HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. A(J) 55/2024

Sri Bir Manik Jamatia

son of late Khagendra Jamatia, resident of Golmura (Tulamura),

P.S. Kakraban, District- Gomati, Tripura

----Appellant

Versus

The State of Tripura ----Respondent

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Majumder, Legal Aid

Counsel

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP

Date of hearing & delivery

of Judgment & Order : 07.01.2026

Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No

BEFORE

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

Heard Mr. P. Majumder, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing

for the appellant also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor,

appearing for the respondent-State of Tripura.

2. The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, in connection with case No. S.T. 13 of 2021, wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Facts leading to the present appeal is that, on 17.09.2020, the informant lodged a written complaint alleging inter alia that on 17.09.2020 on receipt of an information he went to his house where he found that his step- father i.e. the appellant here, had killed his mother Amulya Rani Jamatia, by hitting her with a lathi. The complainant also alleged that the incident took

place on that date itself at around 5.00 p.m. afternoon. In the FIR it was also stated that the appellant himself confessed that he had killed his wife i.e.

mother of the complainant.

4. On receipt of such information, the I.O. being endorsed by the officer- in-charge of the police station started investigation, and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, the I.O has submitted charge- sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. On receipt of the charge- sheet, cognizance was taken by learned CJM, Gomati, Udaipur. Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused under Sections

302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to substantiate the charge adduced as many as 19 witnesses and introduced some documents which were exhibited by the learned trial court. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which he denied all the allegations but, wanted to adduce one defence witness. Summon was issued upon the said defence witness but the same returned unserved. After completion of recording of evidences and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the entire case is based on confessional statement which is a weak piece of evidence and the same cannot be the sole evidence for conviction in absence of corroboration from independent witness. Learned counsel also has raised question regarding credibility of the witnesses since there are discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses. Learned counsel also submitted that confession made to the police is generally inadmissible in law. Mr. Majumder, also submitted that there is no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, and all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses and their deposition has no credible value. Mr. Majumder, has also submitted that the report of TSFSL is not made available. Mr. Majumder, also stated that as per the complainant (PW-8), after the alleged incident, the appellant firstly confessed his guilt to his nephew Amar Manik Jamatia, but, said Amar Manik Jamatia was not cit