STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. THUKCHUK LACHUNGPA
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
STATE OF SIKKIM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor, Sikkim (for short, 'PP') assisted by Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. K. Chhetri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. T. Bhutia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. S. Hamal and Mr. Thupden Youngda Rinzing, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Manita Pradhan, learned Amicus Curiae representing respondent No. 2.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case in brief as projected by the prosecution is that it was alleged by Dadul Bhutia, PW 1 in his FIR lodged with the Officer In-charge, Ranipool Police Station on 14-5-2000 that on 14-5-2000 at around 12.30 p. m. his son Dawa Tashi Bhutia (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') went to the river along with his other village mates for taking bath. It came to be known that while his other friends had begun to take bath, his son came near the swimming pool for roaming. At that time, on the behest of Thuckhuk Lachungpa, respondent No. 1 herein, his son was severely assaulted with rod, iron grill, stone, etc. He was being assaulted even when he laid unconscious and he was thrown away and was nearly killed. Two of his friends reached the place of incidence and caught hold of the feet of the assaulters and begged for forgiveness.His friends also received beating from the assaulters and afterwards he was brought to the hospital for check up where his nose bone was found to be broken, head cracked and his face was worthy not being seen. There was no finding as yet as to the external injuries. It was mentioned in the FIR that his son was assaulted by 10-15 persons. The condition of his son was critical and anything could happen at anytime. Be it so mentioned that the victim succumbed to his injuries on the next day, i.e. on 15-5-2000 at around 7 a.m.
(3.) On the behest of the FIR the investigation ensued. The police arrested both the respondents. On completion of the investigation, the police had submitted the charge sheet against both the respondents. Respondent No.1 was charged under Section 109/114/147/148/149/302 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 when Sections 143/148/149/302 IPC were slapped against Respondent No.2 . Since the matter was triable by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, the same was committed on the said Court for trial of the respondents. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses including 9 (nine) official witnesses, namely 7 (seven) doctors being PW 11 Dr. Kadang Zangmu Bhutia, PW 12 Dr. A. Rai, PW 13 Dr. Samsey Denzongpa, PW14 Dr. K. Giri, PW 20 Dr. Passang D. Phempo, PW 23 Dr. Chimi Denma Namgyal and PW 24 Dr. K. B. Gurung including 2 (two) Investigating Officers (for short, 'I. O.') namely PW 29 Kharga Bhadur Gurung and PW 30 Chewang Norbu Kazi.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.