The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of mens rea in the context of culpable homicide, leading to a finding of conviction under IPC Section 304, Part-II, and the consideration of various factors for the proportionality of the sentence.

S. TALAPATRA, J.

1. By means of this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C., the legality of the judgment dated 27.05.2014 delivered in S.T 04 (NT/D)/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, as he then was, has been questioned. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 304, Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to suffer 7(Seven) years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five thousand] with default imprisonment.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case can be located in the oral ejahar filed by one Banalata Chakma [PW-1] disclosing that on 02.05.2012 at around 2200 hours in the evening, the appellant raided their house and attacked her son Mritunjoy Chakma. The appellant had dealt with several blows and her son fell down on the ground. Mritunjoy started bleeding through mouth and nostril. On the following day, 03.05.2012 her son was taken to Kanchanpur Hospital and from there, her son was referred to Kailashahar Hospital. On the way to the Kailashahar Hospital, her son died at a place under Pecharthal police station. They brought back the body to Kanchanpur Hospital. It has been also disclosed in the said ejahar [Exbt.6] that her son was rickshaw puller by profession and there was a dispute in respect of rickshaw-fare with the appellant. Since PW-1 was busy with treatment of her son there had been delay in lodging the information to the police station. Based on the said ejahar, Kanchanpur P.S. case No.32 of 2012 was registered under Sections 448/302 of the IPC and was taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, the final police report [under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.] was filed chargesheeting the appellant. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the police papers were committed to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, as he then was. Having taken the cognizance, the charge was framed under Section 302 of the IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

3. In order to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 13[thirteen] witnesses including the informant. Moreover, they had introduced 9 documentary evidence viz. the inquest report [Exbt.3], the postmortem examination report [Exbt.5] and the site map [Exbt.9]. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when he repeated his plea of innocence by stating that the incriminating materials as surfaced in the evidence are all false.

4. Having appreciated the evidence on record, the trial court returned the finding of conviction as challenged in this appeal. For returning the finding of the conviction, the trial court had occasion to observe that on the previous night of hospitalization, the victim was assaulted by the appellant and the victim was totally left uncared as there was none in the family except PW-1. In the following morning, he was transported to Kanchanpur hospital and later on, he was referred to the Kailashahar hospital but he expired before he could be taken to the said hospital. The death of the victim has resulted from the hurt caused by the appellant. The trial court has observed in the context as under:

‘….the prosecution fails to prove the mens rea of the offence. There is no iota of evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased though there are some evidence showing that the accused begged for water to some witnesses saying that he would kill the victim by forceful administering of water, but actually he did not administer any water rather it appears that he splashed water on the face of the deceased either when the deceased was unconscious or about to become unconscious. The expression of the accused to the witnesses that he would kill the victim might be an expression of anger. In absence of mens rea for committing