Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, S. Talapatra, JJ.
Harilal Debnath - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A (J) No. 15 of 2012
Decided On : 06-05-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Datta and Ms. R. Purakayasta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence and the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to the admissibility of disclosure statements and the discovery of facts. It emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to exclude all hypotheses of innocence.
Headnote:
Section 374 - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 - Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - [Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974] - [Section 302, IPC] - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The court analyzed the evidence including the 'last seen together' theory, discovery of the weapon, and the postmortem examination reports. The court emphasized the principles of circumstantial evidence and the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to the admissibility of the disclosure statement and discovery of facts.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine. The case was based on the discovery of the deceased's dead body with grievous injuries and the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The 'last seen together' theory and the discovery of the weapon were not sufficient to exclude all hypotheses of innocence. The court emphasized the principles of circumstantial evidence and the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to the admissibility of the disclosure statement and discovery of facts.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of the disclosure statement and discovery of the weapon, and the application of the 'last seen together' theory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of circumstantial evidence and the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to the admissibility of the disclosure statement and discovery of facts. It held that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of events in exclusion of all hypotheses of innocence, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order were set aside and quashed, and the appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J.:-This appeal by the convict under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (the Cr. P.C. in short) is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.05.2011 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year.
2. It has surfaced from the written complaint as filed by one Narayan Chandra Ghosh @ Nantu Ghosh (PW-1) to the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh Police Station that on 10.03.2009 at about 7.30 pm. his uncle namely, Sunil Debnath had accompanied the appellant to escort Sukumar Sarkar and Haridas Mandal the sawyers who were working with his uncle up to Kalapania, But thereafter, on 11.03.2009 at about 7.30 am. the dead body of his uncle was recovered having grievous injury on his skull.
3. Based on the said Ejahar, Lefunga Police Station Case No. 09/2009 was registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and taken up for investigation. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The case having been committed to the Court of the Sessions for trial in accordance with law was transferred subsequently to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala. The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of Sunil Debnath in the intervening night of 10.03.2009 and 11.03.2009. The appellant, however, pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has adduced as many as 11 witnesses and introduced 10(ten) documentary evidence (Exbt. 1 to 10). When the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. for purpose of having his response on the incriminating materials he had denied all such incriminating circumstances or the materials and stated to be entirely innocent. The Additional Sessions Judge on appreciating the evidence had returned the finding of conviction, which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that after bare reading of the impugned judgment, it would transpire that no substantive evidence for returning the finding of judgment of conviction is available in the records. Basically on the oral testimony of PW-4, Sri Rati Debbarma, the discovery of a ’lathi’, the branch of a tree on the purported disclosure statement of the appellant while he was in the custody of the police and on the evidence of ’last seen together’, the said finding of conviction has been returned.
6. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the proximity between the ’last seen together’ and the recovery of the dead body is not wide to render that piece of evidence susceptible to suspicion. He has further submitted that from the statement of PW-11 namely, Tapan Chakraborty, it would be apparent that by help of the disclosure statement, the said police officer had been able to discover the weapon, the branch of a tree from a nearby jungle from the place of occurrence at Kalapania. PW-11 has categorically stated that the ’accused’ was taken to the place, wherefrom he had recovered the branch of tree. That was seized in presence of the witnesses on preparing the seizure list (Exbt. 5). According to Mr. Debnath, learned P.P. if these two pieces of evidence are considered together, it will complete the chain of circumstances pointing only at the guilt of the appellant in exclusion of any hypothesis of innocence. Therefore, he has strongly
