Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri. Amar Singh @ Babu, son of late Atambai Singha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
CRL.A.(J)65 of 2016, CRL.A.(J)09 of 2017
Decided On : 29-06-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Roy Barman, Addl. PP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion cannot substitute legal evidence, and charges must be established beyond reasonable doubt in cases of abetment.
Headnote:
Abetment - Conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC - Section 107, 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C - [Section 107, 154(1), 154(3)] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were having an illicit relationship, and there was no evidence of intense instigation intended to aid the suicide. The court emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute legal evidence, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC for abetment of suicide. The prosecution's case was based on the suspicion of an illicit relationship between the appellants and the deceased, leading to the deceased's suicide by hanging. The trial court returned a finding of conviction against the appellants, which was challenged in the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute legal evidence. The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had established the charge of abetment beyond reasonable doubt, considering the evidence of suspicion regarding an illicit relationship and its alleged role in the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of intense instigation intended to aid the suicide, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute legal evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if they were not wanted in any other case.
Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.
2. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2016 delivered in Case No.S.T.(Type-2) 04 of 2016 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, these two appeals have been preferred by the convicts, hereinafter, referred to as the appellant. By the judgment dated 10.11.2016, the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and pursuant to the said conviction they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9(nine) years and fine of Rs.20,000.00/- with default imprisonment each.
3. The genesis of the prosecution case is located in the written ejahar belatedly filed by one Sipra Das, the unfortunate mother of Debasis Das, son of Sri Dilip Das the person who has committed suicide by hanging. The informant (PW-11) have stated that the police did not accept her ejahar, even the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura, did not act on her information that the police did not register the case on the basis of the written ejahar, she filed the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. In the said complaint, what she has disclosed is that on 10.06.2015 at about 11.20 p.m., she received information that her son feel unconscious and he was being taken to Lal Bazar immediately. The informant along with Shibani Chakraborty and Gautam Chakraborty of her village rushed to the place of occurrence, the rented house of the deceased and the appellant [in Title Appeal No.09 of 2017]. On reaching there, she found the dead body of her son lying in the back seat of the vehicle which was parked infront of their house. Inside the said vehicle, the appellant In Crl.A(J)65 of 2016 was found seated. But she did not find her granddaughter in the place of occurrence. When she asked the appellant [in Crl.A(J)09 of 2017] in that regard, the said appellant replied that as she got scared in the turn of events, she was sent to her parental house. On her query, she came to know further that she along with Biswajit Singh and Rohan Sabdakar went to her parental house by the vehicle of Babu Singh. The Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking cognizance sent the complaint for investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Based on the said written complaint, the police registered a case being Dharmanagar P.S. Case No.2015 DMN 057 under Section 302/34 of the IPC and took up the investigation.
4. For purpose of reference, it is to be noted that the occurrence took place on 10.06.2018 at about 2100 hrs., whereas the written complaint was registered by the police on 19.07.2015 at about 1215 hrs. However, from the records, it surfaces that the ejahar was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27.06.2015. Thus, there is a clear delay of sixteen days, though in the impugned judgment it has been referred as the delay of twenty days. The police on completing the investigation filed the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. by charge-sheeting the appellants herein. As complicity of the appellants herein was found prima facie under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the said offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the said court. In due course, the case was transferred to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar for trial in accordance with law. On 28.05.2016, the charge was framed against the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC stating that the appellant in Crl.A(J)09 of 2017 had developed an illicit relation with the other appellants. As the other appellant used to visit the house of the appellant namely Sumitra Das quite frequently in absence of the deceased, it became a bone of contention in the marital relation. On the faithful day i.e.10.06.2017
