t:he fat:eful day, she reached the courtyard of the accused Appellant being followed by the deceased to check up the drinking water pipeline that was laid through t:he courtyard of the accused appellant. In her deposition, she stated that t:he accused, the only son of her brother the deceased, was related to her as nephew. His name was Pema Tamang @ Santosh Tamang. In the village he was also known as Chaptey. Being unmarried, she was residing with her deceased brot:her at Syari. The accused who was staying together with his father separated from the family after his marriage and started living separately. The witness then stated as follows: - ``1 do not know the date, month and the year of Eng.ish Calender. The incident took place in the Nepa]i morith of Push last. It mL]st have been about 3]00 P.M. that day my deceased brother was slight]y down the fever and taking rest at his residence I had gone to the nearby field to graze my goat. When I returned home after grazing the goats I heard the cows moowing for water. Accordingly, I scolded my deceased brother for not attending to the cows which appears thursty, while I was te[]ing my deceased brother to give water I overheard some one from towards the house of the accused saying that my deceased brother had chopped off the water pipe line. -, A.\Ory, 14. Thereafter I proceeded towards the house of the accused and requested the wife of the accused to provide two buckets of water to give 1:o the cows. I noticed that my deceased brother had also fo][owed behind me. At that time the wife of the accused lifted one stone weigrijng approximately 2 Kgs. to stril(e my deceased brother with 1:he same. I tried to prevent the stone from strjl{ing my deceased brother and the stone fell on the grand. At thai: the wife of I:lie accused tightly caught ho.d of my hands. Thereafter, the accused pL(srted my deceased brother to the ground and chopped his neck with a `KfluA'urt-'. The accused severed tlie neck of my deceased brother. I noticed pool of blood on the ground where the accused liad chopped my deceased brotlier's neclt. After severing the neck of my deceased brother from his body, the accused lifted the head and placed it on the roof top of the hencoop nearby. While tlie accused was assault:ing my deceased brother I raised alarm and called for help. I, myself, could not prevent the accused from assau]ting my deceased brother as I was tightly caught hold by my arm by the wife of the accused. After commission of the offence trie accused himself came and freed my tiands from the grip of tr]is wife. Immediately after commission of the offence i.e. after severing the head of my deceased brother and p[acihg the same on tlie roof of the hencoop, the accused also her[ed abuses on t:he severed head of my deceased brother and spat on the same thrice''. It may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge fully relied on the above evidence of the sole eyewitness for coming to the conclusion that the case against the accused stands proved. While convicting the accused, it has been specifically observed by him that t:he statement of Miss Mysang Tamang (PW3) that the accused chopped the neck of the deceased after severing the head placed the same on the rooftop of the hencoop is fully supported by the medical report +\ \dry, ® .,9 .S 10 and t:he recovery of the beheaded body and the severed head of the deceased from the very spots mentioned in the evidence. 15. It is to be noted that t:he sole eyewitness relied on by the Learned Trial court happens to be a relative of both the deceased and the accused. It is, however, well est:ablished that a witness cannot be disqualified merely on the ground of being close relation of the parties if the evidence of such witness is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. There is therefore no legal bar in accepting the testimony of such eyewitness if it is cogent, truthful. and trustworthy. It has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Sagar vs. Dharamv/-r and Offiers reported in AIR 2004 SC 21 that testimony of an eye witnesses if otherwise found trustworthy should not be discredited on the ground of the accused being a relative of either of the parties. The next aspect of the matt:er is that t:he conviction is based on the testimony of the single wit:ness. However there seems t:o us to be no infirmity on this account also as it is settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if such witness is wholly reliable. Reference in this regard may be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court rer\dered .in Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and Others vs. State of Kerala reported -in AIF. 2004 SC 2688 wl.erein it has been held als follows: - a.\Oey, ``No particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness if he is ? * 16. who]]y re[iab[e. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possib.e c+iticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained''. As it may be noticed from the above it is open to a court to rely on the testimony of a single witness if it is wholly reliable and bare convictio.n thereon. Hence, relying on the above evidence of Mysang Tamang, the sole eyewitness, together with the other materials like the medical evidence and the evidence of recovery t:here can be no doubt that the materials on the record est:ablish the following. On t:he fateful day, Mysang Tamang (PW3) accompanied by the deceased reached the courtyard of the accused at around 3.00 p.in. After reaching t:he house of the accused, she had hardly asked the wife of the accused for two buckets of water for serving the same to the thirsty cows, when the wife of t:he accused picked up a heavy stone so as to hurl it at t:he deceased who was by her side. However, on her intervention, the stone fell down on the ground but the wife of the accused seized her hands so tightly that she was unable to free herself. At that point of time, the accused knocked down t:he deceased on the ground and chopped off his neck with a Khukur/., severing the head from the body. After severing t:he head, t:he accused placed it on the rooftop of the hencoop and hurling abuses at the severed head, spat at it thrice. `{t <.\cp?, a 12 That t:he above facts stand established by the evidence of t:he sole eyewitness duly corroborated by other evidence as stat:ed above is not disputed even by the defence and in our view, correctly so. We have already indicat:ed above the legal position with regard to evidentiary value of a wit:ness rela.ted to the parties and t:he permissibility of basing a conviction on the testimony of a single witness. Thus t:he legal position being what is highlighted above and the established materials on the record being as summarized above, we find no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Learned trial court and t:he order of convict:ion and sent:ence based thereon. 17. Now t:he next question is, whether the learned trial Court is right in holding that the case against the appellant falls under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is t:he contention of the learned defense counsel that the case against the accused falls under section 304 Part 11 and not under section 302. The case sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the defence in support of his submission is that, the accused committed the alleged offence under grave and sudden provocation. In order t:o show that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without any premeditation, the learned Counsel pointed out that it was not the accused who had gone t:o the house of the deceased, but it was the deceased who had come to the house of the accused and had start:ed assaulting his wife. It was when the accused who was inside his house at r`` +.\0?, e 13 that time saw that his wife was being assaulted by t:he deceased that he was provoked and thus lost his self-control and committ:ed to the unfortunate crime. In support of this submission the Learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on the evidence of Smt:. Ganga Tamang (PW10), the wife of the accused. The said witness deposing as PW10 has stat:ed t:hat her father-in-law used to drink, get drunk and hurl abuses in filthy language while they were residing in the joint family. Not only this, her father-in-law also used to throw hot ashes on her head and even after they started living separately her father- in-law continued his ill behaviour towards her and t:he accused. On the relevant day's incident she stat:ed as follows: ``On the date of incident also my father-in-law came to our residence abusing me and using the filthy language a][eging that we had disconnected his water pipe line. The accused was in the residence at tliat time. My father- in-law also assaulted me with stones. As a result I fe][ down and became unconscious. As a result I cannot say what happened thereafter. When I gained my conscioirsness I saw the dead body of my father-in-law with the head severed ......,....... „ ............................ " The witness has, no doubt stat:ed that she was assaulted by the deceased with a st:one, as a result of which she fell down and became unconscious. This statement of t:he witness, has however been rejected by the learned trial Court giving cogent reasons as follows: - ``The counsel for the accused placed great reliance ih the evidence of Smt. Ganga Tamang (P.W.10) the wife of tlie accused. The evidence of this witness does not help tlie accused as she has not deposed about the \ch?, 14 incident at a][ on the plea that she became unconscious. Moreover, the evidence of this witness cannot be acted upon without any corroboration as slie is an interested witness being the wife of the accused. The credibility of this witness is seriously shaken as in her cross examination she states that the incident occurred due to provocation by the deceased but in her examination in chief she had stated that: she fe]] down and became unconscious and could not say what happen thereafter"...„...... The evidence of Ganga Maya (PW10) as can be noticed from above, mainly relat:es to past events rather than to the events of the day of occurrence. It is thus to be noted that the past happenings, even if taken to be correct, do not contribut:e to the theory of grave and sudden provocat:ion. On the cont:rary they indicat:e evidence of past hatred and ill feeling which make the theory of premeditation more likely t:han the theory of grave and sudden provocation. The version given by t:he witness that she was knocked down unconscious by t:he deceased and the same was the cause of grave and sudden provocation for the accused to commit the alleged crime is not corroborated by any evidence on record. It is unlikely that the deceased would aspect his daughter in law with a st:one in the manner as alleged. Even if it were so and it were conceded that there was provocat:ion from the deceased, the provocation which allegedly emanated from a quarrel triggered by a petty matter like cutting off of a polythene water pipe line would not in our considered view, justify a brutal act like beheading of the deceased. There is no evidence of the resistance or retaliation •, `\dr, 15 on the part of the deceased much less an assault on the wife of the accused or on t:he accused himself. As it is clear from the mat:erials on record, the deceased reached the courtyard of t:he accused on the fateful day along with his sister (PW3) and on reaching there, Ganga Maya Tamang (PW10) attacked the deceased by picking up a heavy stone, and had it not been for the intervention of PW 3 she would have hurled the heavy stone at t:he deceased. It is also clear that the accused was very much present in the house at the relevant time. It was when Smt. Ganga Maya (PW10) seized Mysang Tamang (PW3) severely restricting the mobility of her hands that: the accused knocked down the deceased and once he fell down t:he accused chopped off the neck of the deceased with a KAukur/. and severed the head right in front of her eyes. In view of these facts, we find it difficult to agree with the learned defence counsel that the accused commuted the alleged crime being under grave and sudden provocation without any intention to cause the death of the deceased. These facts that have come on record and which have been est:ablished