Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Elash Kumar Debbarma – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
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 Debb
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.
Circumstantial evidence must form a continuous chain of facts that conclusively connect the accused to the crime, leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the essential legal principle that mere suspicion cannot sustain a conviction.
The prosecution's burden is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with eyewitness testimony being critical, and discrepancies in procedural reports do not invalidate a solid case.
Circumstantial evidence and confessions, when corroborated, can independently sustain a conviction in murder cases if they establish a clear chain connecting the accused to the crime.
Confessional statements of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; corroborative evidence is essential to link the accused to the crime.
Circumstantial evidence must form a consistent narrative establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with each item linking the accused to the crime.
The court confirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the evidential basis for conviction if core facts are established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient.
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
