Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Sri Rajesh Urang, Son of Sri Sunil Urang – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. A. (J) No. 26 of 2019 & Crl. A. (J) No. 26 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with section 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 and 313 - Assault - Injuries/Wounds/Weapons - Order of conviction - Challenged - Appeals - Nature of offence - PW-15 - brother of deceased, lodged FIR alleging that in night, daughter of deceased informed him that appellant along with his appellant father and uncle was assaulting deceased with dao, lathi etc - Having heard news, informant rushed to spot along with his younger brother and some of his neighbours and found that his brother deceased was lying dead with multiple injuries in his head and various other parts of his body. The Pradhan of Gram Panchayat PW-13 reported matter to police over telephone at about 11 O’ clock in night.
Finding of the court: Evidently, there is no other eye witness to case. PW-16 came to spot after occurrence and found deceased lying dead. Similarly PW-3 also told that when he arrived at the spot he found deceased lying dead. The Gram Pradhan PW-13 informed police. Police came and removed body to hospital - No prosecution witness has told anything about such injury allegedly sustained by accused. No evidence is led about nature and extent of injury and as to how such injury was caused to accused - It is true that non production of weapon allegedly used by the accused in committing the offence and absence of explanation from side of prosecution about such non recovery is an omission on part of prosecution but for such omission entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved particularly when there is direct and unimpeachable evidence of eye witnesses - Injuries, external and internal, detected during said post mortem examination also confirmed that it was a homicidal death. In these circumstances, for minor discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses and for some omissions on part of investigating agency not creating any doubt in mind of court, entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and appellants cannot be let off from charge of murder - Court view that guilt of appellants was proved at trial beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and learned trial court by a reasoned judgment rightly convicted appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for charge of murder punishable under section 302 IPC. We find no reason to interfere with impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and the facts and law, involved, are also same, they are clustered together for disposal by this common judgment. By means of filing these criminal appeals, appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2019 whereby and whereunder appellant Rajesh Urang and his appellant father Sunil Urang were convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC hereunder) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation for having committed offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
2. The factual background of the case is as under:
Narayan Urang [PW-15], brother of the deceased, lodged the FIR with the officer in charge of Kailashahar police station alleging, inter alia, that on 02.07.2012 at about 10 O’clock in the night, daughter of the deceased informed him that appellant Rajesh Urang along with his appellant father Sunil Urang and uncle Mohan Urang was assaulting the deceased with dao, lathi etc. in front of the house of Jadu Lal Urang in their neighbourhood in Urang Para at Murticherra. Having heard the news, informant rushed to the spot along with his younger brother Ruplal Urang and some of his neighbours and found that his brother Raju Urang was lying dead with multiple injuries in his head and various other parts of his body. The Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat [PW-13] reported the matter to police over telephone at about 11 O’ clock in the night. Police arrived at the spot immediately and received the written FIR from Narayan Urang [PW-15]. When police came, body of the deceased was lying at the spot. SI Sri Biswajit Debbarma [PW-18] held the inquest and after holding inquest he sent the dead body to Kailashahar hospital through police staff. The wearing apparels of the deceased were seized and the crime scene was inspected by said Biswajit Debbarma [PW-18]. Raid was also conducted in the house of the appellants who were found absconding. Said Biswajit Debbarma [PW-18] then returned to the police station and submitted the written FIR of Narayan Urang [PW-15] to the officer in charge of Kailashahar police station who registered the case as Kailashahar PS case No. 166 of 2012 under sections 302 read with section 34 IPC against appellant Rajesh Urang, his father Sunil Urang and his uncle Mohan Urang and endorsed the case to said Biswajit Debbarma, SI of police [PW-18] for investigation.
3. In the course of his investigation, the IO conducted several raids in the house of the accused at Murticherra. He came to know that accused Mohan Urang was admitted in hospital and the other two accused were hiding at Natingcherra tea garden. On the basis of such information the IO arrested appellant Sunil Urang from Natingcherra. Accused Mohan Urang was arrested after his release from hospital. Appellant Rajesh Urang surrendered in court after his father and uncle were arrested by police. The material witnesses of the case including the informant were examined and their police statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Having completed the investigation of the case, the IO [PW-18] submitted Challan No. 49 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013 against the appellants and accused Mohan Urang for having committed offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
4. Having taken cognizance of offence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura vide his order dated 20.12.2013 committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Trial commenced in the court of the Sessions Judge at Kailashahar with the framing of the following charge of offence against the three FIR named accused of this case:
Point of Law : Criminal Law - Offence of Murder - Conviction confirmed - Where there is ample, unimpeachable ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, non recovery of weapon of offence does n....
The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, which do not materially affect the case, cannot be the basis for doubting the prosecution's case.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of intention and knowledge in determining the offence under Section 307 IPC, the principles of vicarious liability under Section 34 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
