Back
2020 Supreme(Tri) 52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Abdul Barek - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Cri. A.(J) No. 60 of 2019
Decided On : 07-07-2020
For the Appellant : R. Purkayastha
For the Respondents: Sumit Debnath, APP
The main legal point established is the reliance on medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the accused's failure to provide a credible defense in upholding the conviction for murder.
Headnote:
Murder - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - [IPC, Section 302] - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the murder of his wife based on medical evidence of ligature mark and asphyxia, witness testimonies, and lack of plausible explanation from the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution presented evidence of the deceased's body being found with a ligature mark and asphyxia, witness testimonies, and lack of plausible explanation from the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the medical evidence and witness testimonies to be compelling, indicating the accused's involvement in the murder. The lack of a plausible explanation from the accused further strengthened the case against him.
Issues: The key issues revolved around establishing the cause of the deceased's death, the involvement of the accused, and the lack of a credible defense from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the medical evidence of ligature mark and asphyxia, witness testimonies, and the accused's failure to provide a credible defense as the basis for upholding the conviction.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Lodh, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in Case No. ST(T/1) 23 of 2016 whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case, as noted by the trial Court, is-
"The gist of the prosecution in short is that on 02.03.2015 at about 0800 hours the complainant Rubiya Khatun received one telephonic information from the in-laws house of her daughter Fatema Khatun. Immediately, she went to Melaghar, Chandigarh and found the dead body of her daughter was lying in the house of her in-laws, with covering the face by cloth and when the complainant tried to see the face of her daughter then the mother-in-law of her daughter objected her and thereafter removing the cloth she found black mark on the left side of her neck, then she suspected and went to call the local Pradhan and other people but the in-laws of her daughter again obstructed her. Then the in-laws themselves called the local Pradhan and other people and arranged for bury the dead body of her daughter then she raised objection and that time one Billal Miah informed the police. It is stated by the informant that about 2 years back prior to the incident her daughter and accused Abdul Barek got married in Sonamura Court out of love affair and thereafter, social marriage took place at Kalapania, Sonamura. At the time of marriage, the informant given Rs. 70,000/- cash, one bori gold ornament along with wooden furniture and other household goods. After their marriage, they spent their conjugal life in the house of the informant where the accused assaulted upon her daughter and after about 6 to 7 months of marriage the in-laws of her daughter brought them to Purba Chandigarh where the FIR named accused persons conjointly tortured upon her daughter. Even the accused Abdul Barek sometime used to drive away her daughter from the house and thereafter, the informant put her back with the help of people as well as police. That informant stated that on last night i.e. on 02.03.2015 at any time the inmates of in-laws of her daughter of the informant killed her by strangulation and tried to bury the dead body silently. Prior to receipt of FIR SI Debananda Reang went to the P.O. and recorded the oral Ejahar of the informant and forwarded the same to O/C Melaghar P.S for registration of a specific case."
3. On receipt of the ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge of Melaghar PS registered FIR No. 2015 MLG 012 dated, 02.03.2015 against the FIR named accused persons under Section 498-A/302/34 of IPC.
4. Being endorsed, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report of the deceased, visited the scene of crime, prepared hand sketch map with separate index, arranged for post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased Fatema Khatun, examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The disclosure statement of the accused Abdul Barek was also recorded in the police station. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer collected the postmortem report as well as the forensic report from the concerned authorities and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial.
5. Charges under Section 498-A/302 of IPC were framed against accused Abdul Barek and also under Section 498-A of IPC was framed against accused Mst. Hazera Bibi, the mother of accused Abdul Barek.
6. Altogether 16 witnesses were examined in course of trial and prosecution also relied upon some documentary evidence..
7. Mentionably, during trial, the accused Hajera Bibi was acquitted from the charge under Sect
