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
| 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
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.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, for conviction; reliance on weak evidence leads to acquittal.
The court ruled that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, a complete and consistent chain must be established, excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a valid 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.
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the essential legal principle that mere suspicion cannot sustain a conviction.
Confessional statements of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; corroborative evidence is essential to link the accused to the crime.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.