Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 75 (TRI)

Krishna Kanta Sukla Das v. State of Tripura

2020-06-19

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J. 1. In impugnment, is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.07.2017 & 07.07.2017 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 5), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. ST(T-1)158/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only with default stipulation. The appellant has further been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for committing offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of a complaint filed by one Babul Chandra Das, wherein he alleged that on 28-29.12.2009 at around 02:30 hours, he came to learn from one TSR Officer of 10th Battalion over telephone that a dispute was ensued in the house of his sister-in-law, namely Shipra Sukla Baidya (Sukla Das) located at Ballavi Sardar Para under Jirania Police Station. He had rushed to the spot when he heard that Krishnakanta Sukla Das, the husband of his sister-in-law after completion of his duty hours came back with rifle to the said rented house on last night and it would be around 12 O'clock night. After a short while a sound of bullet was heard and he could find the officer of TSR as well as the employee and the police personnel of the police station present at that place. He came to know that Krishnakanta Sukla Das was available inside the room with rifle but he did not get any sound of his sister-in-law. He has further stated in the complaint that the police personnel made repeated requests to him from outside to come out and hand over the rifle. At around 05:30 am he along with others heard another sound of bullet and also heard his screaming. Thereafter TSR as well as police personnel had entered into the room by breaking the fence when he had seen the bloodshed dead body of his sister-in-law with bullet shot lying on the cot and Krishnakanta Sukla Das was also found lying beside her with bullet shot in injured condition. His rifle also was found closed to him. Krishnakanta Sukla Das was sent to GBP Hospital for medical treatment. 3. His rifle also was found closed to him. Krishnakanta Sukla Das was sent to GBP Hospital for medical treatment. 3. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge of Jirania Police Station had registered a case under FIR No. 88/09, dated 29.12.2009 and investigation was started. 4. To establish the case, prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and introduced 10(ten) documents including the arms and ammunitions In/Out Register [Exbt. 7]; report of Ballistic Expert [Exbt. 9] and the Duty Chart dated 28.12.2009 of 10th Bn. TSR (IR-V) [Exbt. 4, 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5] respectively. 5. We have heard Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. 6. We have perused the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. While convicting the accused-appellant, the learned trial Judge in his concluding paragraph held thus: "....In my considered opinion the present case is not rest on the evidence of any sole witness rather, evidence of all the witnesses having strong corroborative circumstances lend enough assurance to the implication of the accused. All the direct circumstantial evidence goes to establish the culpability of the accused in the commission of the offence. From the circumstances in totality as discussed above there cannot be any other inference except the fact that the guilt of the accused is absolutely irresistible. There is no way out for the accused to escape from the charge of murder as labelled against him. Hence, the point no. 1 as above is found to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Point No. II: Now coming to the question of point no. II, as I have already discussed police and TSR Jowans recovered the dead body of deceased from the dwelling hut of accused and simultaneously the accused was also found lying on the bed with bullet injury on his person besides his wife. From the evidence of PW 16 it is established that the nature of injury found on the accused suggested that it was suicidal bullet injury. From the evidence of PW 17 it was revealed that immediately the injured accused Krishnakanta Sukla Das was sent to GB hospital and after recovery on 22.01.2010 being discharged from GB hospital he was arrested and was forwarded to the court. From the evidence of PW 17 it was revealed that immediately the injured accused Krishnakanta Sukla Das was sent to GB hospital and after recovery on 22.01.2010 being discharged from GB hospital he was arrested and was forwarded to the court. All the prosecution witnesses categorically identified the accused Krishnakanta Sukla Das in the court during trial. In his examination U/S 313 Cr. P. C. to a question posted on this fact he merely answered "I don't know". Accused remained silent on bullet injury found on his person. Evidence on record categorically stands to show that after killing his wife accused attempted to commit suicide by his service SLR and fired upon himself causing bullet injury over the left anterior chest wall which is the vital part of human body and from the action of accused there cannot be any other conclusion that after killing his wife he tried to commit suicide which is not permissible in our Indian Legal System as right to life is our fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. So, any such attempt is punishable under law. So, in my considered opinion the point no. II as above is also proved beyond reasonable doubt." 7. At the time of hearing, Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that none of the witnesses should be believed as those were interested witnesses. She further submitted that there is no eye witnesses to the incident and the appellant should be released on benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. submitted that it was one of the rarest of rare cases to which a husband had brutally killed his wife and also tried to kill himself by firing from his own SLR. Learned Addl. P.P. further contended that all the circumstances that the appellant came to his rented house with the arms; fired bullets towards his wife; sound of bullet was heard by the neighbours and the door was locked from inside. He was requested by TSR and police personnel and all other neighbouring persons to come out of the house premise but he did not. Moreover, he tried to commit suicide by firing bullet shot from his own rifle and his body also was found lying beside the dead body of his wife. 9. He was requested by TSR and police personnel and all other neighbouring persons to come out of the house premise but he did not. Moreover, he tried to commit suicide by firing bullet shot from his own rifle and his body also was found lying beside the dead body of his wife. 9. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, we have perused the evidence and materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides. 10. PW-1 Babul Chandra Das was the informant. He deposed that the same fact as he narrated in his complaint dated 29.12.2009 on the basis of which the FIR was registered. He has stated in his evidence that he received a telephonic information from the TSR camp that an incident of opening of fire was heard in his sister-in-law's rented house at Ballavi Sardar Para and he was asked to go to the said camp immediately. He along with his younger brother Biswajay Das went to the place of occurrence and found TSR personnel there cordoned the rented house of his sister-in-law. He came to know from them that his sister-in-law and her husband Krishnakanta Sukla Das were inside the rented hut. He further deposed that the TSR personnel asked Krishnakanta to surrender his weapon but he did not surrender. Thereafter at about 5/5:30 am, they heard another sound of opening of fire. Then, the TSR personnel along with police personnel forcefully entered into the said rented hut and found both Krishnakanta Sukla Das and his wife lying on their cot with fire-arm injuries. Krishnakanta was found alive but his wife was found dead. Both of them were taken to G.B. Hospital one after another. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint which was reduced into writing. He identified his signature in the complaint [Exbt. 1/1]. He further deposed that the police prepared the inquest report of the deceased and put his signature therein which was identified as Exbt. 2/1. He further deposed that on 29.12.2009 at about 5:00 am Darogababu seized a 'sari', petticoat, a blouse, two socks by way of preparing seizure memo in his presence and in presence of another. Darogababu obtained his signature therein. His signature being identified was marked as Exbt. 3/1 and he identified the alamats which was marked as Exbt. MO-1 series. 11. He further deposed that on 29.12.2009 at about 5:00 am Darogababu seized a 'sari', petticoat, a blouse, two socks by way of preparing seizure memo in his presence and in presence of another. Darogababu obtained his signature therein. His signature being identified was marked as Exbt. 3/1 and he identified the alamats which was marked as Exbt. MO-1 series. 11. PW-2, Sri Jyotish Das was posted as Subedar Major at 10th BN TSR Headquarters at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 28.12.2009, at about 11/11:30 pm, he visited Sentry Duty Post in discharge of his official duty and during his visit, he found Krishnakanta Das, the appellant performing his duties in the rear sentry post of the quarter guard. He further deposed that his duty hours were from 23:30 hours to 01:30 hours. At about 00:15 hours, their Guard Commander Arjun Das informed him over phone that Krishnakanta left his Sentry Duty Post with his SLR, magazines and ammunitions. He verified the matter and found the information as correct. He went to the rented house of the appellant situated nearby their TSR camp and came to know from one of his TSR jawans that he heard two sounds of opening of fire in the rented house of the appellant. He at once rushed to the spot and cordoned the house and gave necessary information to his higher officials. At about 5:00 pm they heard another sound of opening of fire. Thereafter, they forcibly entered into the rented hut of the appellant and found the appellant and his wife lying on their cot with fire arm injuries on their respective persons. The wife of the appellant was found dead. The police officer prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem examination and the appellant was also sent to the hospital. Nothing material was elicited from his cross-examination. 12. PW-3 Sri Kishore Chowdhury was also attached to the 10th BN TSR. He deposed that on 28.12.2009, he was on duty and on that date at about 8:00 pm he was at his rented house with his family members. At about 24:00/00:30 hours, they woke up from bed hearing the call of appellant's wife Shipra when she said -"please see, my husband is about to kill me". He deposed that on 28.12.2009, he was on duty and on that date at about 8:00 pm he was at his rented house with his family members. At about 24:00/00:30 hours, they woke up from bed hearing the call of appellant's wife Shipra when she said -"please see, my husband is about to kill me". He further deposed that he asked what they were doing then the appellant responded to his call but asked him to remain silent. Then he heard two sounds of opening of fire from the adjacent room of the appellant. They at once took shelter in the rented house of Amar Majumder and reported the incident to him. Then he along with said Amar Majumder reported the matter to their GD Office. Thereafter, TSR personnel cordoned the rented house of Krishnakanta and asked him to surrender his arms and ammunitions. At about 5:30 am, they heard another sound of opening of fire in the rented room of the appellant. Then, TSR and police personnel forcefully entered into the room and found the dead body of the wife of the appellant and the appellant was also found with fire arm injury on his person. Nothing material was elicited from his cross-examination. 13. PW-4, Rujina Begam was a tenant of the adjacent hut of the appellant. She deposed that she along with her husband and son were sleeping at that time the wife of the appellant called her and told that her husband would kill her. But the appellant told her husband to remain silent. Thereafter they heard two sounds of fire from the rented room of the appellant. On hearing the said sound, her husband and she went to the rented house of Samar Majumder. Then her husband and Samar Majumder went to the TSR camp to inform the incident. In the morning, at about 5 am, they again heard a sound of fire from the rented room of the appellant. She saw that wife of the appellant, namely, Shipra was murdered. She saw her dead body when police brought her dead body outside the rented room of the appellant. She also saw police personnel taking out the appellant to the GB hospital by an Ambulance. In her cross-examination, the statements made by this witness could not be shaken by the defence. 14. PW-5 Arjun Das also was a TSR personnel. She saw her dead body when police brought her dead body outside the rented room of the appellant. She also saw police personnel taking out the appellant to the GB hospital by an Ambulance. In her cross-examination, the statements made by this witness could not be shaken by the defence. 14. PW-5 Arjun Das also was a TSR personnel. He deposed that at the relevant point of time the appellant was in sentry duty. At about 11:55 pm, one TSR man Sonu Kumar reported to him that the appellant left the sentry post with his arm on the plea that he would attend his natural call. Then and then he searched in the latrine but did not find him. He further deposed that they maintained the record of arms and ammunitions issued to the concerned TSR jawan and also the schedule of their respective Duty Guard Register. He identified the relevant page of the entry of issuing arms and ammunitions and duty charge on 28.12.2009. The relevant page of Guard Register being identified was marked as Exbt. 4. This witness further deposed that as per this Register, on 28.12.2009, Krishnakanta Sukla Das was issued his service rifle Butt No. 254, Body No. 45449 with 50 rounds of bullets and he obtained the said arms and ammunitions by putting his signature in the Register and he put his signature [Exbt. 4/4] in his presence. He further deposed that the appellant left his sentry post with his service riffle, magazine and 30 rounds of bullets without permission. He further deposed that as per instruction of his authority, some TSR personnel including Subeder Saheb went to the rented house of the appellant and at around 4:45/5:00 am, he heard sound of firing outside the TSR camp. The evidence could not be controverted during cross-examination by the defence. 15. PW-6, Sonu Kumar was also a TSR Jawan. He deposed that on the intervening night of 28.12.2009 and 29.12.2009, he along with the appellant was on sentry duty. The appellant was on the rear sentry point. He further deposed that the sentry guard on the rear point used to ring the hourly bell but on that day at 12:00 pm (24:00 hours) the appellant did not ring the bell which prompted him to visit his sentry point but did not find him. The appellant was on the rear sentry point. He further deposed that the sentry guard on the rear point used to ring the hourly bell but on that day at 12:00 pm (24:00 hours) the appellant did not ring the bell which prompted him to visit his sentry point but did not find him. Before that the appellant told him that he had to go to nature's call. The matter was informed to the Guard Commander namely Sujanta Reang and the alert bell was rang but the appellant did not appear in response to that alert bell. Then, some TSR personnel went to the rented hut of the appellant and found his wife dead and they heard that the appellant killed his wife. 16. PW-7, Debesh Sukla Baidya is the brother of the deceased who deposed that on 29.12.2009, in the morning, after being informed they went to the rented house of the appellant where they found his sister was lying dead with bullet injury on her person and they came to learn that the appellant killed his sister and the appellant himself tried to commit suicide. In their presence, police seized SLR (service rifle), two magazines and other ammunitions which were being identified, marked as Exbt. MO-1, MO-II series, MO-III series and MO-IV series respectively. He identified his signature in the seizure list marked as Exbt. 5/2. His deposition in examination-in-chief could not be shaken by the defence during cross-examination. 17. PW-8, Mukta Sukla Das was also a TSR personnel. He deposed that on the intervening night of 28/29.12.2009 when he was sleeping in the camp he woke up on hearing danger alarm bell of TSR Headquarter. It was about 12:15 am. He along with others had rushed to the main gate when he came to know from Subedar Jyotish Das that the appellant left his duty place along with his service rifle and he also told that he heard two sounds of firing. There, he came to know that the appellant had killed his wife. Thereafter, he went to the rented house of the appellant and found electric light was burning in the room of Kishore, when they peeped through the bamboo partition of the hut in between the room of accused and Kishore, he found Krishnakanta Sukladas was standing with his rifle and his wife was lying on the cot covered by a quilt on her body. At that time, Jyotish Das asked him to surrender but he did not come out. TSR personnel cordoned the hut of the accused-appellant and at about 5:00 am they heard another sound of firing inside the room of the accused which prompted the TSR jawans to forcibly enter into the hut of the appellant. They found the appellant in injured condition and the wife was found dead with bullet injury. Nothing was elicited from his cross-examination. 18. PW-9, Pachupada Deb is the seizure witness of the arms and ammunitions and identified his signature in the seizure list. PW-10, Sujanta Reang deposed that the appellant was on sentry duty at the rear post and during his duty hour he left the sentry post with his arm. On being alarm some TSR personnel having not found him on duty went to the rented hut of the appellant. 19. PW-11, Mohanlal Jamatia was also on duty on that date and later on he heard the sound of alert bell ringing and he along with other TSR personnel went to the rented house of the appellant and they heard the sound of cry and TSR personnel cordoned the hut. 20. PW-12, Samar Majumder deposed that in course of duty he used to maintain the Register in respect of issuance of arms and ammunitions to the Riflemen for their duty working in the Headquarter. He deposed that on 28.12.2009 in the morning at about 7:00 am accused received his service rifle and magazine and 50 rounds bullet putting his signature but he did not deposit the said arms and ammunitions. He identified the signature of the accused [Exbt. 7] on the relevant page of the Register on 28.12.2009. He further deposed that in course of investigation the police officer had seized the Arms Register. 21. PW-13, Goutam Debnath is another seizure witness of Arms Register. 22. PW-14 Dr. Jayanta Sankar Chakraborty who conducted postmortem examination along with other doctors. They found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased: "1) Entrance wound of bullet, the shape of which was oval, was situated on the right side of under surface of chin, situated 1 cm right to mid line, size 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm with abraded collar all around. There was tattooing around that wound. They found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased: "1) Entrance wound of bullet, the shape of which was oval, was situated on the right side of under surface of chin, situated 1 cm right to mid line, size 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm with abraded collar all around. There was tattooing around that wound. That bullet track passed upwards and slightly towards left and exits on chin just below the inferior border of mandible at midline, size 1 cm X 0.6 cm. Only skin and muscles attached to mandible were penetrated by that track. (2) Entrance wound of bullet, the shape of which was oval, was situated on the right side of front of neck, 120 cm above heel level and 2 cm right to mid-line, size 0.8 cm X 0.6 cm and surrounded by abraded collar more on superomedially, tattooing and burning of skin. That bullet track travelled towards right and downwards and exits on right side of upper part of back of trunk at scapular region, situated 117 cm above heel level and 6 cm right to mid-line. The size of that exit wound of bullet was 6 cm X 3 cm. Muscles of neck, vessels of neck, intercostals muscles, pleura, upper two loges of right lung and muscles of back were lacerated and right sided 3rd to 5th ribs and scapula were fractured through the track of the bullet. Right pleural cavity was containing 180 ml. of blood. (3) Entrance of bullet, the shape of which was oval was present on left buttock, was situated 70 cm above the heel level and 10 cm. left to mid-line, size 0.6 cm X 0.5 cm with abraded collar infero-laterally. That injury was surrounded by tattooing. That bullet track passed towards above and right, and exits on right side of upper abdomen situated 91 cm above heel level and 3 cm right to mid-line size 2.5 cm X 1.6 cm. Muscles of left buttock, left side of pelvic wall, small and large intestines, mesentery, anterior abdominal wall were lacerated and left ischium was fractured through that bullet track. All of those injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by fire arm. Injury No. 2 was caused by firing from close range and injury No. 1 & 3 were caused by firing from near range. All of those injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by fire arm. Injury No. 2 was caused by firing from close range and injury No. 1 & 3 were caused by firing from near range. Age of all those injuries were fresh at the time of death. Totally there were 3 numbers of entrance wounds of bullet along with 3 numbers of corresponding exits wounds. Time since death was 8 hours to 16 hours. On completion of the said postmortem examination we opined that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple bullet injuries which was homicidal in manner." The postmortem report was marked as Exbt. 8. Nothing material was elicited from his cross-examination. 23. PW-15, Dr. Sudip Debnath was the Sr. Scientific Officer who examined the SLR and other arms and ammunitions. 24. PW-16, Dr. Mani Ranjan Debbarma was a Surgeon of the Department of AGMC and GBP Hospital. He found one entrance wound over the left anterior chest wall and another exit wounds over the posterior chest wall medial to scapula. He deposed that both the injuries were dangerous in nature probably caused by firearm. He further deposed that the appellant was discharged on patient's request on 22.01.2010. He identified the injury report [Exbt. 10] and his signature [Exbt. 10/1] therein. 25. PW-17, S.I. Nandadulal Das, the I.O. of the case deposed that on 29.12.2009, at around 3/3:30 am, one Jyotish Das, Subedar of 10th Bn. TSR, Jirania had given an information to the police station that they heard a sound of firing in the rented house of Rifleman Krishnakanta Sukladas, the appellant herein. The said information was entered in the GD book and they went to the place of occurrence i.e. the rented hut of the appellant along with other police personnel. He deposed that they requested the appellant on his mobile to surrender but he told them he would not surrender to the TSR authority but had agreed to surrender to police. At about 5:30 am, they heard another sound of firing from his rented hut. Then and then, they entered into the rented room by breaking the bamboo fencing of the hut with the help of TSR personnel. Entering into the room they found the wife of Krishnakanta was lying dead with two bullet injuries one was closed to her neck and another was on the lower portion of her chest. Then and then, they entered into the rented room by breaking the bamboo fencing of the hut with the help of TSR personnel. Entering into the room they found the wife of Krishnakanta was lying dead with two bullet injuries one was closed to her neck and another was on the lower portion of her chest. They also found accused Krishnakanta with bullet injury on the same bed with his service rifle on his side. The appellant was immediately sent to the hospital. He prepared the inquest report, seized the rifle and other arms and ammunitions, the wearing apparels and other belongings of the deceased wife of the appellant. He recorded the statements of the available witnesses like Kishore Chowdhury, Ruzina Begam, Smt. Nikunja Kumari Debbarma, Sri Jyotish Das and rupen Debbarma and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC at the place of occurrence itself. On 30.12.2009 he again recorded the statements of some other witnesses. On 22.01.2010 he visited GB Hospital and arrested the appellant. Nothing material was elicited from his cross-examination. 26. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the appellant on the relevant date and time i.e. on 28.12.2009, was on sentry duty at the rear sentry post from 11:30 pm to 1:30 am (29.12.2009). From the arms and ammunitions Register, it is proved that he received his service rifle along with magazines and few rounds of bullets. He left the sentry post without permission of the higher authority. At about 12 pm, on 28.12.2009, one TSR man Sonu Kumar, PW-6 did not get him. He reported the incident to his higher official. Thereafter they rang the alarm bell. But the appellant was not found. They went to the rented house of the appellant. They heard two sounds of firing of bullets at a time. Jyotish Das, PW-2 informed the matter to the police station and police personnel arrived at the spot. All of them found the door of the hut was closed from inside. The TSR personnel cordoned the rented hut of the appellant. They requested the appellant to come out and surrender which he denied. However, from the evidence of PW-17 (I.O.), it is revealed that once the appellant agreed to come out but he desired to surrender to the police authority but not to the TSR authority. The TSR personnel cordoned the rented hut of the appellant. They requested the appellant to come out and surrender which he denied. However, from the evidence of PW-17 (I.O.), it is revealed that once the appellant agreed to come out but he desired to surrender to the police authority but not to the TSR authority. However, he did not come out and at about 5/5:30 am, on 29.12.2009, the TSR personnel and all the persons present there had heard the sound of another firing. Immediately thereafter, they entered into the hut of the appellant and found the wife of the appellant dead and the appellant in injured condition. The appellant was immediately sent to the GBP hospital. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared at the spot and subsequently the dead body of the wife of the appellant was sent for postmortem examination. 27. PW-12, Samar Majumder who used to maintain the Register in respect of issuance of arms and ammunitions has categorically stated that the appellant received his service rifle and 3 (three) magazines with 50 rounds of bullet putting his signature in the Register. The Register has been proved being identified by him. The witness has also identified his signature in the seizure list of the said Register relating to arms and ammunitions. 28. Further, from the postmortem examination report conducted by Dr. Jayanta Sankar Chakraborty (PW-14), it is explicit that his findings are consistent with the injuries as suffered by the deceased. It is apparent that there was none except the appellant and his wife inside the rented hut. Kishore Choudhury (PW-3) has deposed that at about 24:00/00:30 hours, on 28.12.2009, they woke up from the bed hearing the call of appellant's wife, Shipra, while she said -"please see, my husband is about to kill me." Thereafter they heard two sounds of opening of fire from the room of the appellant and his wife. 29. Above all, the fact that the TSR and police personnel entered into the room by breaking the door and fence of the hut of the appellant and found the appellant in injured condition due to fire of bullets and the dead body of the wife of the appellant with bullet injuries. 29. Above all, the fact that the TSR and police personnel entered into the room by breaking the door and fence of the hut of the appellant and found the appellant in injured condition due to fire of bullets and the dead body of the wife of the appellant with bullet injuries. The Scientific Expert, PW-15 has confirmed that the bullets were fired from the SLR of the appellant and he came to the conclusion that the exhibit fire cartridge cases marked D1 to D3 were fired from 7.62 mm SLR marked A having Butt No. 254 and body No. cc 4549. PW-15, being the forensic expert also has specifically identified the three used cartridges, three empty magazines. It is evident that there are two bullet injuries suffered by the deceased wife of the appellant and one bullet was used to cause injury to the appellant himself. The circumstance that the appellant and his deceased wife were exclusively inside the room has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 30. The appellant in his examination under Section 313, CrPC had been given opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence and the mitigating circumstances but on being noticed he did not explain anything and only has stated that it is a false case and he is an innocent. At this stage he could easily explain the circumstance how both of them had suffered bullet injuries on their persons which was especially within his knowledge. As we said earlier, that prosecution has been able to prove the circumstance, that the appellant-accused and his deceased wife were inside the same hut and there was none else and further, the bullets were shot from the SLR of the appellant as revealed from PW-15, the scientific expert. 31. In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2002) 8 SCC 383, the Apex Court relying upon a quote of Vivian Bose, J. in the case of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 1999, AIR 1956 SC 404 had observed thus: (SCC p. 393, para 38). "38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional in which it would be impossible for the prosecution cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. "38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional in which it would be impossible for the prosecution cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, the learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus: (AIR p. 406, para 11) "11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge." 32. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Apex Court was considering a similar case of homicidal death in the confines of the house. The following observations are considered relevant in the facts of the present case: (SCC pp. 690-91 & 694, paras 14-15 & 22) "14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution [1944 AC 315 (HL)]-- quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh [ (2003) 11 SCC 271 )]. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. xxxxxxx 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." 33. Applying the aforesaid principle the Apex Court in Kalu v. State of M.P., (2019) 10 SCC 211 , has concluded thus: (SCC p. 218, para 16) "16. In view of our conclusion that the prosecution has clearly established a prima facie case, the precedents cited on behalf of the appellant are not considered relevant in the facts of the present case. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased." 34. On overall assessment of the evidence and materials on record coupled with authoritative pronouncements as reproduced here-in-above, we do not find any substance to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Judge as are referred here-in-above. As such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as returned by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 5) West Tripura, Agartala, on 06.07.2017 & 07.07.2017 respectively, in Case No. ST(T-1) 158/2012, do not call for any interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.