Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, Utpalendu Bikas Saha, JJ.
Pradip Sharma & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 32(J) of 2010Decided On : 25-07-2013
CRIMINAL - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF - CONFESSIONS - VOLUNTARINESS - TEST - RETRACTED CONFESSIONS - CORROBORATION - LAST SEEN TOGETHER - EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - BURDEN OF PROOF - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - DEGREE OF PROBABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and murder of a 3 1/2-year-old boy named Debarghya alias Deep alias Buro. The prosecution alleged that the two accused, Pradip Sharma and Sanjoy Nag, along with a juvenile, hatched a conspiracy to kidnap the child for ransom. The child was taken from his home by Sanjoy Nag under the pretext of meeting his mother. The accused then took the child to a secluded spot, strangled him to death, and buried the body in a pit they had dug. The body was later recovered at the instance of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the following circumstances: 1. Conspiracy to kidnap the deceased: - Testimony of witnesses who stated that the accused had discussed the plan to kidnap a child for ransom. - Recovery of the body at the instance of the accused. 2. Test identification parade: - Identification of Sanjoy Nag by the maidservant who had been present at the time of the kidnapping. 3. Pradip Sharma and the Juvenile belonged to the same locality as the deceased: - Testimony of witnesses confirming their presence in the same locality. 4. Recovery of the body and spade at the instance of the accused: - Testimony of independent witnesses who witnessed the recovery of the body and the spade. 5. Confessions made by the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C.: - The court found that the confessions were voluntary and corroborated by other evidence. 6. Last seen together: - Testimony of an auto rickshaw driver who saw the accused and the deceased together shortly before the kidnapping.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the conspiracy to kidnap the deceased. 2. Whether the test identification parade was conducted properly and the identification of Sanjoy Nag was reliable. 3. Whether the recovery of the body and the spade at the instance of the accused was sufficient to prove their involvement in the crime. 4. Whether the confessions made by the accused were voluntary and reliable. 5. Whether the evidence of last seen together was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Conspiracy to kidnap the deceased: - The court held that the testimony of witnesses who stated that the accused had discussed the plan to kidnap a child for ransom, along with the recovery of the body at the instance of the accused, was sufficient to prove the conspiracy. 2. Test identification parade: - The court found that the test identification parade was conducted properly and the identification of Sanjoy Nag by the maidservant was reliable. 3. Recovery of the body and spade at the instance of the accused: - The court held that the testimony of independent witnesses who witnessed the recovery of the body and the spade at the instance of the accused was sufficient to prove their involvement in the crime. 4. Confessions made by the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C.: - The court found that the confessions were voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, making them reliable. 5. Last seen together: - The court held that the evidence of the auto rickshaw driver who saw the accused and the deceased together shortly before the kidnapping, along with the other evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused for the offenses of murder, kidnapping, and conspiracy.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, C.J.1. This appeal by two of the accused is directed against the judgment dated 14.2.2002 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 365 read with Section 34, 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This appeal was initially filed by three accused Pradip Sharma, Sanjoy Nag and one other. During the course of this appeal, it appears that the third accused who was also convicted by the learned trial court was found to be a juvenile and since been dealt with as a juvenile. Therefore, this appeal has been taken up only as far as Pradip Sharma and Sanjoy Nag are concerned. The third accused is hereinafter referred to as 'Juvenile' for the sake of convenience and to make the chain of circumstances complete.
2. The learned trial court by its order dated 26.02.2002 sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of the conviction under Section 302 and in default of payment of fine the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 365, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- only and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of the offence punishable under Section201 of IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is that the two accused and the Juvenile hatched a conspiracy to kidnap a 3 1/2 years old young boy named Debarghya alias Deep alias Buro for the purpose of getting ransom from the father of the child who was alleged to be a rich businessman of Udaipur town. According to the prosecution, Juvenile and accused Sanjoy are cousins. The Juvenile along with his friend Pradip Sharma had gone to the house of his maternal uncle, i.e. father of Sanjoy, at Maruarkilla. There all three hatched a plan to kidnap some young child with a view to extract ransom from the father of the child. It appears that Sanjoy was the mastermind and the other two accused asked Sanjoy to come to Udaipur. 4/5 days before the occurrence, Sanjoy came to the house of the Juvenile at Udaipur and then they identified the complainant Dilip Kr. Roy to be a rich person and identified him as the target by kidnapping his child.
4. According to the prosecution, in pursuance to this plan the accused Pradip and the Juvenile met some other friends of the same locality namely PW-19, Amar Debnath and PW-38, Kajal Das and invited them to join them in the illegal venture of kidnapping the child. Dilip Kr. Roy and his wife Swapna were both government employees who were residing in a rented house at Udaipur along with their child Debarghya alias Buro (hereinafter referred to as 'Buro'). They had another son who was prosecuting his college education at Agartala. Since both the parents were employed, they used to leave their home for their offices at about 10 a.m. The child Buro was left under the care of a maidservant, PW-1, Malati Paul. The usual practice was that Swapna Roy would come home at about 1 p.m. for having lunch with her son and then used to go back to her office. On 9th September, 1998, Sanjoy came to Udaipur and met the Juvenile and Pradip. These two co-accused informed Sanjoy about the name of the child, the name of his parents and other details of the family. Thereafter they all proceeded towards the locality in which the child was residing. Pradip and the Juvenile waited near the water supply service point near the resident of Dilip Kumar Roy. Sanjoy entered the house and called out for Swapna 'boudi' as if he was calling for the wife of his elder brother. PW-1, the maidservant answered the call of Sanjoy. She di
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
