Case: Akoijam Ranbir Singh Vs. Government of Manipur

Appellant Akoijam Ranbir Singh was tried by the Sessions Judge of Manipur for the alleged murder of Ibohal Singh. He was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted on November 2, 1967. The State preferred an appeal, and the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur took a contrary view. He convicted him of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Akoijam Ranbir Singh has therefore filed the present appeal.2. The allegation against the appellant was this. Sanajoba Singh (PW 2) and Dorendro Singh (PW 3) were going On Parma Road in Imphal bazar on December 13, 1966, in the evening, when they met their friend Raghumani Singh (PW 4) near Pratap Talkies. All three of them went to Eikhoigi Hotel for tea. Thereafter, when they were standing outside, on the road, near the verandah of Bharat Shoe House, opposite Pratap Talkies, towards the west of pan stall, he appellant came there with a friend at about 6.30 p.m. and stopped near the pan stall. He beckoned Sanajoba Singh (PW 2) and when Sanajoba Singh went near him he asked him why he was gazing at him. There was an exchange of hot words between them and the appellant and his friend gave fist blows to Sanajoba Singh on the face. Sanajoba Singh retreated. In the meantime, Ibohal Singh came out of the Bharat Shoe House and separated them. The appellant and his friend then went towards the south, while Sanajoba Singh and his friends Dorendro Singh (PW 3) and Raghumani Singh (PW 4) went to Eikhoigi Hotel again for taking their bicycles. When they came out, they found Ibohal Singh standing in the verandah of Bharat Shoe House. Sanajoba Singh did not know Akoijam Ranbir Singh and asked Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Sing who his assailant was. They told him the appellants name and said that they did not know the name of the other assailant. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh then proceeded a bit ahead, while Sanajoba Singh went behind. When they were about to approach the lane running to approach the lane running to the west of Poona Road, Sanajoba Singh heard a voice at a distance of some five or six feet, from behind, asking him to wait. Sanajoba Singh, Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh then stopped, and thy saw the appellant coming alone on foot. He asked Sanajoba Singh to "settle the matter", and Sanajoba Singh agreed to do so. The appellant then said that the matter might be settled at some other place. Ibohal Singh, who was still standing in the verandah asked Sanajoba Singh and the appellant to settle the mater there. Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh however went away leaving their friend Sanajoba Singh alone. Ibohal Singh asked the appellant and Sanajoba Singh to go away, but the appellant was unwilling, and there was an exchange of hot words between him and Ibohal Singh for two or three minutes. Sanajoba Singh was then standing at a distance of about 1 and half "fathoms" away, on the footpath, near the verandah of Bharat Shoe House, while Ibohal Singh was standing near the verandah at a distance of about 2 and half feet from the appellant. The appellant took out a knife with a blade of about 5" from the pocket of his trousers and thrust it on the right side of Ibohal Singhs belly. Ibohal Singh Stooped down a bit and cried "Thang" (dagger). The appellant then dealt a second blow, on the left side of Ibohal Singhs chest, and ran away. Ibohal Singh rounded the pillar of the verandah and ran after the appellant. Sanajoba Singh (PW 2) also ran after the appellant but he made good his escape on his bicycle. Sanajoba Singh heard the cry "Ei yadre" ("I collapse") from Ibohal Sing, and saw him falling at a short distance from him. He saw Nimai Singh (PW 5) rushing to Ibohal Singhs help. Sanajoba Singh brought a rickshaw and he and Nimai Singh took Ibohal Singh, who had become unconscious towards the hospital. All this is said to have happened at about dust (about 7.30 p.m.). They reached the hospital shortly after wards, Ibohal Singh was taken to the emergency room by Sanajoba Singh and Nimai Singh, with the help of Dorendro Singh and Raghumani Singh who had reached the hospital on learning about the incident from Sanajoba Singh while he was taking Ibohal Singh in the rickshaw. Dr. Ibema Devi (PW 10) attended on Ibohal Singh and called Dr. Lalmuhon Singh (PW 16), but Ibohal Singh succumbed to his injuries in about 10 or 15 minutes. Sanajoba Singh narrated the incident, as to how the appellant had inflicted the injuries on Ibohal Singh to Dorendro Singh, Raghumani Singh and others. Dorendro Singh went and informed Ibotan Singh (PW 1) (brother of Ibohal Singhs grandfather) about the incident, and Ibotan Singh went to the hospital along with Dorendro Singh. They met Ibohal Singhs father on the way, but did not wait for him to accompany them as he was going on foot. On reaching the hospital Ibotan Singh found Ibohal Singh lying dead in the emergency room, and then he went and lodged report Ex.at the police station at 8.30 p.m. In the meantime, A.S.I. Bacha Singh (PW 9), who was on "bazar duty", learnt about the incident and reached the hospital. A case was registered by the police, and the appellant surrendered on December 18, 1966. He was prosecuted for the offence of murder, but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, as aforesaid. The Judicial Commissioner of Manipur has taken the view that the acquittal was based on flimsy and insignificant grounds as the case was not examined in its proper perspective, and he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

Reasoning: 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.