Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
T.VAIPHEI, S.TALAPATRA, JJ.
Sri Prantosh Das, son of Sri Kshitish Das & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL.A.(J) NO.48 OF 2016, CRL.A.(J) NO.60, 61 OF 2016
Decided On : 13-02-2018
Murder - IPC - 120B, 302, 149 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The court analyzed the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the principle of presumption of fact and the significance of abscondence as circumstantial evidence. The finding of conviction was based on legal proof and not mere suspicion.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Dilip Ghosh, with the appellants being convicted under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution's case was primarily based on eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence, including previous animosity between the deceased and the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence. The court also considered the principle of presumption of fact and the significance of abscondence as circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evaluation of the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence, in light of the principle of presumption of fact and the significance of abscondence as circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized the need for legal evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted from the charge on the benefit of doubt. They were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.
S.Talapatra, J.
All these appeals, being Crl.A.(J) No.48 of 2016[Prantosh Das & Anr. v. State of Tripura], Crl.A.(J) No.60 of 2016[Abu Sayed Miah & Anr. v. State of Tripura] and Crl.A.(J) No.61 of 2016[Jagadish Rabi Das alias Bhaiya v. State of Tripura], arise from the judgment and order dated 24.08.2016 delivered in Sessions Trial(TypeI) 86 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2.
By the said judgment, the appellants in Crl.A.(J) No.48 of 2016, namely Prantosh Das and Nihar Ranjan Roy alias Powder Raju, the appellants in Crl.A.(J) No.60 of 2016, namely Abu Sayed Miah and Yasin Miah and the appellant in Crl.A.(J) No.61 of 2016, namely Jagadish Rabi Das alias Bhaiya, have been convicted under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/, in default to suffer further SI for one year for their commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Further, each of the appellants, to reiterate, have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for their commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. However, it has been observed that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the written ejahar(Exbt.1) filed by one Runu Dey(PW1) disclosing that on 09.11.2013 at about 10.30 pm he had received information that “something had happened to Dilip Ghosh”. He had rushed to his house. On the way to the house of Dilip Ghosh he got further information that Dilip Ghosh was lying on Ramnagar Road No.9. He then rushed to Ramnagar Road No.9 and found Dilip Ghosh lying in the bleeding state in the drain on the right side of the road near the AMC office. One motor cycle was lying on the same side. There was a big crowd. The police was also present there. He came to learn that one Arghya Deb(Abhi) of Ramnagar Road No.10 was the owner of the motor bike. He further came to know that said Arghya Deb(Abhi) was driving the bike. He came to know from the local people who gathered there that one mosscoloured Alto vehicle thrashed Dilip Ghosh, stabbed and fired shots. It has been disclosed in the said written ejahar that there was a longstanding conflict between Abu Sayed Maih and Dilip Ghosh as regards, the tender of the AMC. He had expressed his apprehension that, that may be the reason of killing Dilip Ghosh in the preplanned manner. After the occurrence, the said vehicle fled away.
3. Based on the said ejahar, West Agartala P.S. Case No.346 of 2013 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC and was taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the six persons out of the FIR named accused persons. One Md. Basir Miah was not sent for trial as during the investigation no incriminating material could be gathered against him. Against the persons, namely Abu Sayed Miah alias Sayed Miah, Dipak Miah, Jagadish Rabidas alais Bhaiya, Yasin Miah, Prantosh Das and Subrata Ghosh, the charge was framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, but the accused persons refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.
It is to be mentioned here that since the case was exclusively triable by the court of the Sessions Judge, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, who in turn transferred the case to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala for trial in accordance with law before the charge was discussed. The said Court framed the charge.
An additional charge was framed against one of the appellants, namely Nihar Ranjan Roy under Section 302 read with Section 149 along with Section 120-B of the IPC. Against the said appellant, Nihar Ranjan Roy charge was also framed under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. This accused also denied the said charge claiming that he was totally innoce
AI
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
