Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T.VAIPHEI, S.C. DAS, JJ.
Shri Shyamal Malakar, S/o Late Mohan Kishore Malakar of Lankamura, P.S. Airport, District- West Tripura - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondents
Crl.A(J) 45 of 2013, Crl.A 4 of 2014.
Decided on : 09-01-2017
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 of IPC - The judgment discusses the legal evidence, identification of assailants, and the significance of the FIR in a murder case. The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for clear and cogent evidence to record a conviction. The judgment also highlights the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two views are possible on the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Surjya Chakraborty, where the accused Shyamal Malakar was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, while the accused Suman Malakar was acquitted. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses who alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the victim with sharp weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the identification of the assailants and the nature of the injuries, raised doubts about the guilt of the accused. The court emphasized the need for clear and cogent evidence to record a conviction and highlighted the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two views are possible on the evidence.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the reliability of witness testimony, the significance of the FIR, the identification of the assailants, and the presence of clear and cogent evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence, the need for clear and cogent evidence to record a conviction, and the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two views are possible on the evidence.
Final Decision: The judgment set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Shyamal Malakar, allowing his appeal and ordering his immediate release. The appeal against the acquittal of accused Suman Malakar was dismissed, and both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes giving benefit of doubt when two views are possible on the evidence and the need for clear and cogent evidence to convict. (!) (!) - It discusses identification of assailants and the significance/reliability of the FIR in a murder case, noting that FIR is not substantive evidence and must be corroborated by other cogent evidence. (!) (!) (!) - The court set aside conviction due to lack of cogent evidence and doubtful identification, illustrating the standard of proof required beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) - The case distinguishes between witnesses’ first-time court statements versus prior statements to police and the impact on reliability of testimony. (!) (!) (!) (!) - It highlights delayed examination of witnesses and unexplained delays as undermining credibility. (!) (!) - It states that where there is reasonable doubt, the benefit goes to the accused, and a conviction cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. (!) (!) - The final decision sets aside the conviction of Shyamal Malakar and upholds acquittal for Suman Malakar, indicating appellate intervention where findings are not supported by legal evidence. (!) (!)
S.C. Das, J.
Both the appeals were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel of the parties, since, directed against the same judgment and order dated 26.11.2013, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 (Fast track Court) West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2012.
2. By filing Criminal Appeal (J) No.45 of 2013, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. the convict-appellant Shyamal Malakar challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2013 where under he has been found guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for three months.
3. By filing Criminal appeal No.4 of 2014, under Section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the State of Tripura, appellant, challenged the same judgment and order dated 26.11.2013 where under the accused-respondent Suman Malakar has been acquitted from the charge framed against him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (J) No.45 of 2013 and for the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2014.
5. Simultaneously, heard learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the respondent in Criminal Appeal (J) No.45 of 2013 and learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb (Gupta) for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2014.
6. Shyamal Malakar, the appellant of Criminal Appeal (J) No.45 of 2013 and Suman Malakar, the respondent of Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2014 were full blood brothers. They along with another Indrajit Das were charge-sheeted by the police in West Agartala P.S. Case No.212 of 2011 under Section 302/34 of IPC and in course of trial learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 17.12.2013, framed a common charge against them for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Prosecution case was that accused Shyamal Malakar had a dispute with Surjya Chakraborty at the time of previous Durga Puja festival and thereafter Shyamal Malakar conspired to kill Surjya chakraborty. On 19.06.2011, a Sunday, at about 10/10:30 p.m. Surjya Chakraborty, aged about 22 years, was in his house and was enjoying a TV programme. At that time, the accused Shyamal Malakar and Suman Malakar called Surjya Chakraborty from outside and accordingly Surjya Chakraborty went out of his hut to the road in front of his house and when he reached there, the accused persons Shyamal Malakar and Suman Malakar along with another attacked Surjya Chakraborty and Shyamal Malakar struck repeated 'Dao' blows on the head of Surjya Chakraborty and Suman Malakar also gave 'Shabal"(crow bar) blow on the face of Surjya and as a result, Surya received severe bleeding injuries, raised alarm and hearing his alarm when the inmates of the house of Surjya Chakraborty rushed to the spot, the miscreants fled away.
The injured Surjya Chakraborty was immediately shifted to G.B. Hospital by his full blood brother Sujit Chakraborty (P.W.1) and accompanied with cousin brother Swapan Chakraborty (P.W.8) and at G.B.Hospital doctor declared him dead.
8. Some one reported about the incident to West Agartala P.S. without giving details and accordingly S.I. Ranjit Debnath of West Agartala P.S. (P.W.14) along with S.I. Milan Dutta (P.W.12), O.C. of Ramnagar T.O.P. and O.C. of West Agartala P.S. rushed to the village Lankamura after making a G.D. Entry No.1287 dated 19.06.2011 at West Agartala P.S. and thereafter on reaching the spot, the police party found that the injured was already shifted to the hospital and S.I. Ranjit Debnath (P.W.14) started investigation on the spot and the other police officers i.e. P.W.12 and O.C. of the P.S. went to G.B.Hospital where P.W.1 Sujit Chakraborty submitted a written FIR to P.W.12 which was forwarded to the O.C., West Agartala P.S. and on the basis of that FIR, West Agartala P.S. Case No.212 of 2011 was register
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
