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

2022 Supreme(Tri) 381

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Krishna Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. (J) No. 49 of 2020
Decided On : 25-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant; S. Ghosh, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Conviction upheld based on circumstantial evidence and confession of the accused - Whole prosecution case rests on established chain of circumstances, last seen theory and the accused's confessional statement which was voluntary and corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 1-30)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established and must lead to a conclusion that is consistent with the guilt of the accused - Last seen theory applicable where it is proved that the deceased and the accused were seen together prior to the crime. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife after a history of abuse. Following a call from the appellant, the victim went missing, and shortly thereafter, he confessed to the murder, claiming he strangled her during an altercation. The body was recovered from a pond.

Findings of Court:
The court found the chain of circumstantial evidence satisfactory to uphold the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine for the appellant.

Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution provided sufficient circumstantial evidence and whether the confession could be deemed reliable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the circumstantial evidence, along with the confession, clearly pointed towards the guilt of the accused and upheld the trial court’s conviction, affirming the legal standards regarding the burden of proof in murder cases involving circumstantial evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initial overview and prosecution case summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. analysis of evidences and confessional statements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. conclusion of the court upholding conviction. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This appeal is directed under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. ST(Type-1) 22 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life along with a payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for the said offence and in default to payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer further R.I. for 6 (six) months.

2. The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, is that one Sri Sukhamani Sinha of Narendranagar under Damcherra Police Station of North Tripura District on 20.06.2017 lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Damcherra Police Station stating inter alia that his sister-in-law Sunita Sinha was given in marriage with Sri Krishna Kumar Sinha (accused-appellant herein) of the same village as per Hindu rites and customs about six years back from the date of lodging the FIR. It was alleged that after few days of their marriage Krishna Kumar Sinha started abusing and torturing Sunita Sinha, his wife physically on different pretext. During their wedlock one male child was born but the behavior of accused Krishna Kumar Sinha was not changed, rather, he accelerated the volume of torture upon her. On finding things unbearable, Sunita took shelter at her parental house. But, there also the accused off and on used to threat his wife over telephone that he would kill her. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 19.06.2017, at about 11:00 pm, after receiving a phone call from her husband Krishna Kumar Sinha, she came out from her parental house and she was missing. Complainant asked Krishna Kumar as to the whereabouts of Sunita, when he was avoiding that matter by different pretext. Thereafter, on 20.06.2017 at about 05:41 pm Krishna Kumar informed the complainant over mobile phone that on 19.06.2017 at about 12:00 hours there was hot altercation between him and his wife on the road beside the parental house of Sunita and thereafter, he committed murder of Sunita pressing her throat and the dead body of the deceased was thrown by him into the pond of one Nirananda Sinha.

3. On receipt of the complaint, O.C., Damcherra PS had registered the case vide Damcherra PS Case No. 2017 DMC 011 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 /201 of IPC against the accused Krishna Kumar Sinha and endorsed the case for investigation.

4. The investigating officer took up investigation and on being satisfied with the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against accused Krishna Kumar Sinha for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 /201 of IPC.

5. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar being prima facie satisfied, framed charge against the accused Krishna Kumar Sinha under Section 302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses; introduced some material documents and material objects, those were exhibited.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 , CrPC with regard to the incriminating materials as surfaced against him when he claimed to be innocent and denied that he was falsely implicated with the case. He declined to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above.

9. Being aggrieved by a

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top