Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Talapatra, J.
Dipesh Kanda - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 67 of 2010Decided On : 10-07-2014
For the Petitioner:A. Das, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. Ghosh, P.P.
The admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and evidence of leading to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Extrajudicial Confession - Theft - Section 380 of the IPC - Sections 454/380/436/411 of the IPC - Section 34 of the IPC - Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 380 of the IPC for committing theft and setting a hut ablaze. The prosecution relied on extrajudicial confessions and evidence of leading to discovery to link the appellants to the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence overwhelming and upheld the conviction under Section 380 of the IPC. The court modified the sentence due to the appellants' young age.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and evidence of leading to discovery, as well as the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the conditions required for admitting evidence related to disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and found the evidence of leading to discovery overwhelming.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.5,000 each, modified from the original sentence.
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.
2. This is an appeal by the convicts under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. By the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, in Case No. S.T.27(NT/KMP)/2009, the appellants have been convicted under Section 380 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000, in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
3. On the basis of a written ejahar filed by one Khoka Kharia, PW. 7, where it was disclosed that on 11.02.2009 at the wee hour of night, the hut of the informant was set ablaze and a sum of Rs.70,000 of various denominations were in the hut, closeted in a briefcase. It has been reported that the other documents like Insurance Pass Book, Bank Book, Voter ID Card etc. had been gutted by the fire. On 14.02.2009 the police was first informed about the incident, but according to PW. 7, no case was registered. But, when some villagers suspected the appellants and detained them, the police was apprised by the ejahar stating that the appellants confessed that they had committed the theft on 11.02.2009 by taking away the briefcase alongwith the money and leaving all the documents in the hut and, thereafter they set the hut ablaze.
4. Based on the said ejahar, Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 17/2009, under Sections 454/380/436/411 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.
5. Before the ejahar was submitted, immediately after detention of the appellants and since the police was informed and one Sub-Inspector of Police, namely Badal Laskar, PW. 10, rushed to the place where the appellants were detained. PW. 10 had brought the appellants in the police station and, thereafter he was entrusted with the investigation. According to PW. 10, after the appellants were arrested they had disclosed in the police custody that some of the stolen materials have been concealed. The appellant No. 2, namely Babadhan Tanti led the police to his house and from a place nearby a ring-well, he digged out a sum of Rs.18,700 in presence of Umakanta Gowala, PW. 5 and Budharam Munda, PW. 6. When the police visited the place where the appellants were detained, PW. 10, the Investigating Officer, at the instance of the villagers had recovered and seized a sum of Rs.14,900 of various denominations from the appellant No. 1, Dipesh Kanda, by preparing a seizure list in presence of Rathin Debbarma, PW. 1 and Bimal Singha, PW. 2.
6. There is no direct evidence to the occurrence except the extrajudicial confession and the evidence of leading to discovery to link the appellants to the offences as alleged. However, after the investigation was complete, the police filed the chargesheet against both the appellants under Sections 454/380/436/411 of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, who framed the charge under Sections 454, 380, 436 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 411 of the IPC. To the charges, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial.
7. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 10 witnesses, including the seizure witnesses as stated, the informant and the Investigating Officer. The prosecution has also introduced in the evidence as many as 12 documents including two seizure lists, Exbts. 1 and 2.
8. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there are two sets of witnesses in respect of the extrajudicial confession. One set of witnesses have stated that the extrajudicial confession has been made in presence of the police officer and the other set of witnesses ha
