The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for voluntary statements and the admissibility of evidence related to the discovery of facts. The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

ARINDAM LODH, J.

This appeal is presented under Section 374 CrPC against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.03.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2 in case No. Sessions Trial 89 (WT/A) of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of which he is to suffer two years RI and also to suffer solitary confinement for a period of three months in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 74 of the IPC during the period of life imprisonment.

2. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Babul Choudhury, learned PP appearing for the State.

3. The projected prosecution case, in short, is that one Amrit Choudhury, the accused herein, had lodged an FIR stating inter alia, that while he was sleeping in his room on 26/27.07.2004 A.D. at about 0015 hrs on hearing some sound outside his room in the courtyard he woke up and ran out of the hut and found Malina Choudhury, his wife, aged about 35 years and Soma Choudhury, wife of his younger brother, Ajit Choudhury, aged about 22 years were lying dead in the courtyard with sharp cut injuries in the neck and cheek with profuse bleeding. Thereafter, he found his younger brother, Ajit Choudhury lying dead in the kitchen with cut injuries in the neck and cheek. It was understood that some unknown miscreants being armed with sharp cutting weapons had raided his house when his wife and younger brother’s wife were enjoying TV in the house and his brother was taking dinner in the kitchen. It was also understood that out of previous enmity the miscreants committed the murders with help of sharp cutting weapons. The numbers of miscreants were not ascertainable. They had fled away immediately after the incident towards the west. On hue and cry raised by him, the neighbouring people rushed to the spot. The matter was informed to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station on 27.07.2004 and on the basis of the complaint a specific case was registered as Amtali Police Station Case No. 52/2004 against the accused person and investigation was conducted by the Officer-in-Charge under Section 302 IPC.

4. During investigation, the IO examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC. He also visited the place of occurrence, arranged post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the three deceased and on completion of investigation, IO submitted the charge sheet on the basis of which charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and also exhibited some documents to prove the charge against the appellant. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC to which he strongly denied the allegations brought against him by the prosecution but he denied adducing any defence evidence on his side.

5. The learned trial court took up the following points for discussion and decision:

(i) Whether the accused committed murder of Malina Choudhury, Soma Choudhury and Ajit Choudhury?

(ii) Whether the accused did so intentionally?

6. After hearing the arguments from both sides, learned trial court found the appellant guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of which he is to suffer two years RI and also to suffer solitary confinement for a period of three months in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 74 of the IPC during the period of life imprisonment.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said conviction and sentence the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

8. True it is, that the present case involves gruesome murde