Back
2019 Supreme(Tri) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Sri Bhajan Saha son of late Sribash Saha @ Nibash Saha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL.A(J) No.32 of 2015
Decided On : 05-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ratan Datta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Roy Barman, Addl. P.P.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the standard of proof required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and the consistency of the evidence with guilt and inconsistency with innocence.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Section 302 of the IPC - Summary: The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was found guilty of murdering the deceased based on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic reports. The court concluded that the evidence pointed unerringly to the guilt of the appellant, and no other hypothesis could explain the circumstances. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and forensic reports to establish the appellant's guilt. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic reports, conclusively pointed to the guilt of the appellant. The court affirmed the original conviction and sentence, dismissing the appellant's appeal.
Issues: The key issues in the case revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish the appellant's guilt, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the forensic reports linking the appellant to the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof required for conviction in cases based on such evidence. The court emphasized the need for the circumstances to form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, as well as the requirement for the evidence to be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, dismissing the appellant's appeal and upholding the original judgment.
JUDGMENT :
This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.07.2014 delivered in Case No. S.T. (T-1) 30 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced in pursuance thereof, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with default stipulation.
2. By the written complaint dated 30.10.2013 [Exbt.1] one Bishnupada Das (PW-1) had revealed to the Officer-in-Charge, Ranirbazar Police Station, West Tripura, Agartala that his elder brother namely Gurupada Das went to look after his rubber garden and paddy field at Lembucherra and there he had found that the appellant was sowing banana saplings over his elder brother’s land along with his mother namely Putulrani Saha. When Gurupada (the deceased) asked why the appellant was sowing the saplings in his land, they broke out a quarrel between them. One Ramesh Majumder informed the informant’s younger sister namely Namita Das (Debnath) about the said quarrel and the informant’s younger sister proceeded with haste towards that place, but when she was proceeding towards this place she found the appellant with ‘dao’ in his hand was coming out of the land of his elder brother pushing a bicycle forward along with his mother, Putulrani Saha. The informant’s sister asked Putulrani about their elder brother but she told that she did not know anything. When the informant’s sister with her two sons searched for their elder brother they found that his body was lying in a well beside the land. They immediately informed the police. The police came and lifted the body. The informant has further revealed that over the body there were marks of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon on injuries. There were injuries on the face and the forehead. The appellant according to the informant had killed his elder brother by hacking and threw the body in the well having been aided by his mother Putulrani Saha. Even it has been stated that Nitai Saha, the cousin of the appellant was also involved the said incident.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, Ranirbazar P.S. Case No.57 of 2013 was registered under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation the police report was filed under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, but in the course of time the said case, registered as S.T. (T-1) 30 of 2014, was transferred to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2. On taking cognizance in due course, the charge was framed under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. But the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.
4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge adduced as many as 20 (twenty) witnesses and introduced 14(fourteen) documents including the inter-divisional report [Exbt.7], post-mortem report [Exbt.10] and report of viscera [Exbt.11] etc. On recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C when he reiterated his plea of innocence by describing incriminating evidence as surfaced on the record of evidence as falsified against him. Thereafter, having appreciated the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the prosecution and the defence and by the impugned judgment, the trial court returned the finding of conviction under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. To return the said judgment of conviction, the trial court has distinctly observed as follows:
“The entire circumstantial evidence which as proved by the prosecution if chained together lead to a definite conclusion un-erringly pointing to the guilt of the accused Bhajan Saha and there is no other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.”
5. Mr
