SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 67

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Khakchang Jamatia - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. (J) No. 10 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. Sarkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P, for the Respondent

The conviction was upheld based on circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of electronic records, reinforcing the principles governing the proof of guilt under IPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Appeal against conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - Conviction of appellant to life imprisonment and fines imposed by the lower court upheld by High Court - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and call data records - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Admissibility of electronic records and the requirement for certification - Conditions laid out for proving electronic records under Section 65B emphasized - Must ensure source and authenticity. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Legal principles regarding proof of guilt established in terms of circumstantial evidence reinforced. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased on 02.12.2015, with the body discovered later and evidence pointing to the appellant's involvement. Prosecution built its case on circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including testimonies and circumstantial links, confirming the original ruling.

Issues: The accuracy and admissibility of evidence, particularly electronic records, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, and the motivations for the crime were addressed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the lower court’s findings, emphasizing the requirement for a completed chain of evidence and circumstantial links established by multiple witness testimonies and the accused's behavior.

Result: Appeal dismissed, and lower court's ruling confirmed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and charges details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding evidence admissibility (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. legal standards for establishing guilt (Para 14 , 16 , 21)
4. prosecution's case and witness testimonies (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. court's final judgment and order (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District Udaipur in connection with Case No.S.T.18(GT/U) of 2016 (T-1) convicting the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the commission of offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for 1(one) year for the commission of offense punishable under Section 201 of IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that on 05.12.2015, a criminal case was set in motion based on an ejahar lodged by one Birkumar Jamatia(P.W.7), father of the deceased with the officer-in-charge Killa P.S. stating that on 02.12.2015 at about 4.00 p.m his daughter, Binata Jamatia (hereinafter referred to as deceased) left for Maharani Jamtala Bazar from her house but she did not return. So, the informant with his relatives made a search for her but on 05.12.2015, at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m, one Siddi Kumar Jamatia (P.W.8) of his village informed that the dead body of his daughter was found on the northern side of the new road. So, the informant went there and found the dead body of his daughter lying near a tree. He also alleged that there was sign of blood in various places on the road. He also found the mobile, urna, money bag of his daughter, and one knife. He suspected that someone had killed his daughter.

3. Based on that ejahar, Killa P.S. case No.2015/KLA/020 under Section 302 of IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was endorsed to S.I. Manik Lal Nandi(P.W.29). Thereafter, the investigation was started and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet bearing No.02/2016 dated 10.03.2016 was submitted against the accused-Khakchang Jamatia having found prima facie evidence for the commission of offense under Section 302 /201 of IPC.

4. On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 302 /201 of IPC, was taken against the accused Khakchang Jamatia and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur for disposal according to law.

5. On receipt of the case record, charges under Sections 302 /201 of IPC were framed against the accused which are reproduced here-in-below in verbatim:-

' Firstly, that you in between 0312.2015 at about 1600 hours to 05.12.2015 at about 0800/0830 hours at any time at Nizila bari charra under P.S. Killa, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Binita Jamatia by stabbing her with knife and you thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 302 of IPC and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions.

Secondly, that you on the same date, time and place after committing murder hid the body of Binata Jamatia in a tilla land with covering jungle bush nearby the place of occurrence to cause disappearance of evidence of murder with intention of screening of the offender from legal punishment and you thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 201 of IPC and within my cognizance.'

6. Thereafter the contents of the charges were read over to the accused-appellant herein to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the accusation,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top