So far as opportunity is concerned, the accused certainly had the opportunity to cross-examine Ruggha and did actually cross-examine him when he was first produced before the charge. Reliance in this connection is placed on– ‘SC Mitter v. As between the two we prefer to accept the evidence of Chhela who had no reason whatsoever to substitute Gajraj for Ania. That she must have recognised the man who caused her as many as twenty injuries goes without saying. We feel that this last observation of the learned Judge detracts from what he has said above, and can only be justified when the accused has a right to cross-examine the witness. He, therefore, thought it fit to send Ruggha immediately to the Doctor and obtain his opinion also before deciding whether Ruggha was fit for giving a statement. The learned Judges held that as the Doctor was not examined, and no attempt was made to prove that the witness was seriously ill, his evidence could not be taken under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.
|Date Added:||9 March 2017|
|File Size:||46.51 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
With all due respects to the manrrupa Judges, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken in these three cases. On arrival there, they heard as if some one was beating somebody inside the house.
Further, the story, that has been given by these witnesses, namely that Manrupa and Ruggha openly asked Gajraj in the presence of so many witnesses to let go Ania and to compromise the matter, and when Gajraj refused to do so they threatened to implicate him, seems to us to be absurd on the face of it. Patasi is the wife of one Chhela.
Therefore it cannot be said that this witness is the same whose presence has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses.
He immediately gave chase to Ania, and continued chasing him through the Baaar till he caught him near the kot. The prosecution story was briefly this:.
BEYOND MAN (RUPA)
Try out our Premium Member services: By this time, the accused got on the wall of the house and jumped down in the Bara and then started running away. He says that majrupa had come to purchase Ghee and was sleeping at the house of the accused when the incident took place. Thereafter, Manrupa was asked to go in and find out what had happened to Mst.
Patasi that somebody was beating her, he ran up to the house of Mst. The intention obviously was to commit rape on Mst. The matter came up before the Magistrate next day, and the Doctor’s report was that Ruggha was mentally deranged and was not in a fit state of giving evidence.
As for the actual evidence of Bikha D. We now come to the question of sentence. Patasi should be disbelieved in the circumstances of this case. These two witnesses and Mst. He is a resident of Rawat. He mantupa from the other side, and the accused Gajraj was then caught.
Profile: Manrupa Pradhan – Bhutan Photo Campaign
It was further urged that the evidence of Ruggha cannot be looked into at all when he was not produced by the prosecution manruppa further cross-examination after the charge.
The evidence that this witness and other witnesses have given about the intervention of Manrupa and Ruggha in favour of Ania is so discrepant that we are not prepared to rely on the story put forward on behalf of the defence that it was Manrupa and Ruggha who wanted to save Ania, and therefore implicated Gajraj falsely. Whether he actually does so or not is a different matter.
Her statement has been supported by the statements of Chautha and Ruggha and also Marnupa. Thereupon, all these people got angry with him and falsely implicated him in this case. She says that the man was Gajraj.
Manrupa Full HD | Khagendra Shahi | Twelve Notes Pvt. Ltd.
The mabrupa questioned him, and came to the conclusion that he was not in a fit state of mind to give evidence. Chautha in his statement mentioned also Bhika without giving his caste or his residence. Then Ania begged of Manrupa and Ruggha to save him and asked Gajraj to keep quiet.
Therefore, the best course that the accused could take was to run to the south in the hope that he might escape that way and come to his house by a round-about way.
Therefore the Magistrate ordered the discharge of Ruggha, as he obviously could not be cross-examined in that state. Patasi and two other witnesses who are as good as Manruupa, and whose statements, in our opinion, are true. The case relates to an incident which took place on the night between the 24th and 25th May, We are therefore satisfied that the evidence of Mst. No enmity between them and the accused has been brought out, nor has it been shown that they are particular friends of Ania, which would induce them to save Ania and implicate the accused in his place.