Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or improvement in testimonies is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

S. TALAPATRA, J.

1. These two appeals being Crl. App. (J) No. 28 of 2016 (Sri Manju Debnath vs. State of Tripura) and Crl. App. (J) No. 32 of 2016 (Sri Sanjoy Datta vs. State of Tripura) are clubbed for disposal by a common judgment for the reason that these appeals emerge from the judgment and order dated 22.04.2016 delivered in Case No. Sessions Trial 38 (WT/S) of 2012 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura District, Sonamura as he then was.

2. The appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of Sridam Debnath on 10.07.2010 at night at North Jhumerdhepa under Melaghar P.S. After the regular trial both the appellants were convicted under of the and sentenced to suffer RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution against the appellants was launched on the basis of a complaint dated 18.07.2010 lodged to the Officer-in-Charge, Melaghar PS revealing that the complainant namely Bimal Debnath, PW-9, had initially informed the police that his younger brother namely Sridam Debnath committed suicide by consuming poison in his room. But by the complaint (Exbt. 6) dated 18.07.2010 he had changed the statement informing that later on, he came to know one Sanjoy Datta (one of the appellants herein) was having an illicit relation with Manju Debnath, wife of his younger brother namely Sridam Debnath (the other appellant) and those appellants by hatching up a conspiracy killed his brother and fled away. Based on the said complaint Melaghar PS case No. 79/2010 under Section 302 /34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the final police report was submitted sending up the appellants for facing the trial. The police papers were committed to the jurisdictional sessions court and the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura, hereinafter referred to as the trial judge, framed the charge as stated above, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charge as many as 22 witnesses including the complainant (PW-9) including the children of the deceased were adduced. That apart, 13 documentary evidence including the post mortem report (Exbt. 8) are placed in the evidence. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellants were separately examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when they again raised the plea of innocence by stating that the incriminating material as emerged in the trial are fabricated.

6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel has appeared for the appellant of Crl. App. (J) No. 32 of 2016 namely Sanjoy Datta and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has appeared for the appellant of the Crl. App.(J) No. 28 of 2016 namely Smt. Manju Debnath. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted, with emphasis, that there is no legal evidence against the appellant, Sanjoy Datta. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said appellant had administered the poison to the deceased. The prosecution case is that at the instance of the said appellant they raided one shop of pesticides and on showing of the said appellant, they had seized one bottle of cypermethrin under brand name of GOLDCYP-10. According to the prosecution since the appellants were in illicit relation they had planned to exterminate the deceased namely Sridam Debnath. The further case of the prosecution is that both the appellants were arrested from Karimganj from a rented house. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has quite succinctly submitte