{"id":143108,"date":"2002-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002"},"modified":"2018-03-20T06:04:03","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T00:34:03","slug":"mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 958  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nMANI KUMAR THAPA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF SIKKIM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/08\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde & Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant herein, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police,
\nSpecial Branch, Sikkim Police, along with one Rolland
\nChristopher Chhetri (A-1) who was then a Sub-Divisional
\nPolice Officer in the Sikkim Police, was charged for an offence
\nunder Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC for
\ncommitting the abduction and murder of one Dharma Dutt
\nSharma, and causing disappearance of evidence. A-1 died
\nduring the trial of the case, hence, the proceedings against him
\nabated. The appellant on being found guilty by the Special
\nJudge, Human Rights, South & West Districts, Sikkim, was
\nconvicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
\nto pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-; in default to undergo further RI for
\na period of one year. For the offence under Section 364 IPC, the
\nappellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and for the
\noffence under Section 201 he was further sentenced to undergo
\nRI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- in default to
\nundergo RI for 6 months. The learned Special Judge held that
\nall the substantive sentences of imprisonment should run
\nconcurrently. He also directed that if the fine is realised the
\nsame be paid to the children, if any, of the deceased. An appeal
\nagainst the said conviction and sentence to the High Court of
\nSikkim having failed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12.2.1988
\nA-1 and A-2 came in search of the deceased and subsequently
\nwith the help of PW-5, they were able to contact the deceased
\nnear the house of the deceased and took him away in a jeep
\nalong with PW-5. It is stated that while going away with the
\naccused persons and PW-5, the deceased possibly after
\napprehending some harm to himself, informed PW-3 to tell his
\nwife that he was being taken by A-1 in his jeep. It is the further
\ncase of the prosecution that on the way PW-5 got down from
\nthe jeep and the jeep proceeded towards Chakung. The
\nprosecution alleges that on the way the accused committed the
\nmurder of the deceased, took his body across the check-post
\ntowards Singla within the territory of State of West Bengal and
\ndropped the body below the road near the forest quarters at
\nKerabari, and returned back to Naya Bazar. The above incident
\nof the accused persons crossing the check-post was  witnessed
\nby PW-15, the Havildar in-charge of the check-post and their
\nreturn to Naya Bazar was noticed by PWs.-15 and 22 latter of
\nwhom by that time had come to the check-post. It is the further
\ncase of the prosecution that on the very same night of
\n12.2.1988, A-1 with his family visited the check-post at around
\n9.45 p.m. without there being any official reason for the same.
\nThe prosecution then alleges that on 13.2.1988 the appellant
\nand A-1 visited the check-post in the morning at about 10 a.m.
\nostensibly on the ground that they wanted to give two torch-
\nlights to the constables manning the check-post. It is further
\nstated that on 13.2.1988 a group of about 20-25 people came to
\nthe check-post from Kerabari-Singla side out of which about 7-
\n8 persons approached the check-post and asked PW-15 as to
\nwhose jeep it was which came to Kerabari side on 12.2.1988
\nevening and after being told that it was the jeep of A-1, one of
\nthe persons named Damber Singh Subba, a CPM leader of that
\narea, told PW-15 to get A-1 to the check-post. Under the said
\ninstructions of D.S. Subba, PW-15 asked PW-22 also a
\nHavildar at the check-post to bring A-1 which he did and on A-
\n1 coming to the check-post, it is stated that he went along with
\nD.S. Subba towards the forest headquarters along with PW-22
\nwhere it is stated that the people who had gathered, tried to
\ngherao them. On seeing the same, said Subba pacified the
\ncrowd and took A-1 to the house of one Kazi Lohagan where
\nthe prosecution alleges that A-1 admitted having brought the
\ndead body from Naya Bazar side to Singla side and having
\ndropped the same there. He allegedly assured the said Subba
\nand others present that he would take care of the situation and
\nhe also allegedly gave a written statement to said Subba giving
\nhis version as to the existence of the dead body at that place. In
\nthe meantime on 12.2.1988 itself, PW-5 having suspected the
\nintention of A-1 in taking the deceased in the jeep, sent a note
\nto his superior intimating this fact vide his note Ex. P-2. The
\nfurther case of the prosecution is that on 13.2.1988 at about
\n5.30 p.m., the appellant came to the office of PW-5 and on
\nbeing inquired by PW-5 about the whereabouts of the deceased,
\nthe appellant allegedly told him that when the deceased was
\nbeing taken away in the jeep at a place called Zoom, A-1 got
\ndown from the jeep to ease himself. At that time, the appellant
\nallowed the deceased to flee. It is the further case of the
\nprosecution that again on 16.2.1988 the appellant met PW-5
\nand told him that as a matter of fact when deceased was running
\naway, he fell down and injured himself and when they were
\nbringing the injured person in the jeep for treatment at
\nJorethang, he died on the way, therefore, they took his body to
\nSingla and dropped it there and later on 13.2.1988 they went
\nback to Singla and disposed of the body with the help of O.C.
\nBijanbari (in West Bengal) and some other CPM workers for
\nwhich he and A-1 paid money. The prosecution also alleges that
\non 14.2.1988 the appellant told PW-36 that when they were
\nbringing a smuggler in the jeep from Darjeeling side to Sikkim
\nside, the said person tried to escape from the jeep and in the
\nprocess, fell down and died. It is the further case of the
\nprosecution that until 20.2.1988 there was no official
\ninformation about the incident of 12.2.1988 involving the
\ndeceased but on 20.2.1988 PW-47 who was the in-charge of the
\nPolice Station at Naya Bazar had reliable information as to the
\ndeath of Dharma Dutt Sharma and the complicity of appellant
\nand A-1. Consequently, he suo motu registered an FIR
\ninvolving the appellant and A-1. The prosecution also relies on
\nthe evidence of PW-1, the wife of the deceased, who stated that
\na letter and other material objects like tobacco container, ID
\ncard, chappal recovered from the place where the dead body
\nwas thrown as that belonging to the deceased D.D. Sharma and
\nalso the fact of she having been told by the messenger who got
\nthe message from PW- 3 that the deceased was taken away by
\nA-1 in the Police jeep. It is based on this allegation that the
\nappellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge who in the
\nabsence of any eye-witnesses to the actual murder of the
\ndeceased, relying on a chain of circumstantial evidence, came
\nto the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charge
\nthat was levelled against the accused and convicted the
\nappellant. The circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions
\nJudge are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“1. There was panchayat election going at the material time and
\nthat 12th February 1988 was fixed as last date for filing of
\nnomination papers.\n<\/p>\n
2. Dharma Dutt Sharma had gone to Soreng to submit his
\nnomination paper as a candidate.\n<\/p>\n
3. Dharma Dutt Sharma obtained nomination paper.\n<\/p>\n
4. Dharma Dutt Sharma returned back to Timberbong on 12th
\nFebruary, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn 12th February, 1988 the accused Rolland and the
\nappellant were searching for the victim Dharma Dutt
\nSharma.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tOn 12th February, 1988 deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma had
\nleft Timberbong in Gypsy No. SKM 999 towards Soreng
\nwith the accused Rolland and the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma was last seen in the
\ncompany of the accused Rolland and the appellant and they
\nabducted the deceased Dharma Dutt Sharma.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe appellant Mani Kumar Thapa was with the accused
\nRolland all along with from Soreng to Timberbong. The
\nappellant opened the door and made the deceased to sit in
\nthe back seat and that the deceased left with both the
\naccused Rolland and the appellant on the evening of 12th
\nFebruary, 1988 from Timberbong in the direction of Soreng.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tBoth the accused Rolland and the appellant were together
\nwhile returning from Singhla side of West Bengal.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe accused Rolland and the appellant murdered the
\ndeceased Dharma Dutt Sharma and concealed the evidence
\nof the murder.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn appeal, the High Court after discussing various case-
\nlaws and on appreciation of circumstantial evidence held that
\nthe presence of the appellant in the jeep along with A-1 in
\nsearch of the deceased was established beyond all reasonable
\ndoubt and also found that the prosecution case of taking the
\ndeceased in the jeep on 12.2.1988 from the evidence of PWs.3,
\n5 to 9, 11 and 12 was held proved. From the evidence of PWs.-
\n15, 22 and 25, the High Court came to the conclusion that the
\nidentification of the appellant at Ramam check-post on
\n12.2.1988 was established beyond all reasonable doubt. The
\ncourt also accepted the evidence of PW-5 as to his presence in
\nthe company of the appellant and A-1 in the evening of
\n12.2.1988 and the apprehension entertained by PW-5 as to the
\ntaking away of the deceased on 12.2.1988, through the letters
\nwritten by PW-5 to his superior as per Ex. P-2 and P-3 as also
\ncertain statements made by the accused to PW-5. The court also
\nrelied on the stand taken by the accused in his statement made
\nto the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as also the conduct
\nof the accused in giving different versions to different people in
\nregard to the incident of 12.2.1988, and on that basis held the
\nappellant guilty of the charges framed against him and
\nconfirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant, argued that in the absence of any motive and the
\ncorpus delicti, it is unsafe to place reliance on the circumstantial
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution; more so when the said
\nevidence is replete with discrepancies, omissions and
\nimprovements. He pointed out that in regard to a part of the
\nevidence of the prosecution, the courts below themselves have
\nnot placed reliance, therefore, in a case of circumstantial
\nevidence of this nature, it would be dangerous to base a
\nconviction. We do not find much force in this argument of  Mr.
\nLalit. It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for
\nmurder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential
\ningredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of
\nthe deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus
\ndelicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or
\nrecovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead
\nbody could be disposed of without trace, therefore, if the
\nrecovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to
\nconvict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage
\nto see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the
\naccused complete immunity from being held guilty or from
\nbeing punished. What is therefore required in law to base a
\nconviction for an offence of murder is that there should be
\nreliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like
\nany other factum of death was committed and it must be proved
\nby direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may
\nnot be traced. [See Sevaka Perumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil
\nNadu<\/a> [1991 (3) SCC 471]. Therefore, the argument that in the
\nabsence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be
\nrejected, cannot be accepted. Similar fate will follow the
\nargument that in the absence of any specific motive there can be
\nno conviction. In the instant case PW-1, wife of the deceased,
\nhas spoken about some enmity between A-1 and the deceased.
\nAssuming that this evidence is insufficient to establish the
\nmotive for murder even then if the prosecution is able to
\nestablish beyond all reasonable doubt from other circumstantial
\nevidence that it is the accused (including the appellant) alone
\nwho could have committed the murder, the absence of the
\nmotive will not hamper a safe conviction. In the instant case the
\nchain of circumstances starting from the afternoon of 12.2.1988
\nright up to 16.2.1988 clearly shows that the deceased was taken
\nby A-1 and the appellant in the jeep and thereafter the deceased
\nwas never seen. The subsequent conduct of A-1 visiting the
\ncheck-post in the night, A-1 and A-2 visiting the check-post
\nthereafter at different times without an acceptable reason, A-1
\nand PW-22 visiting the Kerabari Forest Headquarters on
\n13.2.1988 and thereafter recovery of the belongings of the
\ndeceased from the place where the dead body was allegedly
\nthrown in the first instance, the apprehension entertained by the
\ndeceased which was made known to PW-3, the apprehension
\nentertained by PW-5 which was made known to his superior
\nvide letters Ex. P-2 and P-3, the statements of the accused made
\nto PW-5 (to the extent they are acceptable), the contradictory
\nversions given by the appellant to PWs.5 and 36, the presence
\nof the appellant and A-1 together at the farewell function of
\ntheir colleague in the evening of 12.2.1988 and unacceptable
\nexplanation amounting to falsehood given by the appellant in
\nregard to his whereabouts on 12.2.1988 cumulatively establish
\nthe continuous links in the chain of circumstances which was,
\nin our opinion, rightly accepted by the courts below to base a
\nconviction. Having carefully considered the evidence led by the
\nprosecution in regard to the above circumstances we are of the
\nopinion that the courts below were justified in arriving at the
\nfinding that the appellant was guilty of the charge framed
\nagainst him, and we find no reason whatsoever to disagree with
\nthis finding.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Mr. Lalit, learned counsel, then presented an alternate
\nhypothesis based on the evidence led by the prosecution itself.
\nHe contended that the facts narrated by the prosecution to be
\ntrue then that would give rise to a hypothesis leading to the
\ninnocence of the appellant inasmuch as the conduct of the
\nappellant and the overt act attributed to the appellant by the
\nprosecution itself shows that the appellant did not know or
\nshare the common intention of A-1 and he did not play any part
\nwhatsoever either in the abduction or murder of the deceased.
\nIn the presentation of this hypothesis, Mr. Lalit points out that
\nadmittedly there was no motive for the appellant to be involved
\nin the abduction or murder of the deceased. From the evidence
\nof PWs.3, 5 to 9, 11 and 12, learned counsel points out that at
\nevery point of time it was A-1 who was asking for the
\nwhereabouts of the deceased and the appellant as a subordinate
\nof A-1 was only accompanying A-1 in the jeep. He did not play
\nany role in search of the deceased. Thereafter too from the
\nevidence of PW-5 he points out even when the deceased was
\nbeing taken in the jeep in the presence of PW-5, no
\nconversation took place involving the appellant and nobody
\nentertained any apprehension about the conduct of the
\nappellant. He further points out from the letters Ex. P-2 and P-3
\nthat even PW-5 did not suspect the involvement of the
\nappellant. Assuming that the prosecution case is that the
\nappellant was present at the time when the deceased was
\nabducted, the learned counsel contends since there is no overt
\nact on his part, he cannot be held guilty for the intention of A-1.
\nHe further tries to build an argument by pointing out that the
\nstatement made by him to PW-5 on 13.2.1988 and 16.2.1988 as
\nalso the statement made to PW-36 on 13.2.1988 clearly shows
\nthat he tried to help the deceased to get away, therefore, he had
\nnothing whatsoever to do with the act of A-1. He submits that
\nthis hypothesis presented by him based clearly on the
\nprosecution case being one which is reasonable and in
\nconsonance with the case of the prosecution, in a case of
\ncircumstantial evidence, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the prosecution case were to be confined only to the
\nfacts referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in his
\npresentation of the hypothesis then there may be some force in
\nthe said argument. But then while considering a hypothesis of
\nthis nature, we will have to take into consideration the entire
\nprosecution case and the circumstances proved by the
\nprosecution as also any legitimate inference that could be drawn
\nfrom such proved circumstances. If that is done then we notice
\nthe main plank of the appellant’s hypothesis that the appellant
\ndid not know the intention of A-1 in taking away the deceased
\nwith him in his jeep, falls to the ground. In this regard we notice
\nthat it is an admitted fact as could be seen hereafter that the
\nappellant was found in the company of A-1 on 12.2.1988
\nsometime in the afternoon while travelling in the jeep driven by
\nA-1 and searching for the deceased. To the extent that he was
\nwith A-1 on that afternoon is admitted by the appellant himself
\nin his statement u\/s. 313 Cr.PC. From the evidence of PWs.3, 5
\nto 9, 11 and 12, the prosecution has established that A-1 and the
\nappellant ultimately met the deceased and took him away in the
\njeep driven by A-1. During that time PW-5 also accompanied
\nthese accused persons and the deceased to some distance in the
\njeep. It is a fact that then the appellant did not in any manner
\nindicate that he shared the common intention of A-1 in taking
\nthe deceased away. But then if we examine the conduct of the
\nappellant we find if really the appellant did not know the object
\nfor which the deceased was being taken in the jeep, one would
\nhave expected as a natural conduct at least after PW-5 alighted
\nfrom the vehicle, the appellant would have asked A-1 the
\npurpose of taking the deceased with them. The appellant had
\ndone no such thing nor has the appellant given any explanation
\nin his statement u\/s. 313 Cr.PC in this regard. The explanation
\nin this regard is only found in the argument of the learned
\ncounsel in this Court which is that the appellant being an
\nobedient subordinate of A-1, might not have questioned the
\nauthority of his superior. We do not think such an explanation
\nis acceptable to anybody. If really the appellant was innocent,
\nhaving known that a crime is committed, any prudent person if
\nhe was innocent, would certainly have tried to dissuade A-1
\nfrom committing a crime and if he failed in his attempt, he
\nwould have certainly taken steps to see that his non
\ninvolvement is safeguarded by seeking help from others.
\nFailure to do so makes us infer that the appellant already knew
\nthe intention of A-1 and acquiesced with the same. Here we
\nwould also note that in the normal course if the deceased was
\nbeing taken for interrogation or for the purpose of keeping him
\naway from any mischief that A-1 suspected him of planning to
\ncommit in the meeting of the Chief Minister then the normal
\ndestination would have been the Police Station but that was not
\nthe direction in which the vehicle was moving, therefore, it is
\nlegitimate for us to conclude that the appellant knew that the
\ndeceased was being taken towards the check-post with certain
\nother oblique motive. This conduct of the appellant in not trying
\nto find out the reason for taking the deceased and the
\ndestination further strengthen our inference that the appellant
\nknew well in advance what was the reason and the destination
\nto which the deceased was being taken. Assuming for
\nargument’s sake that he was an obedient or innocent or ignorant
\nenough to keep quiet right through the journey then one would
\nhave expected him on his return at least to having informed of
\nthe incident to some person in authority or at least to a friend
\nwith a view to exculpate himself from the incident in which the
\ndeceased lost his life except what he told PW-5 on 13th and 16th
\nof February. Which, of course, is only one of the version of his
\nstory which the appellant had adopted to mislead the
\ninvestigation. This statement to PW-5 apart we see there is
\nnothing which the appellant did which is in consonance with his
\ninnocence. Per contra, it is seen that the appellant accompanied
\nA-1 in the evening of 12.2.1988 to a farewell function
\norganised to bid farewell to one of their colleagues, this also
\nindicates the appellant’s conduct in sharing A-1’s intention. It is
\nfurther seen that on 13.2.1988 the appellant accompanied A-1
\nwent to Ramam check-post without there being any official
\nreason for the same except to deliver two torch-lights. We find
\nit difficult to believe that the appellant who witnessed a crime
\nto which he is not a party, would venture to go again with A-1
\non 13.2.1988 to the scene of the occurrence if he was actually
\ninnocent. It is also to be noticed that even though on 13.2.1988
\nhe told PW-5 about the incident of 12.2.1988 without
\ninculpating himself, he again goes to Ramam check-post on
\n14.2.1988. This constant visit to the place of the incident along
\nwith A-1 makes the hypothesis presented on behalf of the
\nappellant highly improbable and gives sufficient room to infer
\nthat the appellant did know and share the intention harboured
\nby A-1 in the crime. If we analyse the prosecution evidence
\nfurther it is seen that in regard to the travelling in the jeep from
\nwhere they picked up the deceased then on to Ramam check-
\npost and back, we see the appellant has given 3 different
\nversions on 3 different occasions. To PW-5 he stated that while
\ntaking the deceased towards Singla from the check-post, he
\nallowed him to run away from the jeep after they crossed the
\nRamam check-post when A-1 had got down from the jeep to
\nease himself. To PW-36 he told that when they were bringing a
\nsmuggler from Darjeeling side to Ramam check-post i.e. from
\nthe opposite direction the smuggler escaped from the jeep and
\nin the process of running he fell down and suffered fatal
\ninjuries. In his statement u\/s. 313 Cr.PC before the court, he
\nstated that on 12.2.1988 he had gone to Soreng on the orders of
\nhis S.P. as the Chief Minister was visiting Soreng and on the
\nevening of that day  as he did not have any vehicle, he took a
\n‘lift’ in the vehicle of A-1 up to Jorthang from where he went to
\nhis quarters and accused No.1 went to Naya Bazar Dak
\nbungalow as he was camping there on duty. These 3 different
\nversions which are self-contradictory further show that the
\nappellant has not been consistent in his stand as to what
\nhappened on 12.2.1988. This Court in the case of State of
\nMaharashtra v. Suresh<\/a> (2000 (1) SCC 471) has held that a false
\nanswer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to
\nany inculpating circumstance would render such circumstance
\nas capable of inculpating him. The Court also held that in such
\na situation a false answer can also be counted as providing “a
\nmissing link” in completing the chain.\t If the said principle in
\nlaw is to be accepted, the statement of the appellant made u\/s.
\n313 Cr.PC being palpably false and there being cogent evidence
\nadduced by the prosecution to show that the appellant had given
\ntwo other versions as to the incident of 12.2.1988, we will have
\nto proceed on the basis that the appellant has not explained the
\ninculpating circumstances established by the prosecution
\nagainst him which would form an additional link in the chain of
\ncircumstances. Then again there is another factor to be taken
\nnote of in regard to the sharing of the common object of A-1 by
\nthe appellant. It has come in evidence of PW-5 that the
\nappellant had told him that after the body of the deceased was
\ntaken from the place where it had fallen in the first instance, the
\nappellant had taken away certain possible identification
\nmaterials like Panchayat seal and some personal papers with a
\nview to create a false evidence as to the whereabouts of the
\ndeceased. This also indicates the involvement of the appellant
\nin the crime. These circumstances and inferences drawn from
\nsuch proved circumstances establish beyond all reasonable
\ndoubt that the appellant did share the common intention of A-1
\nin taking the deceased away in the jeep driven by A-1 and
\ncausing the murder, therefore, the hypothesis of innocence
\npleaded on behalf of the appellant in our opinion is not in
\nconsonance with the innocence of the appellant. On the
\ncontrary, from the chain of circumstantial evidence the
\nprosecution has been able to establish beyond all reasonable
\ndoubt that the appellant did share the common intention of A-1
\nin abducting the deceased, causing his death as also causing
\ndisappearance of evidence of offence u\/s. 201 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the
\nsame is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 958 of 2001 PETITIONER: MANI KUMAR THAPA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF SIKKIM DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/08\/2002 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & Bisheshwar Prasad Singh. JUDGMENT: SANTOSH HEGDE, J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4211,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002"},"wordCount":4211,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002","name":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T00:34:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-kumar-thapa-vs-state-of-sikkim-on-19-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mani Kumar Thapa vs State Of Sikkim on 19 August, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}