IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction can be recorded in absence of recovery of corpus.
(2) Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial.
(3) Motive carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – No one has seen commission of crime – Circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability crime was committed by accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of guilt of accused and inconsistent with his innocence – Prosecution has not come forward with any motive for commission of crime – Conviction can be recorded in absence of recovery of corpus – If extra-judicial confession is to be accepted, statement of last-seen theory given by mother of deceased becomes difficult to be given any credibility – Recoveries have been made from an open place – It was not a place which could be in exclusive knowledge of appellant – No corroborating evidence to support extra-judicial confession, rather evidence led by prosecution is inconsistent with same – Major links of chain of circumstances have not been proved by prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust to uphold conviction of appellant – Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
(B) Criminal Law – Motive – In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has important role to play – Motive may also have a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence – It is an important link in chain of circumstances. (Para 15)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial – It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has assailed correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Tripura dated 9th October, 2013 dismissing the appeal of the appellant while confirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and 201 of IPC whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and allied sentences to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
It would be unjust to uphold the conviction of appellant. Appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is in judicial custody. However, he was granted parole by the State. He shall be released forthwith.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Tripura dated 9th October, 2013 dismissing the appeal of the appellant while confirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code¹[in short ‘IPC’] and 201 of IPC whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and allied sentences to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story begins with a telephone message by one Mantu Das (PW-40) informing the Police Station Kailashahar that huge quantity of blood had been seen on the Kailashahar-Kumarghat Road near Shantipur. The said telephone message was received by Bindhu Bhushan Das (PW-1) whereafter he along with Sub-Inspector Kajal Rudrapal proceeded for the said place, after making due entry in the G.D. Register.

3. At the spot, PW-1 not only noticed the blood on the road side but also found blood-stained vojali (big knife), one taga (thread) and some broken pieces of glass which could be said to be of the rear-view mirror of a motor cycle. All these articles were taken into custody, sealed and recovery memo prepared. Further investigation was made which led to visible marks of dragging some heavy article in the jungle on the side of the road. These marks continued upto Manu River and thereafter vanished.

4. While the investigation was still being carried out, the Police Station received information from Arjun Das (PW-7) that his nephew Kaushik Sarkar was missing since the previous evening, i.e. 19.06.2007. The said information was to the effect that Kaushik Sarkar had gone out in the previous evening on his bike but had not returned. The Investigating Officer came to the residence of Kaushik Sarkar at village Mohanpur where he recorded the statement of his mother (PW-25). She informed that Kaushik Sarkar had gone out with two friends namely Indrajit Das (appellant) and one ‘juvenile K’. Both these persons were called to the police station but they did not report. The Investigating Officer thereafter went to the house of the appellant.

5. According to the Investigating Officer, both the accused confessed before him that they had gone to Fatikroy and Kanchanbari area on the bike of the deceased Kaushik Sarkar. On the way they had purchased a bottle of alcohol and consumed it along with Babul Das. Thereafter, they started driving towards Kailashahar. At Shantipur, they got down to answer the call of nature. Kaushik was sitting on the motor cycle. At that stage, both the accused assaulted Kaushik Sarkar with the vojalis. They threw the helmet, purse and two vojalis in the nearby jungle and dragged the dead body and the motor cycle to the nearby river and threw them in the river. Then they swam across the river, went to the house of the appellant and burnt their blood-stained clothes.

6. The accused ‘juvenile K’ was tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The present appellant was tried by the regular Sessions Court. Upon charge being framed and read out, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined as many as 40 witnesses and also led documentary evidence which was duly proved and exhibited. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 19.04.2011 recorded a finding that the prosecution had fully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted him of the offences and sentenced him as recorded earlier.

8. The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court which has since been dismissed by the impugned judgment as the High Court was also of the view that the prosecution had been successful in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material evidence on record.

10. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the commission of crime. The law in the case of circumstantial evidence is well settled. The leading case being Sharad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document