Point of Law: If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny. In the instant case, P. Ws. 4 & 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased-one of them a close one. The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial Court. There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses. It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial Judge

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.08.2017 passed in Sessions Trial (T- 1)18 of 2016 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District, whereby and whereunder, the convict-appellant has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for the offences committed under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

2. The prosecution case as projected by the learned Trial Judge is as follows:-

"The prosecution case was set into motion based on an oral complaint of one Kalachand Das, S/O Late Harendra Das of Bagabasa, Uttarpara, P.S.- Melaghar dated 11.02.2016 at 22.53 hours recorded by Inspector Soumen Das, O/C Melaghar P.S. alleging inter alia that on 10.02.2016 in the afternoon the accused Subash Nama, the brother-in-law of the informant came to their house and also stayed there and on the date of incident i.e. on 11.02.2016 in the afternoon while the informant went to the market and his other 3 sons also went to the playground to play football, in the meantime, the wife of the informant Dipali Nama Das and his brother-in-law were remain present alone in their house. At about 05:25 PM when the informant was marketing at that time someone informed him over phone that his wife Dipali Nama Das was assaulted by his brother-in-law Subash Nama Das by a piece of bamboo lathi and as result of which his wife sustained severe bleeding injuries. Thereafter, when the informant started to proceed towards his house at that time he found some local public were shifting his wife at Hospital with a vehicle. Then he also boarded in the vehicle and shifted his wife to Sukumar Barman Memorial Hospital where the attending Doctor declared Dipali Nama Das dead due to receiving such injuries

After receiving such compliant O/C Melaghar P.S. registered Melaghar P.S. Case No.2016MLG016 dated under Section 302 of IPC against accused Subash Nama Das and thereafter he endorsed this case to SI Pritam Chakma of Melaghar P.S. for its investigation. After receiving the charge of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the hand sketch map of P.O. with separate index, examined the available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During investigation he also seized blood stain earth, control sample of mud, blood sample in a gauze cotton and bamboo piece with blood stain from the place of occurrence. During investigation he also seized other articles and also collected PM report and forensic report from State Forensic Laboratory. Thereafter, after completion of investigation having found a prima facie case against accused Subash Nama Das he submitted charge-sheet against Subash Nama Das under Section 302 of IPC vide C/S No.51/2016 dated 30.07.2016. "

3. Having received the copies of the charge-sheet and being committed, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the convict-appellant under Section 302 of IPC. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and introduced some documents(Exbt-1 to Exbt- 10/1) including material objects (Exbt. M/O-1).

4. Evidence was recorded and at the closure of recording evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., where he denied all the incriminating evidences as surfaced against him by the prosecution witnesses, but, he declined to adduce any witness on his behalf.

5. The learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the arguments and the materials brought on record, the learned Judge returned a finding of guilt against the accused-person and convicted and sentenced him as afore- stated. While deciding the case, learned Judge formulated the following point of determination:-

"(I) Whether the accused person namely, Sri Subash Nama, S/O Late Nishi Kanta Nama Das of Tepania Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District-Gomati, on 11th day of