{"id":20543,"date":"2011-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-13T22:41:20","modified_gmt":"2018-03-13T17:11:20","slug":"waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n\n\n\n                                                       Reportable\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2006\n\n\n\nWaikhom Yaima Singh                                ... Appellant\n\n                                 Versus\n\n\n\nState of Manipur                                       ... Respondent\n\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    The appellant herein is challenging the judgment of <\/p>\n
the   High   Court,   whereby   his   acquittal   as   ordered   by   the <\/p>\n
trial   Court,  was   set  aside   and  he   was  convicted   for  the <\/p>\n
offence   of   murder   punishable   under   Section   302   of   the <\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code (IPC).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    Shortly   stated,   the   prosecution   story   is   that   one <\/p>\n
Lourembam   Biren   Singh   (since   deceased)   was   lying   in   an <\/p>\n
unconscious   state   on   the   road   when   he   was   found   by   one <\/p>\n
Oinam Deben Singh (PW-4) at about 8 pm on 30.10.1989.  He <\/p>\n
was attracted by a strange sound when he was passing near <\/p>\n
the   gate   of   one   Ahongshangbam   Herachandra   Singh.     Oinam <\/p>\n
Deben   Singh   (PW-4)   informed   this   to   some   of   his   friends <\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
and   relatives   and   when   he   came   back   on   the   spot   with <\/p>\n
other   people   with   a   light,   they   found   the   said   deceased <\/p>\n
in   an   unconscious   condition.     The   deceased   was   then <\/p>\n
immediately   taken   to   Regional   Medical   College   (RMC) <\/p>\n
Hospital at about 10 pm, where the unconscious Lourembam <\/p>\n
Biren Singh was given some treatment because of which he <\/p>\n
came   to   his   senses   and   gave   a   dying   declaration. <\/p>\n
However,   the   deceased   expired   at   about   3’O   clock   in   the <\/p>\n
next   morning.     According   to   the   prosecution,   in   that <\/p>\n
dying   declaration,   the   appellant   was   accused   of   having <\/p>\n
assaulting the deceased and the same was made in presence <\/p>\n
of   L.   Jiten   Singh   (PW-1),   L.   Ranachandra   Singh   (PW-2), <\/p>\n
Oinam   Deben   Singh   (PW-4),   L.   Chanbi   Singh   (PW-5)   and   L. <\/p>\n
Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7).     L.   Ningthouren   Singh   (PW-<\/p>\n
14),   who   is   the   relative   of   the   deceased,   lodged   the <\/p>\n
First Information Report (FIR).   In fact, L. Ningthouren <\/p>\n
Singh (PW-14) was there alongwith the injured (deceased) <\/p>\n
almost   till   3   am.     However,   he   was   not   present   at   the <\/p>\n
time   when   the   dying   declaration   was   made   to   the   other <\/p>\n
witnesses.     On   the   basis   of   the   said   FIR,   further <\/p>\n
investigation   ensued,   wherein   the   necessary   panchanamas <\/p>\n
were   drawn   up   and   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   were <\/p>\n
also   recorded.     After   filing   of   the   chargesheet,   the <\/p>\n
accused\/appellant   abjured   the   guilt.     In   support   of   the <\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution,   15   witnesses   came   to   be   examined.     The <\/p>\n
prosecution heavily relied on the dying declaration made <\/p>\n
by the deceased in presence of L. Jiten Singh (PW-1), L. <\/p>\n
Ranachandra   Singh   (PW-2),   Oinam   Deben   Singh   (PW-4),   L. <\/p>\n
Chanbi   Singh   (PW-5)   and   L.   Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7). <\/p>\n
The   trial   Court   did   not   believe   the   prosecution   case. <\/p>\n
According   to  the   trial  Court,   if  after   the  death   of  the <\/p>\n
deceased,   the   witnesses   who   had   heard   the   dying <\/p>\n
declaration of the deceased had gone back to the house of <\/p>\n
the   deceased   and   informed   L.   Ningthouren   Singh   (PW-14), <\/p>\n
his   cousin,   of   the   death,   then   certainly   L.   Ningthouren <\/p>\n
Singh (PW-14) would have come to know of the name of the <\/p>\n
person   who   assaulted   the   deceased   and   in   that   case   he <\/p>\n
could   not   have   failed   to   mention   that   name   in   the   FIR. <\/p>\n
On   this   basis,   the   trial   Court   acquitted   the <\/p>\n
accused\/appellant.     However,   the   High   Court   upset   this <\/p>\n
acquittal   and   believed   the   dying   declaration   and <\/p>\n
ultimately   convicted   the   accused\/appellant   necessitating <\/p>\n
this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    We have been taken through the evidence as also the <\/p>\n
judgments   of   the   Courts   below.     Shri   Ranjit   Kumar, <\/p>\n
learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant, took us through the evidence.   His contention <\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
was   that  the   judgment  of   the  trial   Court  did   not  suffer <\/p>\n
from   any   illegality   and   the   trial   Court   had   taken   a <\/p>\n
probable   view.     He   pointed   out   that   the   High   court   has <\/p>\n
hardly   given   any   reason   to   show   that   the   view   taken   by <\/p>\n
the trial Court was perverse and not possible at all.  He <\/p>\n
also pointed out that the FIR was given by L. Ningthouren <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-14)   who   was   the   elder   cousin   of   the   deceased <\/p>\n
and on being informed by Oinam Deben Singh (PW-4) and L. <\/p>\n
Chanbi   Singh   (PW-5)   about   the   deceased   lying   in   the <\/p>\n
darkness, he himself had gone and on finding the deceased <\/p>\n
in   an  injured   condition,  took   him  to   the  hospital.     The <\/p>\n
learned Senior Counsel pointed out that this witness was <\/p>\n
present   in   the   hospital   for   some   time   and   then   left; <\/p>\n
however,   at  about   6′  O   clock  in   the  next   morning,  Oinam <\/p>\n
Deben Singh (PW-4) and L. Subhaschandra Singh (PW-7) went <\/p>\n
to him to inform about the death of the deceased in the <\/p>\n
hospital.  The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that L. <\/p>\n
Ningthouren   Singh   (PW-14)   was   specifically   informed   by <\/p>\n
Oinam Deben Singh (PW-4) and L. Subhaschandra Singh (PW-<\/p>\n
7)   that   the   deceased   had   made   a   dying   declaration <\/p>\n
involving   the   appellant   herein;   however,   when   he <\/p>\n
thereafter   went   to   Thoubal   Police   Station,   very <\/p>\n
surprisingly,   he   did   not   name   the   accused   in   the   FIR. <\/p>\n
The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, argued that either <\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
the said witness was never informed of the names by Oinam <\/p>\n
Deben   Singh   (PW-4)   and   L.   Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7)   or <\/p>\n
in fact there was no dying declaration made at all by the <\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    We   have   seen   the   whole   evidence.     The   only <\/p>\n
explanation   that   this   witness   has   given   is   that   he   did <\/p>\n
not   mention   the   name   of   the   accused   in   the   FIR   as   he <\/p>\n
could not properly hear the name of the culprit when the <\/p>\n
matter was informed to him by his younger brother.   This <\/p>\n
witness   has   specifically   admitted   that   he   was   in   the <\/p>\n
hospital   from   10   pm   to   3   am   and   he   looked   after   the <\/p>\n
injured   person.     He   also   asserted   that   he   never   went <\/p>\n
outside   the   hospital   during   that   period.     He   also <\/p>\n
admitted   that   when   he   found   the   deceased,   the   deceased <\/p>\n
was   unconscious   and   could   not   speak.     The   witness   also <\/p>\n
admitted that till 3 am, inspite of the medical treatment <\/p>\n
by   the   doctor   at   RMC   Hospital,   the   injured   (deceased) <\/p>\n
could not speak.  He also admitted that there was another <\/p>\n
person in the village who was related to them bearing the <\/p>\n
same   name   as   that   of   the   appellant.     A   specific <\/p>\n
suggestion was given to him that Oinam Deben Singh (PW-4) <\/p>\n
and L. Subhaschandra Singh (PW-7) had never informed him <\/p>\n
about   the   dying   declaration   made   by   the   deceased <\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
involving   the   present   appellant.     The   learned   Senior <\/p>\n
Counsel pointed out that the whole story of the so-called <\/p>\n
dying   declaration   was   a   myth   and   that   if   the   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   was   made   in   presence   of   the   prosecution <\/p>\n
witnesses,   they   would   never   have   failed   to   mention   the <\/p>\n
name   of   the   assailant   and   eventually   the   name   was   bound <\/p>\n
to appear in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    The   learned   Public   Prosecutor,   however,   strongly <\/p>\n
supported   the   evidence   of   Oinam   Deben   Singh   (PW-4)   and <\/p>\n
contended that merely because the name of the accused was <\/p>\n
not there in the FIR, that by itself could not wipe out <\/p>\n
the   evidence   of   the   witnesses   who   had   heard   the   dying <\/p>\n
declaration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    In   this   backdrop,   we   would   first   examine   the <\/p>\n
evidence of the other witnesses who claimed to have heard <\/p>\n
the alleged dying declaration as also the evidence of the <\/p>\n
doctor, namely, Dr. Ningombam Shyamjai Singh (PW-12), who <\/p>\n
attended the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    Dr.   Ningombam   Shyamjai   Singh   (PW-12),   in   his <\/p>\n
evidence,   specifically   alleged   that   he   was   posted   at <\/p>\n
Casualty Department of the RMC Hospital at Lamphelpat and <\/p>\n
that the deceased L. Biren Singh was brought to him in an <\/p>\n
injured   condition.     The   witness   also   asserted   that   he <\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
gave   him   whatever   assistance   he   could,   by   giving   him <\/p>\n
first   aid   treatment.     He   also   asserted   that   the   injured <\/p>\n
person “gained some consciousness”.  He, however, further <\/p>\n
stated   that   he   could   not   remember   as   to   whether   the <\/p>\n
injured   person   stated   or   uttered   anything   during   his <\/p>\n
brief conscious period.  He also named one House Surgeon, <\/p>\n
namely,   Thokchom   Ibomcha   to   be   present   alongwith   some <\/p>\n
relatives of the deceased.   He was declared hostile.   He <\/p>\n
denied   his   statement   to   the   effect   that   the   injured <\/p>\n
person   regained   sense   and   took   the   name   of   the   accused. <\/p>\n
Since   he   was   declared   hostile,   the   trial   Court   ignored <\/p>\n
his   evidence.    The  house   surgeon  is   not  examined   by  the <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.      That leaves the evidence of Oinam Deben Singh (PW-<\/p>\n
4) who claimed that on hearing the unusual sound at about <\/p>\n
8′ O clock in the evening, he rushed to the house of L. <\/p>\n
Hementa   Singh   (PW-3),   but   not   finding   him   there,   he <\/p>\n
narrated the incident to L. Chanbi Singh (PW-5) and after <\/p>\n
gathering some other persons, he reached the spot, where <\/p>\n
L.   Biren   Singh   (deceased)   was   lying   in   an   injured <\/p>\n
condition.   He then claimed that he alongwith some other <\/p>\n
persons, took the injured (deceased) to the hospital.  He <\/p>\n
claimed   that   after   about   “one   and   half   hours”,   the <\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
injured gathered senses and said in presence of L. Jiten <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-1),   L.   Ranachandra   Singh   (PW-2),   L.   Chanbi <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-5),   L.   Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7)   and   one <\/p>\n
medical officer that the injured was assaulted by Waikhom <\/p>\n
Yaima   Singh   (appellant   herein),   a   resident   of   Thokpam <\/p>\n
Khunou Arong Thongkhong Manak.  In his cross-examination, <\/p>\n
he   denied   that   the   injured   never   regained   his <\/p>\n
consciousness.     He   contradicted   his   earlier   statement <\/p>\n
that the deceased had merely stated that he was assaulted <\/p>\n
by Waikhom Yaima Singh of Thokpam Khunou Arong Thongkhong <\/p>\n
Manak.     His   explanation   was   that   the   police   might   have <\/p>\n
shortened his statement.  He also admitted that there was <\/p>\n
one other person called Yaima Singh in their locality.  <\/p>\n
9.    L. Jiten Singh (PW-1) also referred to the incident <\/p>\n
of finding the deceased in an injured condition.  He also <\/p>\n
referred to the dying declaration.  He is none other, but <\/p>\n
the son of the deceased.  He claimed that his father came <\/p>\n
to senses at about 1= am and that after giving the dying <\/p>\n
declaration, his father died within 10-20 minutes.   This <\/p>\n
is   in   sharp   contradiction   with   the   evidence   of   PW-14 <\/p>\n
according to whom Biren Singh was alive till 3 p.m.   In <\/p>\n
his   cross-examination,   he   denied   that   his   father   was <\/p>\n
speaking in delirium.  He also denied that his father had <\/p>\n
                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
never   made   dying   declaration   or   that   his   father   died <\/p>\n
without speaking any word as he had got serious bleeding <\/p>\n
injuries which incapacitated him to speak.  <\/p>\n
10.    L.   Ranachandra   Singh   (PW-2)   also   reiterated   about <\/p>\n
the dying declaration.   The evidence of L. Hementa Singh <\/p>\n
(PW-3) is of no consequence as he has not referred to the <\/p>\n
dying   declaration.     He,   however,   admitted   that   in   the <\/p>\n
next   morning,   Oinam   Deben   Singh   (PW-4)   and   L. <\/p>\n
Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7)   had   come   to   the   house   and <\/p>\n
reported about the death of the victim.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    L. Chanbi Singh (PW-5) also claimed that he was with <\/p>\n
the   injured   (deceased)   in   the   hospital   and   that   the <\/p>\n
injured took the name of the accused and that this was in <\/p>\n
presence   of   L.   Jiten   Singh   (PW-1),   L.   Ranachandra   Singh <\/p>\n
(PW-2),   Oinam   Deben   Singh   (PW-4)   and   L.   Subhaschandra <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-7).     This   witness   asserted   that   Oinam   Deben <\/p>\n
Singh (PW-4) and L. Subhaschandra Singh (PW-7) were sent <\/p>\n
to   the   house   for   giving   the   information   of   the   death. <\/p>\n
Though   the   other   witnesses   have   admitted,   this   witness <\/p>\n
denied that there was any other person called Yaima Singh <\/p>\n
or Waikhom in the village.  This witness admitted that in <\/p>\n
his   earlier   statement,   he   had   not   mentioned   the   surname <\/p>\n
of Yaima Singh.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
12.    L.   Subhaschandra   Singh   (PW-7)   is   still   another <\/p>\n
witness who had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. <\/p>\n
He claimed that the deceased had made a dying declaration <\/p>\n
in his presence.   He also asserted that after making the <\/p>\n
dying   declaration,   the   injured   (deceased)   died.     In   his <\/p>\n
cross-examination,   he   was   also   given   the   similar <\/p>\n
suggestion   that   he   had   not   stated   the   name   of   L.   Jiten <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-1)   being   present,   which   he   denied.     The   other <\/p>\n
witnesses are not relevant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    We, therefore, have the evidence of some prosecution <\/p>\n
witnesses   who   claimed   that   the   deceased   made   a   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   after   he   regained   consciousness   which   was <\/p>\n
within   1   to   1=   hours   after   the   deceased   reached   the <\/p>\n
hospital.     The   witnesses   have   generally   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
deceased reached the hospital by about 10 or 11 pm.  This <\/p>\n
is   in   sharp   contradiction   to   the   evidence   of   L. <\/p>\n
Ningthouren   Singh   (PW-14),   the   cousin   of   the   deceased, <\/p>\n
who   claimed   that   till   3   pm,   there   was   no   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   made.     We   have   referred   to   the   evidence   of <\/p>\n
this witness in details.   This is the first circumstance <\/p>\n
which would make the factum of the said dying declaration <\/p>\n
suspicious.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
14.    It   is   also   to   be   seen   that   the   deceased   was   very <\/p>\n
seriously   injured,   so   much   so   that   according   to   the <\/p>\n
witnesses, he died immediately after allegedly making the <\/p>\n
said dying declaration, the time of which is not fixed by <\/p>\n
the   prosecution.     The   most   important   circumstance   about <\/p>\n
this   dying   declaration   is   that,   firstly,   it   is   oral   and <\/p>\n
secondly,   there   is   no   medical   evidence   suggesting   that <\/p>\n
the deceased was in a fit medical condition to make such <\/p>\n
a dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.    There   can   be   no   dispute   that   dying   declaration   can <\/p>\n
be   the   sole   basis   for   conviction,   however,   such   a   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   has   to   be   proved   to   be   wholly   reliable, <\/p>\n
voluntary,   and   truthful   and   further   that   the   maker <\/p>\n
thereof   must   be   in   a   fit   medical   condition   to   make   it. <\/p>\n
The   oral   dying   declaration   is   a   weak   kind   of   evidence, <\/p>\n
where   the   exact   words   uttered   by   the   deceased   are   not <\/p>\n
available, particularly because of the failure of memory <\/p>\n
of the witnesses who are said to have heard it.   In the <\/p>\n
present   case   also,   the   exact   words   are   not   available. <\/p>\n
They differ from witness to witness.   Some witnesses say <\/p>\n
about   the   name   of   the   village   of   the   appellant   having <\/p>\n
been   uttered   by   the   deceased   and   some   others   do   not. <\/p>\n
Further,   Dr.   Ningombam   Shyamjai   Singh   (PW-12)   was   also <\/p>\n
                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
not cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in this case <\/p>\n
about   the   medical   condition   of   the   deceased   and   further <\/p>\n
fact as to whether he was in a fit condition to make any <\/p>\n
statement.  Last, but not the least, though the witnesses <\/p>\n
claimed to have reported to L. Ningthouren Singh (PW-14) <\/p>\n
about   such   dying   declaration   and   the   name   of   the <\/p>\n
assailant, there is no reflection of the name in the FIR.<\/p>\n
16.    In   our   opinion,   had   the   witnesses   heard   the   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   and   reported   the   matter   to   L.   Ningthouren <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-14)   who   made   the   FIR,   he   would   never   have <\/p>\n
failed to mention the name.   Instead, we have it in the <\/p>\n
FIR that it was some unknown person who had beaten up the <\/p>\n
deceased.   It must be remembered that the FIR was almost <\/p>\n
immediately   after   L.   Ningthouren   Singh   (PW-14)   came   to <\/p>\n
know   about   the   death   of   his   cousin   Biren   Singh <\/p>\n
(deceased).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.    If under such circumstances, the trial Court felt it <\/p>\n
unsafe to rely on the so-called dying declaration, we do <\/p>\n
not   think   that   the   trial   Court   was   not   justified   in <\/p>\n
taking that view.  In our view, a perfectly probable view <\/p>\n
has   been   taken   by   the   trial   Court   which   could   not   have <\/p>\n
been   set   aside   for   the   mere   fact   that   some   other   view <\/p>\n
could be taken on the basis of the dying declaration.  We <\/p>\n
                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
are at a loss to understand as to how the High Court held <\/p>\n
in paragraph 26 of its judgment that the victim was in a <\/p>\n
fit   state   of   mind   to   make   the   declaration.     In   fact, <\/p>\n
there is absolutely no evidence about the fitness of the <\/p>\n
victim to make the said declaration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.    The only reason why the High Court found fault with <\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial Court was that the trial Court <\/p>\n
had   misconstrued   and   misunderstood   the   evidential   value <\/p>\n
of   the   FIR.     According   to   the   High   Court,   the   dying <\/p>\n
declaration   was   neglected\/ignored   on   the   ground   that   in <\/p>\n
the FIR, the name of the accused was not mentioned.   In <\/p>\n
fact, that, in our opinion, was a good reason.   The High <\/p>\n
Court   is   also   not   correct   in   observing   that   L. <\/p>\n
Ningthouren Singh (PW-14) was not present throughout the <\/p>\n
night of 30.10.1989 at the RMC Hospital.   The High Court <\/p>\n
has   given   reasons   that   the   FIR   could   not   be   used   to <\/p>\n
discredit the testimony of the other reliable witnesses. <\/p>\n
The   High   Court   has   ignored   the   fact   that   if   in   reality <\/p>\n
the   dying   declaration   had   been   made   and   L.   Ningthouren <\/p>\n
Singh   (PW-14)   was   informed   about   the   name   of   the <\/p>\n
assailant, he would never have failed to mention the same <\/p>\n
in   the   FIR.     The   reliance   of   the   High   Court   on   the <\/p>\n
reported decision in  Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab  [AIR  <\/p>\n
                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
(2005) SC 1929] is wholly uncalled for.   In our opinion, <\/p>\n
therefore,   the   High   Court   was   wholly   wrong   in   observing <\/p>\n
that the dying declaration was creditworthy and that the <\/p>\n
trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused.<\/p>\n
19.    The   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is,   therefore,   set <\/p>\n
aside and that of the trial Court is restored confirming <\/p>\n
the   acquittal   of   the   appellant\/accused.     The   appellant <\/p>\n
shall be set to liberty forthwith unless required in any <\/p>\n
other matter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ………………………………..J.<\/p>\n
                                                    [V.S. SIRPURKAR]<\/p>\n
                                                     …………………………………J.<\/p>\n
                                                       [T.S. THAKUR]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
April 18, 2011.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2006 Waikhom Yaima Singh … Appellant Versus State of Manipur … Respondent J U D G […]<\/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-20543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWaikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - 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\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-13T17:11:20+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-13T17:11:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2710,\"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\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-13T17:11:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - 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\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-13T17:11:20+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-13T17:11:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011"},"wordCount":2710,"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\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011","name":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-13T17:11:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/waikhom-yaima-singh-vs-state-of-manipur-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Waikhom Yaima Singh vs State Of Manipur on 18 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/20543","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=20543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}