The case highlighted the importance of establishing complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to prove guilt, the significance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two possibilities are available.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4-8-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar in Case No. Sessions Trail 18 (NT/K) of 2006 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case is based on the FIR dated 23-5-2004, proceeded by the FIR dated 20-5-2004 lodged by one Sri Dhananjoy Rudra Paul, father of the accused appellant and who was also the co-accused along with the accused appellant, but acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. For a ready reference, the FIR is quoted below:

My humble submission is that my daughter in law named Purnima Rudra Paul (19 years) alias Laxmi w/o. Shri Sujit Rudra Paul of the resident of vill-Mainama, under the police station Langtaraivelly has died at any time within the period from 19-5-2004 at night about 9.30 O'clock to about 7.30 O'clock in the morning D/- 20-5-2004 A/D in his own hut over the cot and, I found such incident at 7.30 O'clock today. I do not know the cause of the death of my daughter in law.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that any step be taken for making an investigation into the unnatural death of her.

3. After the aforesaid FIR was lodged on 20-5-2004, the father of the deceased also lodged an FIR on 23-5-2004 with the same police station furnishing information that the deceased had informed her mother that she was maltreated by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law physically and mentally as her husband had illicit relationship with another lady. It was further informed that his daughter was killed in the house of the accused persons. For a ready reference, this FIR is also quoted below:

My humble submission is that my only daughter named purnima Rudra Paul (14 years) was given in marriage with the accused No. 1 at my own residence as per Hindu rites and customs on the 23rd day of the month of Falgoon in the year 1410 B.S., as per Bengali calendar year and as per their claims and demands we have given all the wedding gifts in the marriage and on 5th day of the month of last Baisakh I had taken my daughter to my house on Niyar with the consent of them (the members of the house of my daughter's in law). Again while she had returned to her matrimonial house then daughter informed her mother that she was maltreated by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law physically and mentally as her husband has illicit relationship. After staying 15 (fifteen) days in my house her father-in-law, the accused No. 2 came and had taken her to her in-law's house and on 19-5-2004 A. D. at night my daughter was killed in the house of the accused at Maynama planwise with cool brain.

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that a proper justice be given on investigation into the said incident.

4. On the basis of the investigation carried out by the police, charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also framed charge as follows:

I Sri N.K. Sinha, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, do hereby charge you namely Sri Dhananjoy Rudra Paul, Sujit Rudra Paul and Smt. Helen Rudra Paul as follows:

Firstly that you on 19-5-04 at any time at Mainama under Manu P. S. agreed to do an illegal act namely murder of Purnima Rudra Paul which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you all on the night of 19-5-04 at any time at Mainama committed murder intentionally causing death of Purnima Rudra Paul and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court.

5. The prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses