Sikkim Court March 2012 Judgments
Ashok Pokhrel Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
Permod Kohli, J. 1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the prosecution seeking leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence in respect of the articles received from the C. F. S. L., Kolkata and to file supplementary charge-sheet already prepared. 2. Objections have been filed by the accused/appellant opposing the application primarily on the ground that the prosecution could not be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. 3. We have heard Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. It is undisputed that the articles, the subject matter of forensic analysis, were seized during the investigation and sent to C.F. S. L., Kolkata for examination. From the averments made in the application and the case file we find that these articles were sent to the C. F. S. L., Kolkata on 12-5-2006. The C. F. S. L. prepared the report on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Man Bahadur Subba Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Kohli, CJ. 1. Appellant before us has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife and awarded sentence to undergo life imprisonment by the Ld. Sessions Judge (Spl. Div.-I), Sikkim at Gangtok vide Judgment dated 31.05.2011 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.31 of 2010. 2. Conviction and sentence are under challenge before us. 3. Mr. B. Sharma, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the Judgment passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge (Spl. Div.-I), Sikkim at Gangtok primarily on following grounds:- I. Discovery allegedly made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been established according to law; II. Alleged Dying Declaration of the accused/appellant is in fact inadmissible in evidence and reliance placed on such Dying Declaration is contrary to the established principles of law; and III. Statement of eye witness is not reliable, she being a child witness and her statement has not been corroborated by any other witness. 4. Prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›