Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain pointing to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 394, 449, and 34 - Conviction of accused - Accused convicted for murder and dacoity of valuables from the deceased - Key evidentiary issues concerning reliability of circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies highlighted - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence against both accused despite initial conviction by the trial court. (Para 66).

(B) Standard of Proof - Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and exclude any reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt - The prosecution did not provide reliable evidence to support the charges - The lack of scientific corroboration and clear witness identification undermined the case against the accused. (Para 17).

(C) Investigative Procedures - Flaws in police investigation processes noted, including failure to provide necessary scientific evidence and reliable witness testimonies, leading to doubts about the findings. (Para 60).

Facts of the case:
The accused person, residing in the same district as the victim, were alleged to have murdered her and stolen her belongings on 15th/16th October 2013, but the evidence was primarily circumstantial. The trial court relied heavily on witness testimony which lacked credibility and corroborative support.

Findings of Court:
Conviction and sentence quashed due to insufficient evidence, leading to reasonable doubts about the accused's guilt.

Issues: Main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, reliability of witness testimonies, and flaws in investigative practices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that circumstantial evidence must establish a consistent chain of events that only point to the accused’s guilt and must exclude reasonable doubt of innocence, which was not achieved in this case.

Result: The appeal was allowed, quashing the trial court's judgment, and the accused were ordered to be released from custody.

Table of Content
1. accused and fir registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. details of the crime and investigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8)
3. circumstantial evidence and lack of eyewitnesses. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. prosecution burden and evidentiary standards. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19)
5. legal tests for circumstantial evidence. (Para 17 , 18)
6. appellate court's duty to re-examine evidence. (Para 21 , 22)
7. witness testimonies and unlinked evidence. (Para 23 , 24)
8. recovery of bangles and contradictions. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
9. confessions and their admissibility. (Para 46 , 48)
10. challenges to trial court findings and acquittal. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66)

1. Accused Biswajit Das and Rabiul Hossain, both residents of district Sepahijala, Tripura stand convicted for having committed an offence punishable under S.302/394/449 read with S.34 and independently under S.120 - B of the IPC. Another accused namely, Rakibul Hossain did not face trial and as such was declared as a proclaimed offender, in relation to whom, at this point of time, no other and several action stands taken by the police and we are also not called upon to take view thereupon.

2. Undisputedly, with the registration of the FIR on 15.10.2013, police had also suspected complicity of another person, namely, Adhip Das (PW23) who also remained in judicial custody for a long time. It is not the case of the police that he is an approver.

3. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that sometime on 15th / 16th October, 2013 the accused namely, Biswajit Das, Rabiul Hossain, Rakibul Hossain and Ramjan Miah trespassed into the house of Smt. Manjurani Sarkar and after murdering her, committed an act of Dacoity by taking away her belongings i.e. two mobile phones, two bangles and one gold chain. Immediately after committing the crime, the accused pawned one mobile phone with Adhip Das(PW23) as payment for buying a bottle of soft drink valuing Rs.50/-. Also, eventually, two bangles landed up with a Jeweller, Janardhan Debnath (PW17) only for polishing and not sale. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 14th October, 2013 Shri Shirshendu Sarkar (PW20) on telephone had conversant with his mother i.e. the deceased. Last of such conversation took place in the night of 14th October, 2013 when it was disclosed that accused Biswajit Das had come in the night but she refused to meet him. However, the following day, when his mother did not respond to the telephone calls, he requested the tenant / neighbour Shri Anal Kanti Das(PW1) to inquire about the cause thereof. Resultantly, when this person entered the house of the deceased he found her body lying on the floor. Accordingly, police was informed.

4. Shri Ranjit Debnath (PW24) (SI), Officer - in - charge of Battala Town Outpost (TOP) reached the spot and carried out necessary investigations. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body sent for post - mortem which was got conducted through Dr. Pranab Choudhury(PW19).

5. The Investigating Officer first reached to Adhip Das(PW23) suspecting his hand in the crime and thus arrested him. Further investigation revealed that in fact, the mobile was pawned by the accused on 15th October, 2013. Further, that wife of one of the accused had handed over another stolen property, i.e. the golden bangles to Ramjan Miah, another accused, who in turn handed over the same to the jeweler Faruk Miah(PW16). Investigation revealed the motive of crime to be dacoity. As per medical evidence, it was not a case of suicide and as such, with the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of all the accused, challan was presented in the court for trial.

6. Significantly, trial court acquitted one of the accused, namely, Ramjan Miah and the State has not laid any challenge thereto. Even in this appeal, no challenge is laid to such findings of acquittal. As such in this appeal, we are concerned only with the conviction of the present appellants, namely, Biswajit Das and Rabiul H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURAX, JBiswajit Das – AppellantVersusState of Tripura – RespondentState of Tripura v. Rabiul Hossain and others | Case No.S.T. 6 of 2014

Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain pointing to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
X, J
Biswajit Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
State of Tripura v. Rabiul Hossain and others | Case No.S.T. 6 of 2014