The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as mere moral conviction is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases.

1. The appellants / accused of this appeal is challenging the judgment and order dated 12-9-2001 and the order for sentence dated 15-9-2001 passed in S.T. 22 (WT / K) 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai convicting the appellants / accused under S.364 read with S.34, I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each I.D. to suffer further R.I. for 3 months and under S.302 read with S.34, I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each I.D., to suffer further R.I. for 5 months and the sentences will run concurrently.

2. The golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and give benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey. (Reference : State of Rajasthan v. N. K. the accused 2000 (5) SCC 30 .

3. Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / accused and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded the trial, in a nut shell are as follows:

5. Shri Kuni Gour (informant / PW - 1) lodged an ejahar (Ext. P - 5) on 21-1-99 stating that some miscreants came to his house on 20-1-99 at about 11.00 O'clock in the night and called his father Kartik Garh (deceased), aged about 60 years asking for drinking water. He could understand that the person will be Parimal Goala (appellant) of his village. On hearing the sound at door step of his father, he lighted the lukka (mashal) on bamboo chati and opening the door he saw that said Sri Parimal Goala (appellant) was taking his father by catching hold of his hand forcibly saying that his father was called by Saheb. He also could identify the miscreants, namely, (1) Sri Surjya Goala (2) Sri Ram Charan Goala (3) Sri Naryan Goala of the same locality amongst the other miscreants by flame of the fire of Lukka (marshal) which was lighted on bamboo chati and while he started proceeding behind them asking them not to take his father forcibly, the said Surjya Goala and Narayan Goala came running in order to assault him as a result of which he did not go ahead out of fear. The miscreants had taken away his father to the north - west side. Immediately after the said incident, he went to the house of Suk Gour (PW - 6). He along with his younger brother, named Mana Gour and along with his wife Smt Parbati Gour PW 3, Younger sister and one Surat Tanti, PW 5 of their village carried out extensive search for his father and after that they found their father with bleeding injuries in the jungle at about 18 km on the north - west side of Laxmi Narayanpur. Thereafter when his father was brought home for getting him admitted in the hospital he died at about 1.00 O'clock. It is stated that a dispute had been going on regarding the boundary of the land with the said Ram Charan Goala for the last 14/15 years.

6. On receipt of the said ejahar, Officer - in - charge, Kalyanp