Case: Akoijam Ranbir Singh Vs. Government of Manipur

was thus known to them and the others from the very beginning. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh also reached the hospital, and Sanajoba Singh (PW 2) has stated that after Ibohal Singh was declared dead, he narrated the incident to them and said that the culprit was the appellant. That was another occasion when even according to Sanajoba Singh, the name of the assailant was disclose in unmistakable terms. Dorendro Singh has corroborated this part of the statement of Sanajoba Singh for he has stated that on his inquiry as to who caused the injuries to Ibohal Singh Sanajoba Singh replied that the appellant gave the blows with a "thang" on the road near Pratap Talkies.7. It will be remembered that it was Dorendro Singh who went to Ibotan Singh (PW 1) to inform him about the incident. By that time he knew the name of the assailant. The Sessions Judge cannot therefore be said to be unreasonable in taking the view that if the name of the appellant had really been disclosed by Sanajoba Singh. Ibotan Singh himself reached the hospital as soon as he learnt about the incident from Dorendro Singh, and we have it from Sanajoba Singh that Ibotan Singh and others had come to him soon after, near the emergency room. There could be no reason why Sanajoba Singh would not have told Ibotan Singh about the name of the person who had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, and the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable if he attached importance to the fact that, even so, the name of the appellant was significantly omitted from the first information report which was lodged by Ibotan Singh soon after, and, on the other had, it was stated that the offence had been committed by somebody and the culprits may be arrested and dealt with.8. The above were significant infirmities in the prosecution case and it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge was not justified in noticing them.9. The other point which was noticed by the Sessions Judge was that there was a discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution about the place of incident, and bloodstains were not found in the verandah of Bharat Shoe House or nearabout it even though Ibohal Singh was said to be standing near the second pillar of the verandah at the time of incident. This infirmity is also there in the prosecution evidence. There is the further fact that although bloodstains were noticed at three places in the bazar, the evidence of the prosecution dies not offer any explanation why the blood fell at three places.10. It has been argued by Mr. Kohli, on behalf of the State of Manipur, that the appellant was not able to explain why Sanajoba Singh (PW 2) should have deposed against him falsely, as there was no enmity between him and Sanajoba Singh, Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh. The argument is futile because, as has been stated, it was the case of the prosecution all through that Sanajoba Singh had been given fist blows on the face by the appellant and his associate a little before the incident and the appellant had threatened him again just before the incident. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh were admittedly friends of Sanajoba Singh and the argument is therefore quite unconvincing.11. It has also been argued by Mr. Kohli that the statement of Sanajoba Singh has been corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as two stab wounds were found on the person of the deceased, and bloodstains were found on the road. Reference in this connection has been made to Lyons "Medical Jurisprudence" to show that a person could run about a hundred yards even after an injury in the heart region. It has been argued that if Sanajoba Singh had not been an eyewitness, he would not have ventured to state that a chase was given by the deceased to the appellant for there was evidence to show that he had been stabbed in the heart. This is however a farfetched arguments and it is possible that Sanajoba Singh stated about the chase as it was found that blood was lying at three places on the road. Our attention has also been invited to Sanajoba Singhs statement that it was he who rat to the help of Ibohal Singh soon after he was stabbed by the appellant, and it has been urged that was sufficient to prove his present at the time of the incident. We find however that Sanajoba Singh admitted in the trial Court that he had stated in the court of the committing Magistrate that it was not only he but Nimai Singh and some other persons who attended on Ibohal Singh When he fell down. The witness disowned that statement, but he could not give any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy.12. The Judicial Commissioner has attached considerable considerable importance to the absence of the appellant from his house and has taken the view that the omission of the name of the eyewitness and the accused from the first information report was a minor matter because it was not lodged by an eyewitness but by Ibotan Singh who was 73 years old. The Judicial Commissioner has tried to explain the discrepancy regarding the place of the incident also. There can be no doubt however that, for reasons stated by us, it could not be said that the finding reached by the Sessions Judge was unreasonable, so as to require interference in appeal. It may be that the Judicial Commissioner has found it possible to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the materiel on the record. It may also be that the evidence was sufficient to as has been held by this Court in Mathai Mathews v. State of Maharashtra ((1970) 3 SCC 772 ), that court not justify a reversal of the finding of acquittal which was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on the record.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. It has also been argued by Mr. Kohli that the statement of Sanajoba Singh has been corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as two stab wounds were found on the person of the deceased, and bloodstains were found on the road. Reference in this connection has been made to Lyons "Medical Jurisprudence" to show that a person could run about a hundred yards even after an injury in the heart region. It has been argued that if Sanajoba Singh had not been an eyewitness, he would not have ventured to state that a chase was given by the deceased to the appellant for there was evidence to show that he had been stabbed in the heart. This is however a farfetched arguments and it is possible that Sanajoba Singh stated about the chase as it was found that blood was lying at three places on the road. Our attention has also been invited to Sanajoba Singhs statement that it was he who rat to the help of Ibohal Singh soon after he was stabbed by the appellant, and it has been urged that was sufficient to prove his present at the time of the incident. We find however that Sanajoba Singh admitted in the trial Court that he had stated in the court of the committing Magistrate that it was not only he but Nimai Singh and some other persons who attended on Ibohal Singh When he fell down. The witness disowned that statement, but he could not give any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy.12. The Judicial Commissioner has attached considerable considerable importance to the absence of the appellant from his house and has taken the view that the omission of the name of the eyewitness and the accused from the first information report was a minor matter because it was not lodged by an eyewitness but by Ibotan Singh who was 73 years old. The Judicial Commissioner has tried to explain the discrepancy regarding the place of the incident also. There can be no doubt however that, for reasons stated by us, it could not be said that the finding reached by the Sessions Judge was unreasonable, so as to require interference in appeal. It may be that the Judicial Commissioner has found it possible to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the materiel on the record. It may also be that the evidence was sufficient to as has been held by this Court in Mathai Mathews v. State of Maharashtra ((1970) 3 SCC 772 ), that court not justify a reversal of the finding of acquittal which was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on the record.