Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 91 (TRI)

Apu Rani Das v. State of Tripura

2020-07-07

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by Smt. Apu Rani Das, the appellant herein, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.07.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in connection with Case No. S.T.40(GT/U) of 2015. 2. The prosecution case was launched against the accused- respondents herein, namely, Rakesh Saha, Hari Sadhan Majumder, Manik Dey, Subrata Dey and Nantu Gope on the basis of a suo motu complaint lodged by one Kamal Debnath, Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police of R.K. Pur P.S. on 16.02.2014. In the complaint, it is stated that on 16.02.2014 at 07:15 hours while he along with other police personnel were performing mobile duty at Gokulpur side at that time they received information from the Police Station that one dead body was lying at Kathaltali Bazar. Accordingly, he himself along with staff went there and found one unknown male dead body aged about 35 years lying at Kathaltali Bazar with multiple injuries. On preliminary inquiry the complainant found that several persons were involved to cause grievous injuries on the person of the deceased. 3. Upon receipt of the said complaint the Officer-in-Charge of R.K. Pur P.S. had registered the said complaint being FIR No. 23/2014, under Sections 302/120-B of IPC. Investigation was carried on. During investigation the investigating officer recorded the statements of available witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation the investigating officer (PW-25) submitted charge-sheet against the accused- respondents under Sections 302/120-B of IPC. 4. Being committed, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-respondents under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC to which they pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 26 (twenty six) witnesses including the complainant (PW-1), the investigating officer (PW-25) and the Doctors (PWs 24 and 26). Prosecution also introduced 15 (fifteen) documents. 6. After completion of recording of evidence and having" heard the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons and accordingly acquitted all the accused persons named above. While acquitting the accused persons the learned Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties which are reproduced hereinbelow, for convenience: "7. While acquitting the accused persons the learned Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties which are reproduced hereinbelow, for convenience: "7. It is submitted by learned P.P. that the prosecution in this case has examined 26 witnesses including the wife of the deceased and his father as well as the medical witness and forensic examiner. But the learned PP has also submitted frankly that virtually all the accounts of the relevant Pws are hearsay and the key witnesses who could have brought home the case of the prosecution have turned hostile thereby rendering the case bereft of admissible evidence. So it is the submission of the learned PP that he cannot say confidently that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in the same vein, it is submitted by learned defence counsel that all the Pws are hearsay and the key witnesses who could have brought home the case of the prosecution have become hostile thereby rendering the case devoid of admissible evidence. He has further contended that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence worthy enough to establish the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has thus appealed for acquittal of the accused persons from the charge framed against them." 7. Lastly, after scrutiny of the evidence and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that- "Hence, the evidence in the case is found basically hearsay and flimsy in nature which at best can give rise to a penumbra of suspicion against the accused persons. But it is the settle position of law that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. In other words, the evidence on record is such that two views are possible, one against the accused persons and the other in favour of the accused persons. Here also the settled principle of law is that when two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be adopted." 8. In other words, the evidence on record is such that two views are possible, one against the accused persons and the other in favour of the accused persons. Here also the settled principle of law is that when two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused should be adopted." 8. After placing reliance upon the Supreme Court decisions, reported in (i) AIR 2009 SC 2070 : (2009 AIR SCW 1865); (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1072 of 2004 (Replied in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 631) (Suraj Singh v. State of UP) and (2002) 4 SCC 85 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1621 ) (Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP), learned trial Judge has finally held that- "In view of the above discussion and the utter dearth of admissible incriminating evidence against the accused persons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge leveled against the accused persons and as such, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted." 9. In the instant appeal, criticizing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge as aforestated, Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though all the witnesses were turned hostile, but the relevant versions which support the prosecution case ought to have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. In view of this submission, this Court had asked to the learned counsel for the appellant to point out the relevant versions of the prosecution witnesses which would help the prosecution case to prove the charges against the accused-respondents. But, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to identify the relevant versions of the prosecution witnesses which according to us could be taken into account to bring home the charge of murder and conspiracy against the accused persons. 11. On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent has fairly submitted that prosecution could not substantiate the charge levelled against the accused persons. Similarly, Mr. S. Datta Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No. 4 have urged to dismiss the appeal on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of murder and criminal conspiracy against the 5(five) accused persons, who were falsely implicated with the instant case. 12. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No. 4 have urged to dismiss the appeal on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of murder and criminal conspiracy against the 5(five) accused persons, who were falsely implicated with the instant case. 12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have made a short survey of the evidence and materials on record. 13. PW-1, the ASI of police who lodged the complaint reiterated his version which he made in his complaint that while they were on mobile duty they found the dead body of the deceased, the husband of the appellant herein. They found several injuries on the said dead body and according to him several persons were involved in the murder. 14. PW-2, Bhabatosh Chakraborty deposed that after hearing that one dead body of a male person was found in Kathaltali market he went to the spot but he could not reveal anything implicating the accused persons. 15. PW-3, Satyajit Chakraborty was a seizure witness on one 'kara' (iron ring). 16. PW-4, Sanjoy Dey deposed that he heard that one dead body of a male person was found lying near Kathaltali market but he could not say anything more. 17. PW-5, Kalipada Nama also did not witness the incident. 18. PW-6, Manna Dey deposed that after hearing the news that a dead body was found in the market he went there. He denied that he made any such statements which were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 19. PW-7, Kartik Chakraborty deposed that he heard hue and cry uttering words 'thief, 'thief coming from the direction of the said market and thereafter he went there and found one unknown person sitting on the verandah of a shop and also he found the accused persons, namely, Sri. Rakesh Saha, Sri. Harisadhan Majumder, Sri. Subrata Dey and Sri. Nantu Gope there. He told them to hand over the said unknown person to police. He further deposed that the accused persons told him that the said detained person was perhaps the gang leader of thieves and if some fist and blows were given to him he would divulge the name of other thieves. But PW-7 advised them not to do that and thereafter he left the place. 20. He further deposed that the accused persons told him that the said detained person was perhaps the gang leader of thieves and if some fist and blows were given to him he would divulge the name of other thieves. But PW-7 advised them not to do that and thereafter he left the place. 20. PW-8, Smt. Apu Rani Das, the appellant herein deposed that her husband Ajit Das is no more. On 15.02.2014 at about 3:30 p.m.; he went out home after having quarrel with her but he did not return back and she found his phone was switched off. On the following. day her sister Bakul Rani Das informed her that she noticed that dead body of one person having similarity with her husband was being displayed in the TV. She did not say anything implicating the accused persons. 21. PW-9, Ranjit Nama Das also deposed in the same tune as that of PW-8. 22. PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13 are not the material witnesses at all. They did not divulge anything implicating the accused persons. 23. PW-14 is the Officer-in-Charge of R.K. Pur P.S. whose part was that on receiving the suo motu FIR he visited the spot. 24. PW-15, PW-16, PW-19, PW-20, PW-21, PW-22 and PW-23 also did not depose anything implicating the accused persons in the instant case. 25. PW-17, Sri. Amal Das deposed that he knew Ajit Das, the husband of the appellant, Apu Rani Das, his younger sister. Ajit Das died on 15.02.2014 at Kathaltali market area. On 17.02.2014 his another sister namely, Bakul Rani das informed him over phone that she saw photo of one dead person in the TV set which appeared to be the photograph of Ajit Das and the dead body was lying in the morgue of TSD Hospital, Udaipur and on that day he identified the dead body of Ajit Das in the morgue. He further deposed that on 19.02.2014 he went to Kathaltali market and sat in the tea stall of one Kalipada Nama and heard some customers of said tea stall talking that Rakesh Saha, Nantu Gope, Harisadhan Majumdar, Manik Dey and Subrata Dey had murdered Ajit Das by hitting with a 'shabal' without any reason. He could not say the names of those customers from whom he learnt those facts. 26. PW-18, Ratan Das is one of the relatives of Apu Rani Das, the appellant. He could not say the names of those customers from whom he learnt those facts. 26. PW-18, Ratan Das is one of the relatives of Apu Rani Das, the appellant. He deposed that after one/two weeks of that incident one day he along with Apu Das visited Kamaltali market and sat in a tea stall. There they heard that some customers were telling that Nantu Ghosh, Rakesh Saha and another were amongst the miscreants who murdered Ajit Das treating him as a thief. 27. PW-24, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath is the forensic expert who submitted scientific report of the exhibits, forwarded by the police, in connection with this case. 28. PW-25, Sri. Biswajit Das is the investigating officer. He deposed that he seized some of the articles found in possession of the deceased and he arrested the accused persons. He also deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of available witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the five accused persons under Sections 302/120-B of IPC. 29. PW-26, Dr. Debasish Pal is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. 30. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that PWs 17 and 18 stated that a few days after the incident they went to Kathaltali market and heard people talking that Rakesh Saha, Nantu Gope, Harisadhan Majumdar, Manik Dey and Subrata Dey had murdered Ajit Das by hitting with a 'Shabal' without any reason. According to us, the evidence of PWs-17 and 18 are totally hearsay and not admissible in evidence without material corroboration. 31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence and materials on record arid did not find any such statement which could implicate the accused-respondents. The learned trial Judge has not committed any wrong or error in acquitting the accused-respondents and rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-respondents. 32. Accordingly, the instant appeal does not call for interference of this Court and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.07.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Case No. ST 40(GT/U) of 2015 stands maintained. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Send down the LCRs.