Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 79 (TRI)

Singha Ram Tripura v. State of Tripura

2020-06-22

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. ST 38(GT/A) of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and also sentenced him to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, and further sentenced him to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act with default stipulation, and it was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Supali Tripura, wife of the deceased, Krishnada Tripura lodged a complaint to the Officer-In-Charge of Karbook Police Station, inter alia, stating that on 29.12.2013, she along with her husband, their son and their milk-suckling baby were sleeping at night by spreading a plastic mat on the floor and their heads were pointed towards the east. 2.1. At about 11.30 O'clock, she heard the sound of a gunshot and on hearing the sound she woke up from sleep. Thereafter, she noticed in the light of electricity that there was bleeding injury on the head of her husband and when she tried to shake her husband's body, he did not respond. 2.2. Thereafter, she called her son-in-law, Biswamoy Tripura of her neighbouring house and asked him to examine what had happened to her husband. Then, Krishnamani Tripura, the elder brother of her husband came first, and following him the husband of her niece, also came and saw her husband dead. Later on, people from their locality came to their house on hearing their loud cry. It was not known to her who killed her husband by firing a bullet. 2.3. That complaint was reduced into writing on 30.12.2013 by Ramendra Debbarma, SI of Karbook Police Station. Accordingly, FIR No. 22 of 2013 dated 30.12.2013 was registered under Section 302 of IPC and 27(B) of the Arms Act. 2.4. Thereafter, police had commenced investigation. It was not known to her who killed her husband by firing a bullet. 2.3. That complaint was reduced into writing on 30.12.2013 by Ramendra Debbarma, SI of Karbook Police Station. Accordingly, FIR No. 22 of 2013 dated 30.12.2013 was registered under Section 302 of IPC and 27(B) of the Arms Act. 2.4. Thereafter, police had commenced investigation. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of available witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC, prepared the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Krishnada Tripura and arranged for postmortem examination of the dead body. Being prima facie satisfied, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. 3. Being committed, the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 and 25(1-A)(b) of the Arms Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and introduced 13(thirteen) documents and some material objects[ (Exbt. MO1 series, 14 photographs]. 5. After conclusion of recording of evidence and having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore-stated. 6. We have heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 7. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was implicated with the instant case without any basis. No incriminating material was found against the accused-appellant. According to him, the appellant was implicated with the case only for the reason that the appellant allegedly led the police to discover the weapon of offence and also on the basis of the statement that there was previous animosity between the appellant and the deceased. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent strenuously argued that the charges framed against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, it was the appellant who discovered the weapon of offence by way of bringing out the same from a well situated nearby his house. He urged to maintain the judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. We have perused the evidence and materials on record. According to him, it was the appellant who discovered the weapon of offence by way of bringing out the same from a well situated nearby his house. He urged to maintain the judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. We have perused the evidence and materials on record. We also have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. PW 1, Sri Ajit Tripura deposed that on 29.12.2013 at about 11.30 pm in the night while he was sleeping he heard a sound of firing of gun. He woke up and went to the house of the deceased and on reaching there he found him dead. 10.1. PW 2, Sri Bipad Kr. Tripura deposed that he could not say who murdered Krishnada Tripura. He was declared hostile. 10.2. PW 3, Sri Matindra Tripura deposed that after 6/7 days of the incident he came to know that the appellant committed murder to his father, as a country made gun was recovered from the well situated nearby the house of the accused-appellant. 10.3. PW 4, Smt. Supali Tripura is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that she could not say who actually murdered her husband, but, later on, police arrested the appellant on suspicion. 10.4. PW 5, Smt. Samansri Tripura deposed that the deceased was the brother of her husband. She further deposed that while she was sleeping at night she heard a big sound like a bomb and, then, she went to the house of the deceased and found the dead body of Krishnada Tripura. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. 10.5. PWs 6 and 7 also were declared hostile. 10.6. PW 8, Smt. Kumari Tripura deposed that after seven days of the death of the husband of Supali Tripura she heard that one gun was taken out by the appellant from the well of his house and then she heard that the appellant had committed the murder of the husband of Supali. 10.7. PW 9, Sri Laxman Banik is a Computer Operator. He took some photographs of the dead body and recovery of the gun from the well of the accused-appellant. 10.8. PW 10 is not a material witness at all. 10.9. PW 11, Sri Krishnamani Tripura is the elder brother of the deceased. 10.7. PW 9, Sri Laxman Banik is a Computer Operator. He took some photographs of the dead body and recovery of the gun from the well of the accused-appellant. 10.8. PW 10 is not a material witness at all. 10.9. PW 11, Sri Krishnamani Tripura is the elder brother of the deceased. He deposed that none had seen who had caused the said gunshot injury to kill his brother. He further deposed that he suspected that Singharam Tripura would be the murderer, as previously he had a quarrel with his brother concerning the issue of an illicit relationship between the accused-appellant and the wife of the deceased. He further deposed that there was another reason to suspect the accused-appellant because after the incident of murder, all neighbouring people came out from their houses to see the dead body, but, the accused-appellant did not come. Being confronted with cross-examination, he could not say the exact date of quarrel between the deceased-Krishnada and the accused-appellant, Singharam concerning the issue of illicit relationship between the appellant and the wife of Krishnada, the deceased. He further stated in cross-examination that "It is a fact that on the night of death of Krishnada, I did not go to the hut of Singharam. I was not examined by darobababu in connection with this case". This witness further deposed that before his arrival to the house of Krishnada on the night of the incident, 15/20 persons of their village had arrived there and the appellant was not taken into the police station on the night of the incident. 10.10. PW 12, Sri Suman Debnath is a police constable who was one of the witnesses of some photographs of the seizure memo wherein some photographs regarding recovery of gun from the house of the appellant was made. In his cross-examination he deposed that he did not visit the house of the appellant at the time of recovery of the gun. 10.11. PW 13, Sri Tapan Debnath is also a witness to the seizure memo by which some photographs were seized. 10.12. PW 14, Dr. Biswajit Debnath is a Medical Officer and at the time of incident he was posted at Karbook C.H.C. He conducted the post-mortem examination and he found the following injuries which are reproduced in brief: "1. a round shaped wound over right parieto occipital' region measuring 3 cm x 2 cm with irregular margin. 2. 10.12. PW 14, Dr. Biswajit Debnath is a Medical Officer and at the time of incident he was posted at Karbook C.H.C. He conducted the post-mortem examination and he found the following injuries which are reproduced in brief: "1. a round shaped wound over right parieto occipital' region measuring 3 cm x 2 cm with irregular margin. 2. irregular broken of skull on the right parieto occipital region around the wound and whole brain was removed with haemorrhage over the whole brain matter with a silver coloured bullet over the left part of the brain." According to PW 14, the cause of death is due to gunshot injury. He identified the report (Exbt. 6). 10.13. PW 15, Sri Ramendra Debbarma was posted as Officer-In-Charge of Karbook Police Station. He deposed that after receipt of information he took up the investigation. He went to the spot at 0055 hrs. on the same night and received the oral ejahar in the house of the deceased. He further deposed that the case was registered after his return to the police station. He prepared the inquest report (Exbt. 9). He also sent the dead body to Karbook C.H.C. for post-mortem examination and recorded the statements of the available witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC. He further deposed that during police remand, on interrogation the appellant admitted that he murdered Krishnada Tripura by gunshot injury and thereafter he threw the gun inside a well nearby his house. Accordingly, on 06.01.2014, he went to the house of accused-appellant, Singharam accompanied with other police constables, and after reaching there, the accused-appellant, Singharam brought out one country made gun from the well situated near his hut. Thereafter, he seized the gun on the spot by preparing seizure list in the presence of the witnesses. He sent the seized gun and the pellet to the State Forensic Science Laboratory(SFSL), Agartala for necessary examination and thereafter collected the report by preparing a seizure list. During his cross-examination, the investigating officer deposed that before lodging the FIR he examined witnesses, namely Ajit Tripura, Bipad Kr. Tripura and Matindra Tripura. He further stated that regarding place of recovery of the gun he did not prepare the hand-sketch map. 10.14. PW 16, Bipin Debbarma was the SI of Police. He deposed that on 03.03.2014 he took over the charge of investigation as the previous investigating officer was transferred. Tripura and Matindra Tripura. He further stated that regarding place of recovery of the gun he did not prepare the hand-sketch map. 10.14. PW 16, Bipin Debbarma was the SI of Police. He deposed that on 03.03.2014 he took over the charge of investigation as the previous investigating officer was transferred. He also deposed that he made a prayer before the learned SDJM, Amarpur for incorporation of Section 25(1-A)(b) of the Arms Act. He further deposed that on 10.08.2014, he received sanction from the DM & Collector, Gomati District for prosecution under Section 25(1-A)(b) of Arms Act. He identified the sanction memo (Exbt. 11). He also collected another report dated 28.01.2014 regarding examination of one seized thread. He identified the said report (Exbt. 13). Being prima facie satisfied he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. 10.15. PW 17, Sri Bipada Tripura is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that after being informed he went to the house of his deceased brother where he found him dead. 10.16. PW 18, Sri Satyaram Tripura was a police constable. He deposed that he heard that the appellant on interrogation told darogababu that he would be able to bring out one country made gun if he was taken to that place. Later on, they all went to Mahantapara in the house of the appellant and thereafter the appellant showed the gun lying inside the well in that house. The neighbouring people brought out water from that well, and then, the appellant brought one country made gun from the mud of that well. It was seized accordingly. The police constable identified his signature in the seizure list (Exbt. 1/2). 10.17. PW 19, Sri Prabhat Chakma was also a police constable who deposed that on 06.01.2014 at about 8.30 am he went to Mahantapara in the house of the appellant with SI Ramendra Debbarma. The appellant also accompanied them. He further deposed that after reaching there the appellant brought out one country made gun from a well situated in that house. Thereafter it was seized. 10.18. PW 20, Dr. Ajitesh Pal was posted as Scientific Officer at State Forensic Science Laboratory(SFSL), Agartala. In his examination-in-chief he opined that the said muzzle loading country made gun was a firearm and it was in working order which could endanger human life if fired upon. He further opined that the metallic piece (Exbt. Thereafter it was seized. 10.18. PW 20, Dr. Ajitesh Pal was posted as Scientific Officer at State Forensic Science Laboratory(SFSL), Agartala. In his examination-in-chief he opined that the said muzzle loading country made gun was a firearm and it was in working order which could endanger human life if fired upon. He further opined that the metallic piece (Exbt. B) could be used as a projectile through the said firearm(gun). By the said pallet if fired from a gun, the life of any person could be endangered. He prepared a report which was countersigned by the Director, SFSL. He identified the report on being confirmed (Exbt. 12/1). He also identified the signature of the Director, SFSL (Exbt. 12/2). The pellet was identified by him (Exbt. MO2). 11. After perusal of the aforesaid evidence and materials on record, it is apparent that the instant case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence. None had seen who actually shot the pellet from the gun. 12. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we find two elements of implicating the appellant with the instant crime. 12.1. Firstly, PW 11 deposed that once his deceased brother and the appellant had entered into a quarrel. On the basis of that statement, the prosecution has tried to project the story that there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased, and as a result of that animosity, the appellant had committed murder of the deceased. 12.2. Secondly, the confessional statement, as is alleged to have made by the appellant in the custody of the police. There should not be any conflicting opinion that the statement which the appellant has made before the police in the custody is not admissible in evidence. 12.3. Coming to the first circumstance to which the learned trial Judge has also relied upon to return the finding of conviction and sentence, we have noticed that the theory as projected by PW 11 is related to the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant and the wife of the deceased. None of the witnesses have stated that they have any idea about the illicit relationship between the wife of the deceased and the appellant. None of the witnesses have stated that they have any idea about the illicit relationship between the wife of the deceased and the appellant. More so, we find that Supali Tripura while appeared before the witness box in course of trial, no question or suggestion was put to her to make her oral evidence in respect of the fact that she had/has any illicit relation with the appellant. Under no circumstances, we cannot approve such character assassination on the basis of some blurred allegation and in absence of any cogent proof. Further, PW 11 has failed to give any hint as and when the appellant and the deceased had entered into a quarrel. 12.4. In our opinion, had there been any incident of quarrel, at least, he could have given an idea when there was a quarrel between them, even not the exact date and time. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to accept the theory of animosity between the appellant and the deceased. 13. Now, coming to the second question that whether on the basis of the information in respect of leading to the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant, conviction can be sustained in absence of other corroborating evidence. We find that the investigating officer has not recorded the disclosure statement. 14. A disclosure statement needs to be reduced into writing in order to make such a statement admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also equally true that the reducing the information supplied by the accused into writing is not a statutory prescription, though, in our opinion, as a matter of prudence and precaution, to make the recovery full-proof and legally admissible, it is advisable to record such recovery statement. However, it is made clear that non-recording of any such statement will not be fatal to prosecution case. It is only required to inspire the confidence of the court that the statement, as deposed to, had indeed been made and such a written record would fortify the court to know as to what exactly the accused had stated to the police and what statement or which part of a given statement had really led to the discovery of the fact. 15. 15. PW 15, the investigating officer has stated in his chief-examination that: "During police remand, on interrogation Singharam Tripura admitted that he murdered Krishnada Tripura by gun shot injury and thereafter he threw the gun inside an well nearby his house. Accordingly, on 6.1.14 I went to his house along with Singharam accompanied with other police constables and after reaching there he brought out one country made gun from the well situated near his hut". 15.1. From a plain reading of the deposition of the investigating officer(PW 15), it transpires that: Firstly, there is no indication that the accused-appellant had made this statement voluntarily without any kinds of inducement. Secondly, we are unable to trace out what the accused-appellant actually and exactly stated to the investigating officer. Thirdly, the information to the extent that the accused has admitted that he murdered Krishnada Tripura, the deceased by gunshot injury is inadmissible evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, because, this information of the accused person does not distinctly relate to fact discovered, but, the information given by the appellant that he threw the gun inside a well nearby his house is probable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered and his statement that he has thrown away the gun to the well is information which distinctly relates to the discovery of the gun. Fourthly, from the statement of PW 15 that "I went to his house along with Singharam accompanied with other police constables and after reaching there he brought out one country made gun from the well situated near his hut", only this part of the statement that "he brought out one country made gun from the well situated near his hut" will be admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in view of the fact that Section 27 of the Evidence Act makes only so much of the information, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. But, this admissible part also is not found reliable to us for the reason that we do not find any statement made by the accused to pinpoint the fact of discovery, which can be said to have been discovered in consequence of the statement of the accused-appellant. (emphasis supplied) 15.2. But, this admissible part also is not found reliable to us for the reason that we do not find any statement made by the accused to pinpoint the fact of discovery, which can be said to have been discovered in consequence of the statement of the accused-appellant. (emphasis supplied) 15.2. Another striking feature that we have noticed is that the prosecution has failed to bring out any evidence that this is the said gun which was used by the accused-appellant to kill the deceased. More importantly, prosecution did not lay any evidence regarding the circumstance prior to the incident that from where the accused had procured the gun. No evidence is brought on record that this weapon was used for the commission of offence. These circumstances are required to be proved to complete the chain of circumstances to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. 15.3. Entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. In such a case motive assumes considerable importance. As noted, prosecution failed to establish motive. Only circumstance of significance the prosecution has brought on record is the discovery of the gun at the instance of the accused. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to record conviction of the accused. As held earlier, his so-called confession is not admissible in evidence. In absence of any other circumstance connecting the accused to the commission of the crime, his conviction which is based on strong suspicion only, must be set aside. 16. For the reasons stated above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, mere discovery of the gun it is only the evidence of one of the circumstances of the entire chain of circumstances and on its basis all it could be said that the gun was hidden in the well, which fact could not be stretched to mean that the accused-appellant had caused the death of Krishnada Tripura by the gunshot using the said recovered gun in absence of other supporting evidence. 17. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. ST 38(GT/A) of 2015 are hereby set aside and quashed. 18. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Issue release warrant accordingly. 18. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Issue release warrant accordingly. Send down the LCRs.