The admissibility of the accused's confession, the need for corroborating evidence in circumstantial cases, and the importance of establishing motive in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. ST 38(GT/A) of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and also sentenced him to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, and further sentenced him to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act with default stipulation, and it was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Supali Tripura, wife of the deceased, Krishnada Tripura lodged a complaint to the Officer-In-Charge of Karbook Police Station, inter alia, stating that on 29.12.2013, she along with her husband, their son and their milk-suckling baby were sleeping at night by spreading a plastic mat on the floor and their heads were pointed towards the east.

2.1. At about 11.30 O'clock, she heard the sound of a gunshot and on hearing the sound she woke up from sleep. Thereafter, she noticed in the light of electricity that there was bleeding injury on the head of her husband and when she tried to shake her husband's body, he did not respond.

2.2. Thereafter, she called her son-in-law, Biswamoy Tripura of her neighbouring house and asked him to examine what had happened to her husband. Then, Krishnamani Tripura, the elder brother of her husband came first, and following him the husband of her niece, also came and saw her husband dead. Later on, people from their locality came to their house on hearing their loud cry. It was not known to her who killed her husband by firing a bullet.

2.3. That complaint was reduced into writing on 30.12.2013 by Ramendra Debbarma, SI of Karbook Police Station. Accordingly, FIR No. 22 of 2013 dated 30.12.2013 was registered under Section 302 of IPC and 27(B) of the Arms Act.

2.4. Thereafter, police had commenced investigation. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of available witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC, prepared the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Krishnada Tripura and arranged for postmortem examination of the dead body. Being prima facie satisfied, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. Being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 and 25(1-A)(b) of the Arms Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and introduced 13(thirteen) documents and some material objects[ (Exbt. MO1 series, 14 photographs].

5. After conclusion of recording of evidence and having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-stated.

6. We have heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent.

7. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was implicated with the instant case without any basis. No incriminating material was found against the accused-appellant. According to him, the appellant was implicated with the case only for the reason that the appellant allegedly led the police to discover the weapon of offence and also on the basis of the statement that there was previous animosity between the appellant and the deceased.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the St