Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 149 (GAU)

Janardhan Nath v. State of Tripura

2013-03-05

SUBHASIS TALAPATRA, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2013
JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant Janardhan Nath aims at setting aside the judgment and order dated 5-5-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in S.T. 57 (ST/S) of 2007 convicting him under Section 302, IPC for commission of offence of murder and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are in a nut shell as under:- The appellant Janardhan is in jail for committing murder of his wife Ratna Nath since his date of conviction i.e. 5-5-2008 and thus, challenges the said judgment. 3. According to the prosecution, on 7-5-2007 at about 7 a.m., the wife of the appellant, Ratna was killed by the appellant in his house at Harinarayanpur with dao, a sharp cutting weapon, on suspicion that she had an illicit relation with his younger brother (P.W. 8). After commission of offence, the appellant fled away from his house with the said dao by which he had killed his wife. Thereafter, he surrendered before the officer-in-charge of the Sabroom P.S. 4. Prior to that incident, the police received an information from one Rabindra Das (P.W. 14) that the accused/appellant was trying to kill his wife and creating disturbances in the place of occurrence and P.W. 14 sought for police help. Accordingly, GD Entry No. 191 was made and on the strength of the said GD Entry as endorsed to him, P.W. 21 Sri Jatindra Ch. Das rushed to the place of occurrence wherein he found that there was a deep cut injury in the neck of the deceased and she was lying dead on the sty of the house of the accused/appellant. The said police officer (P.W. 21) then received a written complaint from one Dhananjoy Nath (P.W. 16) and registered the same as FIR No. 14 of 2007 of Sabroom P.S. under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused/appellant. 5. The I.O. prepared the inquest report of the deceased Ratna and thereafter sent the dead body to the Sabroom Hospital for post mortem examination. 5. The I.O. prepared the inquest report of the deceased Ratna and thereafter sent the dead body to the Sabroom Hospital for post mortem examination. Subsequently, on return to the police station from the place of occurrence, he found the accused/appellant in the police station detained by the duty officer of the aforesaid police station as surrendered along with a dao and ultimately arrested the accused/appellant in connection with the aforesaid police case and sent the dao which was seized by P.W. 4, Sri Samir Das, Sub-Inspector of Police of the said police station and the blood sample of the deceased collected by him to the Tripura Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala. The I.O. also sent the accused/appellant to the Sabroom hospital to know as to whether the accused is mentally fit or not. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was produced before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164(1) of the Cr. P.C. as the accused/appellant confessed his guilt before P.W. 4. 6. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom who in his turn committed the case before the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur being the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 7. On receipt of the case records, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused/appellant who in his turn pleaded not guilty. The charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge is as under: That, you on 7-5-2007 A.D. at about 0700 hours at Harinarayanpur (B.K. Palli G.P.), under PS. Sabroom, South Tripura District, committed murder by causing death of Ratna Nath (wife of you) by sharp cutting dao and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court. 8. To establish the charge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution produced and examined as many as 21 witnesses including the official witness and also placed certain documents including post mortem report as well as Tripura State Forensic Science Report which were exhibited. 9. The learned trial Court on completion of the examination of the witnesses also examined the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr. 9. The learned trial Court on completion of the examination of the witnesses also examined the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and as the appellant declined to adduce any evidence in support of his defence, the trial Court finally on consideration of the evidence on record and also hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. 10. Out of the aforesaid 21 witnesses, P.W. 1 Shri Juhao Debbarma and P.W. 2 Shri Satya Ram Debbarma are the seizure witnesses relating to the wearing apparels. P.W. 3 Shri Tanu Barman is also the seizure witness relating to the wearing apparels of the deceased, thus it is not necessary to discuss their evidence in detail. 11. P.W. 4, Sri Samir Das, a Sub-Inspector of police of Sabroom Police station before whom the accused/appellant surrendered with a blood stained dao and made confession regarding the murder of his wife and thereafter, made GD entry regarding the said statement of the accused appellant and seized the weapon of commission of murder and also wearing apparels of the accused appellant preparing the seizure list wherein the accused appellant put his signature. 12. P.W. 5, Dr. Bibekananda Roy who was the medical officer of Sabroom Sub-Divisional Hospital at the relevant time and had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased along with one Dr. U.K. Das and Dr. Narayan Chandra Ghosh (P.W. 18) who found the following injuries over the dead body of the deceased. (1) Chop wound through and through encircling the neck from left mastoid bone, the posterior, lateral and anterior aspect of the neck, below the midpoint of left mandible. The margin of the wound is inveted. The cutting the structure of neck as spinal cord, vertebrae of 4th and 5th cervical, cerotic arteries, jugular veins, larynx, oesophagus through and through. (2) Incised wound over the top of left shoulder, size 4"/1/2"/1/2." (3) Incised wound ventral aspect of the left forearm over wrist, size 11/2"/1/2"/1/2." 13. In his evidence, this witness also stated that according to their opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was because of sustaining chop wound due to massive haemorrhage as well as chop of head from the vital structure of the body. In his evidence, this witness also stated that according to their opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was because of sustaining chop wound due to massive haemorrhage as well as chop of head from the vital structure of the body. He also confirmed that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the said injuries were homicidal in nature and the wounds were anti-mortem. This witness on seeing the dao (Ext. M.O. 1) stated that the same could be used in the commission of offence of murder of the deceased. He also reiterated that on the same day, the accused/appellant was produced before him by the police for examining the mental and physical status of the accused/appellant and accordingly, he examined and found that the accused/appellant was both physically and mentally fit and was also of sound mind on the relevant date and time. He also identified the post-mortem report (Exbt. 4) and his signature therein marked as Exbt. 4/1 and also identified the signature of Dr. U.K. Das and Dr. N.C. Ghosh as Exbt. 4/2 and Exbt. 4/3. 14. In his cross, this witness categorically admitted that on his query the accused/appellant had stated to him that he had killed his wife as she had illicit relation with his younger brother and he further stated that the accused/appellant had also stated to him that he had asked his wife not to commit such offence, but as she did not rectify herself and on the previous night of the commission of murder, he had seen that his wife herself involved with illicit relation with his brother, he could not control himself and had committed murder of his deceased wife. 15. P.W. 6, Sri Golakchand Tripura, a constable of police in the Sabroom Police Station, escorted the dead body of the deceased to the Sabroom hospital till the postmortem examination was over and thereafter handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. He is also a witness of wearing apparels seized by P.W. 4. 16. P.W. 7, Smt. Radharani Debnath, the mother of deceased, has stated that her deceased daughter was killed by the accused/appellant within 21/2 months of her marriage. This witness also identified the accused/appellant in the dock. The defence did not cross-examine her. 17. He is also a witness of wearing apparels seized by P.W. 4. 16. P.W. 7, Smt. Radharani Debnath, the mother of deceased, has stated that her deceased daughter was killed by the accused/appellant within 21/2 months of her marriage. This witness also identified the accused/appellant in the dock. The defence did not cross-examine her. 17. P.W. 8, Chakradhan Nath, is the younger brother of the accused/appellant who has stated that the deceased was his sister-in-law who was killed on 7-5-2007 by his elder brother, the accused/appellant, chopping her head, but he was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. In his cross, he denied the suggestion made by the prosecution that he had an; illicit relation with the victim though he stated that there was village baithak regarding his illicit relation with the deceased. He further stated that he had enmity with his elder brother, the accused/appellant. 18. P.W. 9, Bina Nath, wife of P.W. 8 and sister-in-law of the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased was killed on 7-5-2007 at the early morning and at that time, she was present in their house and the accused was her next door neighbour. She also confirmed that she had seen the body of the deceased and her head was chopped and she had not found the accused/appellant in the place of occurrence. Subsequently, she came to know that the accused/appellant had gone to the police station. In her cross, she has stated that the accused/appellant used to tell everybody that her husband had an illicit relation with the deceased, the wife of the accused/appellant and she also admitted that there held a village baithak on the issue of illicit relation between her husband and the deceased. She categorically said that after the village baithak, they had no relation with the accused/appellant. 19. P.W. 10, Uttam Majumder, is a hearsay witness who heard from the mother of the deceased that the accused/appellant, her son-in-law, had killed her daughter, the deceased. 20. P.W. 11, Sri Pankaj Kumar Dutta, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom who recorded the confessional statement of the accused/appellant under Section 164(1) of the Cr. 19. P.W. 10, Uttam Majumder, is a hearsay witness who heard from the mother of the deceased that the accused/appellant, her son-in-law, had killed her daughter, the deceased. 20. P.W. 11, Sri Pankaj Kumar Dutta, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom who recorded the confessional statement of the accused/appellant under Section 164(1) of the Cr. P.C. has stated that the accused/appellant was produced before him by the Warden and accordingly, he recorded the statement of the accused/appellant following all legal formalities and confirmed that the accused/appellant had expressed his willingness even after caution that he would give confessional statement voluntarily to him and accordingly, he had reduced the said statement of the accused/appellant into writing. He identified the confessional statement of the accused/appellant (Exbt. 6) and his signature over the same marked as (Exbt. 6/1). He further confirmed that the confessional statement was read over and explained to the accused/appellant who in his turn put his signature on the statement stating that his statement was recorded correctly. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. As such, the evidence of this witness remained unshaken. 21. P.W. 12, Sri Dipak Das, was the In-charge of the Sabroom PS. on 7-5-2007 who in his evidence stated that on receipt of the written complaint from Dhananjoy Nath (P.W. 16), he had registered the police case against the accused/appellant under Section 302, IPC and endorsed the case to P.W. 21 for investigation. He has identified his signature over the FIR (Ext. 7/1) and also his endorsement over the FIR which was marked as Ext. 8/1. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. 22. P.W. 13, Sri Bhakta Tripura, was a Daily Rated Worker in the Sabroom P.S. on 7-5-2007 who witnessed the seizure of blood stained dao which was seized in his presence along with wearing apparels of the accused/appellant and he has identified his signature over the seizure list (Ext. 3/3) and also identified the Ext. M.O. 1. i.e. the seized dao and wearing apparels. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. 23. P.W. 14, Rabindra Kumar Das, is a star witness before whom the accused/appellant had made confession regarding his guilt. 3/3) and also identified the Ext. M.O. 1. i.e. the seized dao and wearing apparels. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. 23. P.W. 14, Rabindra Kumar Das, is a star witness before whom the accused/appellant had made confession regarding his guilt. This witness in his evidence has stated that on 7-5-2007, the accused appellant approached him to take him to the police station and on his query, the accused appellant stated that he had killed his wife with a dao and he also showed him the said dao which was blood stained. As he refused to comply with his request, the accused/appellant thereafter alone went to the police station and he followed the accused/appellant. The police officer (P.W. 4) seized the said dao and the other articles from the accused/appellant by preparing a seizure list in which he stood as a witness. He has also identified his signature over the seizure list which was marked as Ext. 3/4 and also identified the accused/appellant in the dock. In his cross, he denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the police officer what he stated in chief. 24. P.W. 15, Miss Priyanka Nath, the daughter of the accused/appellant and the step daughter of the deceased is a hearsay witness who has stated that she found her deceased mother lying dead and her father was not present in their house and she came to know from the local people as well as from her younger sister, who was in the house, that her father had killed her mother. 25. P.W. 16, Dhananjoy Nath, the informant of the case who was declared hostile by the prosecution, has stated in his evidence that on 7-5-2007, getting information that the accused/appellant had killed his wife (the deceased) with a dao and thereafter he surrendered before the Officer-In-charge, Sabroom Police Station, went to the house of the accused/appellant along with police and found that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the ground. Thereafter, he had lodged the FIR before the police on spot. He also identified the said FIR marked as Ext. 8 and the signature on the same as Ext. 8/2. He also confirmed that the police officer had seized some articles in his presence after preparing the seizure list. Thereafter, he had lodged the FIR before the police on spot. He also identified the said FIR marked as Ext. 8 and the signature on the same as Ext. 8/2. He also confirmed that the police officer had seized some articles in his presence after preparing the seizure list. He had also witnessed the seizure of some blood collected from the ground of the courtyard near the dead body of the deceased which was found and said to have come out due to the cut of the throat of the deceased and some blood stained cropped hair of the head of the deceased and blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence. 26. In his cross by the prosecution, this witness has stated that he did not see that the accused had been loitering in the sty of his house with dao in his hand. He also did not agree that he stated to the I.O. of the case that the accused/appellant told to him that he had killed his wife with that dao as her character was suspicious. I.O. of the case on being asked by the prosecution confirmed that this witness stated that the accused appellant with a hand dao stained with fresh blood was running about in his courtyard and many people gathered on the road by the side of the house and he also found Smt. Bakul Das (P.W. 17), Upa-pradhan of their village panchayat was present there and on being enquired by him and Upa-pradhan, the accused/appellant told that since the character of his wife was not good, he had murdered his wife by cutting her throat by delivering hacking blows with dao in his hand and on showing that blood stained dao, he told them that he would deposit that dao at the police station and would surrender and narrate the entire incident before the Court and on saying so, he went away from his house carrying the said dao in his hand. In his cross-examination by defence, this witness stated that he had lodged the FIR as a member of the Gaon Panchayat and he had not seen the incident. He did not admit that he had deposed falsely. 27. In his cross-examination by defence, this witness stated that he had lodged the FIR as a member of the Gaon Panchayat and he had not seen the incident. He did not admit that he had deposed falsely. 27. P.W. 17 Smt. Bakul Das, the Upa-pradhan of the village of the accused/appellant has stated in her evidence that she knew the accused/appellant and identified him in the dock and reiterated that she came to know from the various sources that there was a dispute between the accused/appellant and his wife and they did not approach her with heir problems. But the younger brother of the accused/appellant approached them alleging against the accused/appellant that he had been accusing him unnecessarily. She has further stated that local people had tried to solve the problem, but the accused appellant used to suspect his younger brother that he had illicit relation with his third wife. She confirmed that thereafter they had tried to settle the dispute amicably and they had pursued them not to agitate such matter again in future. She has also stated that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant had approached her stating that he had seen in the previous night, his wife was in compromising position with his younger brother and on hearing the same; she had told him to ask the local people and report the said matter to them. Just after half an hour of the meeting with the accused/appellant she heard a hue and cry from the house of the accused/appellant and came to know that the accused/appellant had killed his wife. Getting information of such killing, she went to the house of the accused/appellant where subsequently police also came and she learnt that the accused/appellant surrendered before the police with dao and stated that he had killed his wife. 28. In her cross, she has stated that the accused/appellant had married earlier twice and both the wife of the accused/appellant had died because of illness, but there was no dispute in between the accused/appellant and his earlier two wives. 29. P.W. 18, Dr. Narayan Ch. Ghosh, a medical officer who along with Dr. Bibekananda Roy (P.W. 5) and Dr. U.K. Das had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, identified the post-mortem report and his signature over the same marked as Ext. 4/3. 30. P.W. 20, Smti. 29. P.W. 18, Dr. Narayan Ch. Ghosh, a medical officer who along with Dr. Bibekananda Roy (P.W. 5) and Dr. U.K. Das had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, identified the post-mortem report and his signature over the same marked as Ext. 4/3. 30. P.W. 20, Smti. Srimati Das, has stated in her evidence that she knew the accused/appellant being her next door neighbour and her elder brother-in-law. She has also reiterated that on the date of incident, while she was cooking in his kitchen, heard that the accused/appellant had killed his wife. She does not know anything more than that. 31. At this stage, the prosecution declared this witness hostile as she had deviated from her earlier statement. In her cross by the prosecution, she has stated that she did not state to the I.O. that she had rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries and the accused/appellant was loitering with dao. She has further confirmed that she did not state to the I.O. that the accused told them that he had killed his wife. This portion was marked by the trial Court as Ext. 11 and subsequently, I.O. (P.W. 21) confirmed the same, In cross by defence, she stated that she had not seen the incident and she only narrated the story as she heard. 32. P.W. 21, Sri Jatindra Chandra Das, is the Investigating Officer of the case who stated that he had rushed to the place of occurrence on the strength of G.D. entry No. 191 dated 7-5-2007 of Sabroom P.S., which was made on the basis of the information of Sri Rabindra Kr. Das (P.W. 14). He has also stated that he was endorsed the Sabroom police case No. 14 of 2007 for investigation by the Officer in-charge of the said police station. Accordingly, he investigated the same by way of recording the statement of the witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P.C. seized the blood-stained soil and some hair of the deceased by preparing the seizure list. Accordingly, he investigated the same by way of recording the statement of the witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P.C. seized the blood-stained soil and some hair of the deceased by preparing the seizure list. He has also stated that on return from the place of occurrence, he found that the accused appellant was detained by the duty officer along with dao and being found him in the police station, as I.O. of the case, he arrested the accused/appellant in connection with the aforesaid police case and sent the dao and blood stained sample of the deceased to the Tripura Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala for examination. He has also reiterated that the accused/appellant was sent to the Sabroom hospital to know as to whether he was mentally fit or not. He has further stated that he had produced the accused/appellant before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 11) for recording his statement under Section 164(1), Cr. P.C. and accordingly, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused/appellant who had confessed his guilt. He also stated that on receipt of the Forensic report (Ext. 14) and after perusal of the case record and the post-mortem examination report being a prima facie case was made out against the accused/appellant, he had filed the charge-sheet. 33. Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the accused/appellant while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence would contend that admittedly in the instant case, there is no eye-witness and the whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and as the prosecution failed to prove the unbroken link of the chain, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and consequent thereto, the accused/appellant is liable to be acquitted from the charge leveled against him. 34. He again submits that as admittedly there was a GD entry relating to cognizable offence prior to lodging of the FIR, thus the subsequent FIR lodged by P.W. 16 is hit by Section 162, Cr. P.C. and in the eye of law, there was no first information report on the basis of which a criminal case can be set in motion. Moreso, P.W. 16, though lodged FIR, but subsequently, at the time of trial, deviated from his earlier statement and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.C. and in the eye of law, there was no first information report on the basis of which a criminal case can be set in motion. Moreso, P.W. 16, though lodged FIR, but subsequently, at the time of trial, deviated from his earlier statement and was declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of the said witness has no importance, he has contended, in addition to his aforesaid submission, he has also contended that the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant mainly on the basis of his alleged extra-judicial confession to P.W. 4, the duty officer of the police station, which also cannot be accepted, as the same was made while he was in police custody, and the alleged extra-judicial confession before P.W. 14, on whose query the accused/appellant stated that he had killed his wife with a dao and shown the said dao with blood stained as well as the confession recorded by P.W. 11 under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. He has further contended that 164 statement recorded by P.W. 11 is not admissible in the eye of law as the learned Magistrate while recording the statement did not follow the prescription of law regarding the recording of statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. His another contention before this Court is that from the Forensic Report, it cannot be said that the blood which was seized by the I.O. and the blood available in the dao was the blood of the said deceased and there was no attempt by the investigating agency for matching the blood available in dao and blood contained in a piece of gauge cloth collected from the place of occurrence. 35. Mr. Datta has further contended that the learned trial Court though relied upon the confessional statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and the contents of the Forensic Report, but while examining the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. did not put the incriminating materials to the accused appellant and also did not read over the relevant portion of the confessional statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. Thus, the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and the contents of the Forensic Report cannot be considered for convicting him as the same is not admissible under law. 36. P.C. Thus, the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and the contents of the Forensic Report cannot be considered for convicting him as the same is not admissible under law. 36. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has also placed reliance on a decision of this High Court in Aghnu Gowala v. State of Assam, (2012) 4 GLR 1 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held, inter alia:- Statement or confession alleged to be made before the Investigation Officer, by an accused, cannot be accepted as evidence except to the disclosure leading to the discovery of fact. Therefore, the confession, if any, made by an accused before the Police is hit by the provision of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. In our considered opinion, the learned Sessions Judge committed error by accepting the confession made by the appellant before P.W. 11, as legal evidence. 37. He has finally contended that the forensic laboratory export who gave the forensic report was not examined while the trial Court relying upon the same convicted the accused appellant which is liable to be set aside. 38. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. while countering the submission of Mr. Datta would contend that mere non-mentioning of the contents of the confessional statements recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and the contents in the Forensic Report of the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory at the time of recording statement of the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless the accused/appellant has shown the fact as to how he was prejudiced. He also submits that the extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, then on the basis of the same, a person can be convicted even if there is no corroboration, as by this time, it is settled that always corroboration of the extrajudicial confession is not necessary. 39. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Darshan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1975) 4 SCC 33 : ( AIR 1975 SC 898 ) wherein the Apex Court noted that:- 5. The only evidence to connect the accused with the death of his wife are his extra judicial confessions. The only evidence to connect the accused with the death of his wife are his extra judicial confessions. The High Court has very properly left out of consideration the confession made by the appellant to his commanding officer and the Inspector but it has relied upon the confession made by the appellant to his wife's uncle and cousin. The wife's uncle has stated that he told the appellant that what had happened and he should tell the truth about his wife and that on this accused told him that he had killed his wife with a knife and thereafter thrown her body in the river. To the same effect is the statement of his son. We agree with the High Court that these two persons cannot be said to be persons in authority and the confession made by the appellant does not suffer from any legal infirmity. If that confession is reliable the conviction of the appellant has to be upheld. We are of opinion that this confession is reliable. 40. He has further contended that as the information entered into the General Diary was not relating to cognizable offence, it cannot be said that the subsequent information lodged by P.W. 16 is hit by Section 162, Cr. P.C. and by this time it is also settled that even if the person who lodged the first information is not examined, then also the Court can convict an accused on the basis of other evidence led by the prosecution subject to the same is reliable. In the instant case, even if the evidence of P.W. 16 is kept aside, then also on the basis of other evidence as available, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court can be maintained. 41. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Krishna Mochi and other v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 : (2002 Cri LJ 2645) wherein the Apex Court noted that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, moreso when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross examination, certain answers are snatched from him. 42. In the said judgment, while considering the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that due to non examination of the informant, First Information Report cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence inasmuch as on this ground as well the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal, the Apex Court held that such submission is totally misconceived and even if the first information report is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal as the case would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution. 43. As the heart of the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties are mainly on as to whether an accused can be convicted either on extra-judicial confession or confession before the Judicial Magistrate and as to whether an accused can be convicted on the basis of incriminating materials which were not put to the him at the time of examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and if so, whether such conviction can be maintained. It would be proper on our part to discuss the law on the aforesaid points. 44. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259: (1996 Cri LJ 883), the Apex Court while discussing regarding the extra-judicial confession stated that:- (10) An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. 45. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. (1997) 8 SCC 158 : (1998 Cri LJ 89), the Apex Court held that:- 8. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. 45. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. (1997) 8 SCC 158 : (1998 Cri LJ 89), the Apex Court held that:- 8. It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the Court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. 46. Again in Kavita v. State of T.N. (1998) 6 SCC 108 : (1998 Cri LJ 3624), the Apex Court stated the dictum that:- 4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the (witnesses) to whom it is made. 47. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : (2003 Cri LJ 3901), stated the principle that:- 19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The Apex Court further expressed the view that: 19. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. 48. In Aloke Nam Dutta v. State of W.B., (2007) 12 SCC 230 , the Apex Court while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the Courts in absence of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed: 87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. 48. In Aloke Nam Dutta v. State of W.B., (2007) 12 SCC 230 , the Apex Court while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the Courts in absence of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed: 87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time from the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the Court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof. 49. In Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC 604 : (AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 793), the Apex Court considering its earlier decisions noted that there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. 50. Rusi Biswal v. Nakhyatramalini Devi & other, AIR 1954 Ori 65 , particularly in paragraphs 4 and 6, the High Court of Orissa held that:- (4) Section 342, Cr. P.C., enables the Court to put any questions to the accused at any stage of an enquiry or trial for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The section is wide in its language and does not limit the power of the Court to examine the accused at any particular stage. The Court can examine him as often as it thinks it necessary to do so, to enable the accused person to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, the object of the section being to see whether the accused can give an innocent explanation of the facts spoken to against him. The Court can examine him as often as it thinks it necessary to do so, to enable the accused person to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, the object of the section being to see whether the accused can give an innocent explanation of the facts spoken to against him. There is nothing in the language of the section which would prevent the Court from examining the accused even after the defence evidence has been recorded; and even if the statement had not been signed by the Mukhtear it was open to the Court to examine the accused after the defence evidence had been recorded, if anything needed explanation. I am, therefore, unable to find anything illegal in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate. Even if it can be said that the order passed by him is not in accordance with the strict interpretation of Section 342, Cr. P.C., all that he has done may amount only to an irregularity which is curable under Section 537 of the Code, it was open to the complainant who was represented by pleaders to point out the irregularity at an earlier stage in the proceeding. Not having done so it appears to me that the objection now taken has no force and the petitioner can have no reasonable cause to complain of any failure of justice having been occasioned by the irregularity of procedure adopted by the Magistrate. 5. *** 6. The next question is whether the accused should have been personally examined or whether the examination of the Mukhtear who had been permitted to appear for her, is sufficient compliance with the section. The Bombay High Court appears to have taken the view that Section 342, Cr. P.C., should be read as subject to the provisions of Section 205. In Emperor v. Jaffar Cassum Moosa, AIR 1934 Bombay 212 (E) Beaumount C.J. following an earlier decision of that Court held that the Magistrate was not bound to examine the accused personally if permission had been given under Section 205, Cr. P.C. to exempt him from personal appearance, section 205, Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: (His Lordship quoted the provisions of the section and stated),. Sub-section (2) only gives a discretion to the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. P.C. to exempt him from personal appearance, section 205, Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: (His Lordship quoted the provisions of the section and stated),. Sub-section (2) only gives a discretion to the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. It is not obligatory on him, therefore, to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage, including examination under Section 342. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the examination of the Mukhtear on behalf of the accused is sufficient, the non-examination of the accused personally would not render the trial illegal. There is also a single Judge decision of the Rangoon High Court in Po Nyein Maung v. Hate Singh, AIR 1927 Rang 73(F) where it was held that women may be permitted to answer examination through their pleaders, and that the benefit of section 205, Cr. PC, might be extended throughout the trial except when a judgment, accompanied by a sentence of imprisonment, is to be delivered. It is needless to point out here that Section 342, Cr. PC., is a provision intended for the benefit of the accused and that the accused is not bound to make any statement. It would be ridiculous to suggest that even for the purpose of recording a refusal to make a statement, the personal attendance of the accused should be insisted upon. In this case, in particular, the first accused is said to be a respectable lady observing purdah. Her statement was a complete denial of the offence. This Court as well be made through her pleader, without prejudicing the case of the complainant and to insist on her personal attendance would involve unnecessary waste of time and harassment to the accused. 51. In Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 502 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4421 ): (2004 Cri LJ 4252) the Apex Court while considering the submission of learned counsel of the appellant in that case noted that under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused should have been given opportunity to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. At least, the various items of evidence, which had been produced by the prosecution, should have been put to the accused in the form of questions and he should have given opportunity to give his explanation. 52. P.C. the accused should have been given opportunity to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. At least, the various items of evidence, which had been produced by the prosecution, should have been put to the accused in the form of questions and he should have given opportunity to give his explanation. 52. In S.H. Lalsangzuala v. State of Mizoram, 2011 (1) GLT 47, wherein a Division Bench of this Court considering the decision of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 : (1953 Cri LJ 1933) which was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738) and the decision of the Apex Court in Basavaraj Patil and other v. State of Karnataka and other, 2000 Cri LJ 4604 set aside the order of conviction and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for disposal afresh after examining the accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. asking the trial Court to explain all the incriminating circumstances as available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and providing him opportunity to adduce evidence, if he wishes, in his defence. 53. In Suraj Gupta and other v. State of Meghalaya, 2010 (3) GLT 225: (2010 Cri LJ 3457) a Division Bench of this Court considering the entire facts and circumstances, particularly the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. remitted back the matter to the trial Court with a direction that the trial Court in accordance with Section 313, Cr. P.C. and the spirit underlying shall put all the circumstances to the accused and would elucidate his explanation and the learned trial Judge shall decide the matter afresh. 54. In Sajjan Sharma v. State of Bihar, 2011 Cri LJ 1169, particularly paragraph 15, wherein the Apex Court noted, inter alia, "We are constrained to say that this is not an isolated case but it is almost a stereotype. It is our experience that in criminal trials in Bihar no proper attention is paid to the framing of charges and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the two very important stages in a criminal trial. The framing of the charge and the examination of the accused are mostly done in the most unmindful and mechanical manner. The framing of the charge and the examination of the accused are mostly done in the most unmindful and mechanical manner. We wish that the Patna High Court should take note of the neglectful way in which some of the Courts in the State appear to be conducting trials of serious offences and take appropriate corrective steps." 55. In Santan Naskar and another v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249 : (2011 Cri LJ 1169) the Apex Court noted that the primary purpose of Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. is only to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain them. 56. In view of the above decisions of the Apex Court, it can be easily said that aim and object of Section 313, Cr. P.C. is to provide fair and proper opportunity to the accused for explaining the circumstances appearing against him and questioning must be done separately in regard to each material circumstance appearing against him in such a manner and in such a way which even an ignorant and illiterate person can appreciate and understand. The narration of evidence in a mechanical fashion would not subserve the purpose. Unless the trial Court put each and every incriminating material on the basis of which the trial Court convicted a person, then the right of an accused to get fair trial is denied and he is prejudiced. 57. In the instant case, it would be evident from the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that though the learned Trial Court put some questions to the accused appellant relating to the incriminating materials against him like as to whether the Judicial Magistrate recorded his confession, but admittedly did not put any question relating to the contention of his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. by the learned Magistrate as well as the contents in the Forensic Report of the Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, but those materials were relied upon for convicting the accused appellant. 58. Thus, according to us, it would be proper to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 5-5-2008 awarded by the trial Court as impugned in the instant appeal and accordingly, the same is set aside. 58. Thus, according to us, it would be proper to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 5-5-2008 awarded by the trial Court as impugned in the instant appeal and accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court with a direction that the trial Court should examine the accused appellant afresh by way of putting all the circumstances appearing against him for enabling to explain the incriminating circumstances including his defence case providing him all opportunities to adduce evidence, if any, if he so wishes in his defence. The statements recorded earlier under Section 313, Cr. P.C. are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the trial Court upon receipt of the copy of this judgment shall issue notice upon the accused appellant through the prisons authority as at present he is in prison so that he can appear before the trial Court for examining him under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and complete the trial in accordance with law, preferably, within 3 (three) months. 59. As we have held that the learned trial Court did not put any question relating to the incriminating materials based on which the order of conviction has been passed, it is not necessary on our part to express our views regarding other contention made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as that would affect the further trial of the case for which the matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Send down the records.