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

2016 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 33

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
A. S. Bopanna, J
Sushil Choudhury v. State of Tripura
Sessions Trial No.164 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.K. Biswas
For the Respondents: Z. Kamar

The reliability of witness testimony is critical, especially in murder cases; inadmissible evidence and procedural lapses can lead to wrongful convictions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120B, 109, and 201 - Appeal against conviction for murder and conspiracy - Appellant convicted for involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder and for the murders of three individuals, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Subsequent appeal asserts ineffective investigation and lack of corroborative evidence; the court criticized law enforcement's delayed response to the incident and the circumstances of the FIR registration. (Paras 1-62)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution stems from an incident where three individuals were murdered in a newspaper office on 19.05.2013, with allegations against the appellant for orchestrating the crime in collusion with others. Eyewitness accounts conflict with the appellant's statements and there is significant delay in the FIR. Prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of an approver who later recanted her statements made under duress. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was based on weak and contradictory testimonies, with key witness statements discredited due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The investigation was deemed flawed, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. (Paras 40-60)

Issues: Main issues included the reliability of witness testimony, the handling of the FIR, and the implications of witness coercion. The crux of the inquiry revolved around whether the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt. (Paras 5-6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court primarily ruled on the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases involving approvers and highlighted significant procedural failures in the investigation that compromised the reliability of testimonies. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must unambiguously establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 35, 58)

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted due to insufficient evidence and procedural improprieties leading to the original conviction being reversed. (Paras 60-61)

Table of Content
1. basis of the prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. critique of trial court's judgment. (Para 4 , 5)
3. requirements for convicting based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 15 , 31 , 32)
4. duties of the prosecution regarding evidence and proof. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
5. court’s deliberation leading to acquittal. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)

1. This is an appeal by the convict, the appellant hereinafter, under S.374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.07.2014 delivered in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment dated 14.07.2014, the appellant has been convicted under S.302 read with S.120B and S.109 of the I.P.C. The appellant has been further convicted by the same judgment under S.120B / 109 read with S.109 of the I.P.C, under S.302 read with S.111 and S.113 of the I.P.C and under S.201 of the I.P.C. As consequence of the said judgment, by the order dated 17.07.2014, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, meaning the whole natural life i.e. till his death, for committing the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.120B and S.109 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand). The appellant has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years for commission of the offence punishable under S.120B, S.109 read with S.34 of the I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand). He has been further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for committing the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.111 and S.113 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years for committing the offence punishable under S.201 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand). It has been directed that the sentences shall run concurrently and the fine if not realized that shall be leviable in terms of S.70 of the I.P.C.

2. Genesis of the prosecution against the appellant is rooted in the ejahar filed by Smt. Niyati Deb (Ghosh), PW - 40 on 19.05.2013 disclosing that on 19.05.2013 when her daughter Papiya Ghosh (PW - 1) was inside their room, she heard some sounds from the upstairs of their room. Her daughter also told her that some sounds were coming from the upstairs of their room where the office of Ranjit Choudhury was situated. Reacting to that, she came out from her room and went to the ground floor of Ganadoot Office and found that 'one youth (aged around 25-26 years wearing jeans and green coloured ganjee had been stabbing Sujit Bhattacharjee, Proof Reader with the help of a dagger by way of felling him down on the floor inside the office, seeing this I had called my husband, Balaram Ghosh raising alarm then at first daughter, namely, Papiya came out from our room and seeing the incident she started crying. In the meantime the accused have been stabbing Sujit with the help of a dagger. My husband came out from the room and seeing this incident cried out and proceeded to resist. Then the said miscreants had stabbed my husband and my husband fell down on the floor. Just at that time
(I) found another miscreant was coming to the ground floor through the stair cases from the office room of Ranjit Choudhury on the upstairs. I found a wire in his hand. His age was also around 25-26 years. They i.e. 2 (two) miscreants had fled away after killing two persons on the ground floor with the help of the dagger and killing another named Ranjit Choudhury, Manager in the upstairs which I found after going over there. On getting an information of the said incident, the police personnel came to the place of the occurrence and sent these 3(three) severely injured persons to the hospital and a few minutes later (I) came to learn that my husband and other 2(two) injured persons had succumbed to the stab injuries caused by this miscreants. - (As translated by the translation department












































































































































































































































































































































































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