High Court sets aside conviction by Sessions Court in Makha murder case

GANGTOK, 19 Oct: The High Court has set aside the conviction and sentencing of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000 pronounced on Purna Bahadur Chhetri of Manzing, South Sikkim, by the Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, East Sikkim at Gangtok in a murder case.
The appellant was accused of the murder of one Chandri Maya Chettri in 2010 near Makha in east Sikkim.
The Division Bench of the High Court recorded in its judgment while acquitting Purna Bahadur Chettri that “On close examination and careful consideration of the entire evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, appellate court find that the prosecution has failed to prove the primary circumstances set out against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and, therefore, even if those circumstances do form a chain, it cannot be said that the chain is so complete as to lead to the sole hypothesis of the offence having been committed by the Appellant and none other.”
The High Court has directed the Registry that a copy of the judgment and the original records of the case be remitted forthwith to the Trial Court for compliance.
While rejecting the major evidence of CLFS report of blood of deceased and accused person relied by the prosecution and tail court , the High Court said that  “…the Appellant is a married person, and, therefore, in order to rule out any other possibilities, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have taken the blood sample of his wife also. This having not been done, it cannot be said that the blood found on the underwear of the Appellant is of none other than that of the deceased. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting this part of the impugned judgment.”
The Divisional Bench observed that the findings in the impugned judgment was relying upon the “inculpatory portion” of the disclosure statement which “will have to be discarded as being prohibited under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act...”
Apart from the above, the court found that from the evidence of witness 13, Laxmi Kumar Chettri and witness 18, Lakpa Dorjee Tamang, the witnesses to the disclosure statement and the recovery of the incriminating articles at Tungtar, Makha, read along with the disclosure statement, Exhibit 8, the places said to have been shown by the Appellant are not inaccessible to others being a jhora, a paddy field at Tungtar and below the Tanak Bridge. Moreover, it has not been stated anywhere by the Appellant that he had concealed those articles, the High Court observed.
The Division Bench recorded that even assuming that the recovery of the articles were made in pursuance to the disclosure statement of the Appellant, no nexus is found to have been established between such recovery and the death of the deceased.