Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Tri) 398

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Elash Kumar Debbarma - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A (J) No. 7 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
S. Sarkar, Sr. Advocate and P. Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant; R. Datta, Public Prosecutor and S. Debnath, Addl. P.P, for the Respondents

The prosecution must establish evidence beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, particularly where circumstantial evidence is predominant, leading to acquittal for murder but conviction for rape.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 302 - Appeal against conviction for rape and murder - Convicted under Section 376 with 10 years imprisonment and a fine, and under Section 302 with life imprisonment - The court reviewed evidence and found doubts regarding murder conviction based on DNA evidence (Paras 27).

(B) Legal principles on the threshold of evidence evaluation - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases (Paras 23, 26).

Facts of the case:
The deceased, suffering from insanity, went missing and was found dead in a rubber plantation. The accused was implicated based on circumstantial evidence.

Findings of Court:
The murder charge was set aside due to insufficient evidence, but the conviction for rape was confirmed.

Issues: Whether the evidence supported the convictions under IPC Sections 376 and 302.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must lead to a clear conclusion, with doubts resulting in acquittal of the murder charge, while rape conviction stood due to corroborated DNA evidence.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; the conviction for murder was set aside but affirmed for rape.

Table of Content
1. conviction basis and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial procedure and points of decision (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. defense's challenge to prosecution evidence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20)
4. prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and dna (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. court’s final determination on charges (Para 26 , 27)
6. conclusion and disposal of appeal (Para 28)

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 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura in connection with Case No. S.T. No. (T. 1)07 of 2018 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 376 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,00/- and with default stipulation and under Section 302 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The brief facts are that Shri Taradhan Debbarma (father of the deceased), the informant herein lodged an oral complaint to the O.C. Champahour P.S. stating inter alia that on 14.01.2018, at about 14.30 hours (2.30 pm) his daughter who was suffering from insanity left their house to fed cow and did not return home till evening. Accordingly, they have searched in all possible places but in vain. On the next morning i.e. on 15.01.2018 at about 06.30 hrs (6.30 am) one Kepengrai Debbarma have seen the dead body of the deceased (Malina Debbarma) of Utlabari in the rubber plantation of one Samir Debbarma in half-naked condition. Thus, the informant came to know and seen the dead body of the deceased-daughter.

3. Based on the said FIR/ejahar Champahour P.S. Case No. 2018 CPH 002 dated 15.01.2018 under Section 302 of IPC was registered and S.I. Samaresh Chakma took up the case for investigation. After completion of the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet vide No. 06/2018, dated 12.04.2018 under Section 341 /376/302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against the accused-appellant, namely, Elash Kumar Debbarma.

4. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 341 /376/302 of IPC was taken against the appellant and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura as the case was exclusively trial able by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai Tripura.

5. On receipt of the case record on 08.05.2018, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai framed charges under Section 341 /376/302 of IPC against the accused Elash Kumar Debbarma which are as follows:-

'Firstly, That, you on or about 14.01.2018 in the afternoon at anytime after 2.30 P.M. in Village-Utlabari, Police Station-Champahaour, District-khowai Tripura in a Rubber garden of Samir Debbarma wrongfully restrained Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly-That, you on the afore mentioned date, time and place in the afternoon at any time after 2.30 P.M. in the village Utlabari, P.S. Champahour, District-khowai Tripura in the Rubber Plantation of Samir Debbarma committed rape on Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and within my cognizance.

Lastly-That, you on the afore mentioned date, time and place and in village Utlabari, P.S.-Champahour, District-Khowai Tripura in the Rubber Plantation of Samir Debbarma did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of one Malina Debbarma and thereby committed an office punishable under Section 302 of IPC and within my cognizance.'

6. After framing the aforesaid charges, the Trial was commenced. In the course of the Trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 20(twenty) witnesses and also exhibited some documents. All the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the defense. After the conclusion of the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, t