Shri Sachindra Deb Barma vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 317 Tri

                               Page 1 of 43




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                            Crl. A(J) 40/2017

1. Shri Sachindra Deb Barma
son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S- Kalyanpur,
District- Khowai, Tripura
2. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma
son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur,
District- Khowai, Tripura
                                                        ----Appellants
                 Versus
     The State of Tripura                               ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 64/2017

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

2. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 27/2020

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

2. Sri Sachindra Deb Barma son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura

3. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

4. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 28/2020

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

2. Sri Sachindra Deb Barma son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura

3. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

4. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 29/2020

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

2. Sri Sachindra Deb Barma son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura

3. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

4. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 30/2020

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

2. Sri Sachindra Deb Barma son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura

3. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

4. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

Crl. A(J) 31/2020

1. Shri Dinesh Deb Barma son of late Braja Mohan Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

2. Sri Sachindra Deb Barma son of Sri Hemendra Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura

3. Sri Kumaria Deb Barma son of Sri Kantia Deb Barma of Kalyanpur, P.S-Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura AND

4. Sri Bikash Deb Barma son of Sri Ajit Deb Barma of Khengrabari, P.S- Khowai, District- Khowai, Tripura

----Appellants Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Basak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP Date of hearing : 24.02.2021 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 12.03.2021 Whether fit for reporting : Yes

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Arindam Lodh,J)

All the aforementioned jail appeals have been taken up and

heard together, since these appeals were disposed off by a common

judgment against which the convicts have preferred appeals separately.

2. All the appeals found its emergent after these were preferred

by the accused persons/appellants against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Court no.3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. ST 49 of 2009; ST 50 of

2009; ST 51 of 2009; ST 52 of 2009; ST 53 of 2009 and ST 70 of 2009

whereby and whereunder the appellants, namely, Sri Sachindra Debbarma,

Sri Dinesh Debbarma, Sri Bikash Debbarma and Sri Kumaria Debbarma

were convicted vide judgment dated 25.04.2015 and sentence dated

28.04.2015 to suffer R.I. for seven years for commission of offence

punishable under Section 120B of IPC and they were further sentenced to

R.I. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default

stipulation for the offence under Section 307 IPC and they were further

sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for

commission of offence under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act and, they were also sentenced to life imprisonment and

also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation for the offence

under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act and, further sentenced to

suffer R.I. for seven years and also payment of fine of Rs.3,000/- with

default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under section 5 of

the Explosive Substances Act.

3. We feel inclined to mention the factual scenario of this case

precisely, as established and highlighted by the prosecution.

4. The people of Agartala had witnessed four serial blasts in the

evening rush hours at four important places like Radhanagar bus-stand,

vegetable market of GB bazaar, Maharajganj bazaar and Palace Compound

on the eve of biggest festival of durga puja causing injuries to 68 innocent

people followed by destruction of public properties creating panic in the city

on 01.10.2008. On the same day, one bomb was defused in the motor-stand

area after receiving information by the police and the bomb-squad on

05.10.2008, another bomb was detected and subsequently defused by the

police and bomb squad lying in the drain in front of Radha Madhab temple at

Radhanagar. Therefore, six separate complaints were lodged in the West

Agartala P.S. as well as in the East Agartala P.S. out of which five separate

complaints were lodged on 01.10.2008 and, one complaint was lodged on

05.10.2008. In East Agartala P.S. three cases have been registered as East

Agartala P.S. Case No.155/08; 156/08 and 157/08 and, three cases have been

registered in West Agartala P.S. vide West Agartala P.S. Case No.170/08;

171/08 and 175/08 which were subsequently numbered as G.R.820/08;

G.R.821/08; G.R. 822/08; G.R.823/08; G.R.824/08 and G.R.838/08.

5. All the cases were investigated by sets of police officers of CID,

Tripura and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officers have

submitted charge sheets in all the cases on 26.11.2008 against same sets of

accused namely 1) Dinesh Deb Barma, S/O Braja Mohan Deb Barma of P.S.

Khowai, 2)Bikash Deb Barma, S/O. Ajit Deb Barma of P.S. Khowai;

3)Sachindra Deb Barma, S/O.Hemendra Deb Barma of P.S. Kalyanpur. 4)

Kumaria Deb Barma S/O. Sri. Kantia Deb Barma of P.S. Kalyanpur, 5)

Biman Deb Barma S/O.Samprai Deb Barma of P.S. Kalyanpur, 6)Satya

Ranjan Deb [email protected] S/O.Braja Mohan Deb Barma of P.S. Sidhai; 7)

Jagadish @[email protected] [email protected] Batema Deb Barma S/O.Sudhanya Deb

Barma of P.S. Sidhai; 8) Rajkumar Deb [email protected] Rahul @Ashit S/O.

Surendra Deb Barma of P.S. Jirania; 9) Jogendra @ Liman Deb Barma

S/O.Lt. Bisharad Deb Barma of P.S. Kalyanpur, 10) Santanu Choudhury @

Bola S/O. Swadesh Chandra Choudhury of P.S. Sidhai; 11)Amal Acharjee

S/O. Haradhan Acharjee of P.S. Amtali and 12)Budhi Ch. Deb Barma S/O.

Lt. Surendra Deb Barma of P.S. Sidhai, under sections

324/326/307/427/120B/121/121A/122/123/153/153A of IPC and under

Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Sections 10 and

13 of Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act against the accused, namely,

Dinesh Deb Barma, Bikash Deb Barma, Sachindra Deb Barma, Kumaria Deb

Barma, Biman Deb Barma, Satya Ranjan Deb [email protected], Jagadish

@[email protected] [email protected] Batema Deb Barma, Rajkumar Deb [email protected] Rahul

@Ashit, Jogendra @ Liman Deb Barma and Budhi Ch. Deb Barma and under

Sections 468 and 471 of IPC against accused, namely, Santanu Choudhury @

Bola and Amal Acharjee, in all the six cases.

5.1 All the six cases were tried together. Almost same sets of

witnesses were examined except the informants, the victims and the

investigating officers. As per order of the trial court dated 01-02-2010, it was

decided that accused Shantanu Choudhury would face the trial in respect of

charges framed against him in all the six cases only in S.T. 49 of 2009;

similarly the accused Amal Acharjee would face the trial against the charges

framed in S.T.49 of 2009 and S.T.52 of 2009. At the end of trial, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge thought it appropriate to pass an analogous

judgment in regard to all the six cases.

6. The facts of those complaints, as projected by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, are set forth here-under:

S.T. 49 of 2009 Gist of the FIR is that on 01.10.2008 at about 2335 hours one Niranjan Pal S/O Late Upendra Chandra Paulof Ram Thakur Sangha, P.S. East Agartala lodged a oral complaint to S.I Priyatosh Das incharge West Agartala P.S who recorded the same to the effect that on 01.10.2008 at about 7-30 p.m while he sitting on the East side of the Radhanagar Bus stand at that time he heard a huge sound of explosion of bomb in a fruit shop situated in front of Radhanagar Bus Stand on Agartala-Airport Road and also found that 8/10 persons sustained grievous bleeding injuries. Soon thereafter they were shifted to GB hospital, Agartala for treatment. It is also stated that the said miscreants were exploded the bomb to kill the people and to create a panic in the mind of common people. After receiving such complaint that was registered in West Agartala P.S case No. 170/2008 dated 01.10.2008 under Section 326/307 of IPC and under Section 3/5 of E.S Act against un-known miscreants and firstly endorsed to S.I Partha Lodh and subsequently, to Inspector Babul Das of CID for investigation.

After completion of investigation the I.O of this case Inspector Babul Das having found a primafacie case against such complaint submitted charge sheet under Section 324/326/307/ 427/ 120(B)/ 121/121(A)/ 122/123/ 153/ 153(A) of IPC and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act, and Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against (1) Sri Dinesh Debbarma S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma,, P.S.Khowai, (2). Sri Bikash Debbarma, S/O Ajit Debbarma, P.S.Khowai, (3). Sri Sachindra Debbarma, S/O Hemendra Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (4). Sri Kumaria Debbarma S/O Sri Kantia Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (5). Sri Baman Debbarma, S/O Samprai

Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (6). Sri Satya Ranjan Debbarma, alias Chara S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma, P.S. Sidhai, (7). Sri Jagadish alias Jester alias Mahadeb alias Batema Debbarma, S/O Sudhanya Debbarma of Sidhai, (8). Sri Raj Kumar Debbarma, alias Rahul alias Ashit S/O Surendra Debbarma, P.S. Jirania, (9). Sri Jogendra Debbarma alias Liman, S/O Late Bisharad Debbarma of P.S. Kalyanpur, under Section 468 of IPC and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against (10). Sri Santanu Choudhury alias Bola S/O Swadesh Ch. Choudhury of P.S. Sidhai, (11). Sri Amal Acherjee S/O Haradhan Acherjee of P.S. Amtali, and under Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against accused (12). Sri Budhi Chandra Debbarma, S/O Late Surendra Debbarma of P.S. Sidhai. Vide charge sheet No. 160 dated 26.12.2008 showing the accused SL Nos. 5 to 9 as absconder. From the investigation it also transpires that some Bangladeshi national were also involved in the incident who entered into India crossing Indo Bangladesh Border hence, I.O has submitted separate P.R.against (1). Md.Roshan Jaman S/O Md. Mannan Miah, Mulubi bazar, Bangladesh, (2). Md. Abdul Mallik S/O Sri Taiyeb Ali of Rangpur, Bangladesh, (3). Md. Md. Jaynal Abedin S/O Late Hattibulla Chittaganj, Bangladesh (4). Narul Amin S/O Abdul Hossain.

ST 50 of 2009 Gist of the FIR is that on 01.10.2008 at 2345 hours one Adrija Chakraborty C/O Rajnarayan Chakraborty of Palace Compound, P.S. West Agartala, lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-charge of West Agartala alleging inter alia that on 01.10.2008 at about 8-15 pm after hearing a big sound he rushed in front of his house and found a Maruti vehicle passed through the lane towards Jagannathbari road. It is also alleged that somebody dropped a bomb from the Maruti van to the abandoned house of Late Maharaj Sahadeb Bikram Kishore Debbarma and due to explosion the entrance gate was totally demaged. After receiving such complaint, O/C of West Agartala P.S lodged West Agartala P.S. case No. 171/2008 dated 01.10.2008 u/s 427 of IPC and Section 3/5 of the E.S. Act against un-known miscreants and subsequently, endorsed this case firstly to S.I Shibu Ranjan Dey and subsequently to Inspector Adhir Chandra Dhar of CID to its investigation. The I.O of this case after completion of investigation having found a primafacie case submitted charge sheet u/ss. 120(B) / 121/121(A) /122/123/153 /153(A)/ 427 of IP and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act against the accused persons namely, (1) Bikash Debbarma, (2) Dinesh Debbarma, (3) Sachindra Debbarma, (4) Kumaria Debbarma, (5) Satya Ranjan Debbarma, @ Chera (6) Baman Debbarma, (7) Jagadish Debbarma, (8). Rajkumar Debbarma, and (9)

Jogendra Debbarma, showing SL Nos. 5 to 9 as absconder and under Sections 468 IPC and 5 and 6 of E.S Act against the accused Santanu Choudhury and under Section 6 and 7 of Explosive Substance Act, (for short 'the ES Act') against accused Budhi Debbarma vide charge sheet No. 161/2008 dated 26.12.2008.

S.T. 51 of 2009 The gist of the FIR is that on 01.10.2008 at about 2225 hours one Soumitra Chakraborty, S/O Late Kailash Ranjan Chakraborty, lodged a written complaint to the O/C of East Agartala alleging inter alia that on 01.10.2008 at 7-25 /7-30 p.m while the informant was in the office of Tripura Bus Association office in a meeting at that time one of the shopkeeper namely, Nemai Datta came there along with a nylon bag containing one Tiffin box and a one shoe box and who informed that said bag was lying in front of his shop. At that time on search he found some electric wire inside its so he kept the same outside office and also informed the police. Subsequently, police came and defused the bomb. It is also stated that on that day another three bombs were exploded at Maharajganj market, Radhanagar Bus stand and GB bazar of which so many people were sustained injury and treated at GB hospital. It is also stated that such incident were preplanned to kill the innocent people and to break the peace and public tranquility. After receiving this complaint it was registered as East Agartala P.S case No. 155/2008, dated 01.10.2008 under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, against the unknown extremist. After registration of this case it was endorsed firstly to Bijoy Ghosh and thereafter to Sri R.N. Das Inspector, CID.

After completion of investigation the I.O of this case submitted charge sheet under sections 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/123/153/153-A of IPC and Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Section 4 and 5 of E.S Act against accused persons namely, (1) Sri Dinesh Debbarma S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma, P.S.Khowai, (2) Sri Bikash Debbarma, S/O Ajit Debbarma, P.S.Khowai, (3) Sri Sachindra Debbarma, S/O Hemendra Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (4) Sri Kumaria Debbarma S/O Sri Kantia Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (5) Sri Baman Debbarma, S/O Samprai Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (6) Sri Satya Ranjan Debbarma, alias Chara S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma, P.S. Sidhai, (7) Sri Jagadish alias Jester alias Mahadeb alias Batema Debbarma, S/O Sudhanya Debbarma of Sidhai, (8) Sri Raj Kumar Debbarma, alias Rahul alias Ashit S/O Surendra Debbarma, P.S. Jirania, (9) Sri Jogendra Debbarma alias Liman, S/O Late Bisharad Debbarma of P.S. Kalyanpur, under Section 468 of IPC and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against (10). Sri Santanu Choudhury alias

Bola S/O Swadesh Ch. Choudhury of P.S. Sidhai, and under Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against accused (11) Sri Budhi Chandra Debbarma, S/O Late Surendra Debbarma of P.S. Sidhai vide charge sheet No. 145/2008 dt. 26.12.2008.

S.T. 52 of 2009 The gist of the FIR is that on 01.10.2008 at 2340 hours one Kamalesh Das S/O Late Manulal Das of Indranagar,P.S. East Agartala, has made an oral complaint which was recorded by S.I Dhirendra Laskar of GB TOP to the effect that on 1.10.2008 at night at about 8 p.m while he was purchasing quash from a vegetable seller namely, Parimal Roy at GB market at that time he heard a loud sound of bomb explosion and he also sustained bleeding injuries on his both legs due to sprinter of bomb and so, many other people sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter shifted to GB hospital, Agartala for treatment including himself. It is also stated that the miscreants exploded such bombs with an intent to kill the innocent people and to create panic in Tripura.

After receiving such complaint East Agartala PS case No. 157/2008 dated 01.10.2008 under Sections 326/307 of IPC and Section 3/5 of E.S Act was registered against the unknown miscreants and the O/C of the P.S endorsed the case firstly to Diraj Laskar and subsequently, to Sri Haradhan Karmakar, Inspector of CID.

After completion of investigation having found a primafacie case the I.O of this case has submitted charge sheet under Sections 324/326/307/427/ of IPC and Section 3/5 of E.S Act and Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, against the accused persons namely, (1) Sri Dinesh Debbarma S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma,, P.S.Khowai, (2) Sri Bikash Debbarma, S/O Ajit Debbarma, P.S.Khowai, (3) Sri Sachindra Debbarma, S/O Hemendra Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (4) Sri Kumaria Debbarma S/O Sri Kantia Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (5) Sri Baman Debbarma, S/O Samprai Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (6) Sri Satya Ranjan Debbarma, alias Chara S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma, P.S. Sidhai, (7) Sri Jagadish alias Jester alias Mahadeb alias Batema Debbarma, S/O Sudhanya Debbarma of Sidhai, (8) Sri Raj Kumar Debbarma, alias Rahul alias Ashit S/O Surendra Debbarma, P.S. Jirania, (9) Sri Jogendra Debbarma alias Liman, S/O Late Bisharad Debbarma of P.S. Kalyanpur, under Section 468 of IPC and Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against (10) Sri Santanu Choudhury alias Bola S/O Swadesh Ch. Choudhury of P.S. Sidhai, and under Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against accused, (11) Sri Amal Acherjee S/O Haradhan Acherjee of Madhuban, Amtali and under Section 6 of E.S Act, against the accused person namely, Sri Budhi

Chandra Debbarma, S/O Late Surendra Debbarma of P.S. Sidhai vide charge sheet No. 144/2008, dated 26.12.2008.

S.T. 53 of 2009 The gist of the FIR is that on 05.10.2008 at about 1530 hours one Sri Abhijit Bhattacherjee S/O Sri Radha Gobinda Bhattacherjee of Radhanagar, ASI of police lodged a written complaint to the effect that on that day in the morning at about 10-30 a.m he found a plastic bag containing one aluminum sauspen near the drain of Radhamadab Mandir at Radhanagar and suspecting the same a bomb he immediately informed the police. Thereafter the police and bomb squad party came and found one suspen with explosive, mobile set, detonator, battery, wire etc. which seems to be a live bomb they defused the same. It is also stated that bomb was planted by the miscreants with a view to cause damages to human life and property. After receiving such complaint, West Agartala P.S case No. 175/2008 dated 05.10.2008 under Section 4 of E.S Act was registered on the basis of such complaint aqnd the case was firstly endorsed to S.I Ranjit Ghosh and then the case was entrusted to Inspector Arun Kanti Sarkar of CID for its investigation.

After completion of investigation the I.O of this case having found a prima facie case submitted charge sheet under Section 120(B)/121/121-A/122/123/153/153(A) of IPC and Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, against the accused persons, namely, (1) Sri Dinesh Debbarma S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma,, P.S.Khowai, (2) Sri Bikash Debbarma, S/O Ajit Debbarma, P.S.Khowai, (3) Sri Sachindra Debbarma, S/O Hemendra Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (4) Sri Kumaria Debbarma S/O Sri Kantia Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (5) Sri Baman Debbarma, S/O Samprai Debbarma, P.S. Kalyanpur, (6) Sri Satya Ranjan Debbarma, alias Chara S/O Braja Mohan Debbarma, P.S. Sidhai, (7) Sri Jagadish alias Jester alias Mahadeb alias Batema Debbarma, S/O Sudhanya Debbarma of Sidhai, (8). Sri Raj Kumar Debbarma, alias Rahul alias Ashit S/O Surendra Debbarma, P.S. Jirania, (9) Sri Jogendra Debbarma alias Liman, S/O Late Bisharad Debbarma of P.S. Kalyanpur, under Section 468 of IPC and Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against the accused person namely, (10). Sri Santanu Choudhury alias Bola S/O Swadesh Ch. Choudhury of P.S. Sidhai, and under Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against accused person namely, (11) Sri Budhi Chandra Debbarma, S/O Late Surendra Debbarma of P.S. Sidhai vide charg sheet No. 162/2008, dated 26.12.2008.

S.T 70 of 2009 The gist of the FIR is that on 01.10.2008 at about 2305 hours one Nibash Saha S/O Late Sashimohan Saha of Purba Pratapgarh,has lodged a oral complaint which was recorded by the O/C of East Agartala P.S to the effect that on 01.10.2008 in the evening at 7-30 p.m while the informant was selling goods at his shop located at Maharajganj Bazar suddenly a bomb blust in front of his shop and as a result of which, he along with other people sustained injuries on their persons and the injured were shifted to GB hospital by Fire Service vehicle. It is also stated that the miscreants have exploded such bomb with an intent to kill the innocent people and to create a panic in Tripura.

After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case, Inspector Babul Das, having found a prima facie case, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 324/326/ 307/ 427/ 120(B)/ 121/ 121(A)/ 122/ 123/153/153 (A)/ of IPC and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, against the accused persons namely, Sri Dinesh Debbarma, Sri Bikash Debbarma, Sri Sachindra Debbarma, Sri Kumaria Debbarma, Sri Baman Debbarma, Sri Satya Ranjan Debbarma, alias Chara , Sri Jagadish alias Jester alias Mahadeb alias Batema Debbarma, Sri Raj Kumar Debbarma, alias Rahul alias Ashit, Sri Jogendra Debbarma alias Liman, and under Section 468 of IPC and Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act against accused Sri Santanu Choudhury alias Bola, and under Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, against accused Sri Budhi Chandra Debbarma.

7. After receiving the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala took cognizance of the offence against all

the above named accused-persons under Sections 324/326/307/427/ 120B/

121/121A/ 122/123/ 153/153A/468/471 of IPC and under Sections 3, 5 and 6

of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act against all the charge-sheeted accused persons. However,

the accused persons, namely, Biman Deb Barma, Satya Ranjan Deb Barma,

Jagadish @[email protected] @Batema Deb Barma, Rajkumar Deb [email protected]

[email protected], Jogendra @Liman Deb Barma were absconding Thereafter,

the case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura,

Agartala for trial. Having so received, learned Sessions Judge, registered the

cases as S.T.49/2009; S.T.50/2009; S.T.51/2009; S.T.52/2009; S.T.53/2009

and S.T.70/2009 and also transferred the cases to the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.3, West Tripura, Agartala for trial. After

receiving the cases it was found that in all the six cases same sets of accused

were involved in similar nature of offences. So, having found prima facie

case, charges have been framed against the accused persons, namely, Shri.

Sachindra DebBarma, Shri. Dinesh DebBarma, Shri. Bikash DebBarma, Shri.

Budhi Debbarma, Shri. Kumaria DebBarma under Sections 120B/ 307 read

with section 34 of IPC and under Section 120B of IPC read with section 3

and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 120B of IPC read

with section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Similarly, charges

were framed against the accused persons, namely, Shri.Amal Acharjee and

Shri. Shantanu Choudhury under Section 468 and 471 IPC, to which all the

accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To substantiate the charges against the accused persons, the

prosecution examined as many as 49 witnesses in S.T. 49 of 2009; 29

witnesses in S.T. 50 of 2009; 27 witnesses in S.T.51 of 2009; 59 witnesses in

S.T.52 of 2009; 30 witnesses in S.T.53 of 2009 and 47 witnesses in S.T. 70 of

2009 out of the Complainant, Victims, Doctors who have attended the

victims and the different Investigating officers in all the cases. Apart from

them, the other witnesses are common in all the cases. Most of the vital

witnesses were examined in S.T. 49 of 2009 and S.T. 52 of 2009 for the

prosecution to substantiate the prosecution case.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence in all the cases, all

the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. separately

to which they denied the truthfulness and genuinity of the prosecution

witnesses and also declined to adduce any defence witness on their behalf.

10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, having heard

argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, held

that the charges framed against the accused-appellants were proved and

having found them guilty of committing offence, had convicted and

sentenced the appellants, as aforestated.

11. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said judgment

and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants, above named, have

filed the present appeals separately, which are before us for considering

the sustainability of their conviction and sentence.

12. Mr. Basak, learned counsel appearing for the convict-

appellants at the very threshold would contend that the judgment and order

of conviction was passed entirely on the basis of the circumstantial

evidence let in by PW-45, Sri Banajit Debbarma. This submission was re-

inforced when Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor supported said

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Having noticed the

judgment we find substance in the submission of the counsels what the trial

court at para 16 had observed thus-

―16. At the time of argument learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case and argued that PW-28, Banajit Debbarma a surrendered extremist of ATTF is the star witness of the prosecution and actually placing the reliance on his statement the entire prosecution cases have been solved. He also argued that the entire conspiracy of the bomb explosions in the evening of 01.10.2008 had been chalked out by the ATTF at Satchari camp located at Bangladesh and from their instructions had been communicated through mobile phone to its active members namely Satya Ranjan @ Chara Debbarma, Dinesh Debbarma, Bikash Debbarma, Sachindra Debbarma, Kumaria Debbarma and Budhi Debbarma and others those who are very much active in various places of Tripura more particularly at Agartala town spreading terror and violence among the people for achieving their object of shadhin Tripura by killing civilians, police and security personnel, extortion of fund from the public. To culminate such object they committed such an violent and unlawful activities by implanting bombs in various crowded places and caused bomb blast by using mobile phone as remote control in the places like Radhanagar bus stand, Palace Compound, G.B. Bazar, Maharajganj Bazar causing grievous injuries to the innocent people and also causing huge damage to the public public properties........‖

13. It leads us to minutely scrutinize the deposition of PW-45 in

connection with Case No. ST 52 of 2009. PW-45 deposed that he had been

one of the members of ATTF since 1989 and surrendered to the

Government on 03.10.2008. During his association with ATTF, he went to

Satchari camp, situated at Bangladesh. The object of ATTF was to create

„Swadhin Tripura‟ and to achieve that object they intended to create

anarchy in the State and also to create rifts between the two communities,

tribal and non-tribal. PW-45 further deposed that on 28/29th

September,2008 Jestar alias Jagadish informed him over telephone from

the Satchari camp that there would be some incidents at Agartala on the 1 st

October,2008. Deposing further, the said witness stated that Jestar also

informed him to hear the radio news on 1st October,2008, but, as it was

raining on that evening, he could not hear the news. However, on the

following day he heard the Kok-borok news and came to learn that there

was bomb blasts at Radhanagar, G.B. area and other places. In

continuation, he deposed that Jestar also informed him to cause bomb blast

he engaged one Satya alias Chara Debbarma of Daigyabari and another

Dinesh Debbarma, of Khengrabari. PW-45 further deposed that Jestar also

informed him to look after them. He further stated in his deposition that he

was questioned after 10 days of the incident by the CID.

13.1 Being confronted with cross-examination, PW-45 stated that

he could not say relating to which bomb blast case at Agartala he was

deposing before the court. The statement that he could not listen the news

on the evening of 01.10.2008 due to rain and he listened it on the next day

morning, was found absent in his previous statement recorded under

Section 161 of CrPC. Again when his attention was drawn to his previous

statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, his deposition in

examination-in-chief, in respect of the fact that he stated to the CID officers

that on 28/29th September, Jestar informed him over mobile that there

would be some incident at Agartala on 1st October, 2008 admittedly was

found absent.

13.2 From his cross-examination it was further revealed that at the

time of giving statement to the CID he had been staying under the care of

Tripura Government due to his surrender.

14. Mr. Basak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants further contended that next circumstance which the investigating

officers were tried to project their attempts to implicate the accused-

appellants, was the recovery of „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile from the septic tank

of Bir Kumar Debbarma at the instance of one of the accused, Sachindra

Debbarma.

15. It leads us to minutely scrutinize the evidence of PW-30. This

circumstance of recovery of „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile was found in the

statements of PW-30, Gopal Bhowmik while he was deposing before the

court in connection with case No.ST 49/09. He deposed that about 1 year 6

months back, one day at around 3 pm, police officer of the West Agartala

PS sent him to the office of the SP, CID, Agartala. One Tapan was along

with him. He along with Tapan accompanied by one tribal person named

Sachindra Debbarma went to Nutan Para at Khumulwng and they were

taken to a house of a tribal person and Sachinddra Debbarma led them to

the kutcha latrine of the house and stated that the mobile along with the

SIM card were thrown there. Proceeding further, PW-30 who by profession

was a Sweeper/Rickshaw-puller deposed that as shown by Sachindra, he

picked up the mobile and SIM card from the said kutcha latrine and after

clearing he handed over those articles to the CID officers and that was a

„Sony Ericsson‟ mobile. He further deposed that the CID officers seized the

mobile and the SIM card and also obtained his signature on the seizure list.

However, he deposed that due to lapse of time he could not identify

Sachindra at the dock. He identified his signature in the seizure list

(Exbt.9). He also identified the seized mobile and the SIM card (Exbt.MO

3 series).

15.1 Being confronted with cross-examination, PW-30 stated that

he used to work as a Sweeper in the East Agartala PS and West Agartala

PS and he worked as per the direction of the police officers. He further

stated in cross-examination that he went to the tribal house at Khumulwng

as per the directions of the CID officers and he also went to the latrine of

the house as per their directions. In his cross-examination, the said witness

further confirmed that the mobile was of the „Sony‟ company. PW-30 in his

further cross-examination could not say what was written in the seizure list.

In reply to question put forth by the defence, PW-30 stated that the

chamber meant for the SIM card of the mobile being opened, the SIM card

of Aircel was found therein which was also observed by the court and he

picked up the mobile and the SIM card from the latrine separately. He

further stated in his cross-examination that before proceeding to the latrine

they were not „checked or searched‟ by any member of public.

16. Mr. Basak, learned counsel for the appellants next would

contend that it was revealed from the deposition of one Dipankar Das, who

appeared before the court as PW-12, in connection with case No. ST 49/09

stating that he sold one „Nokia‟ mobile 2600-C to Sachindra Debbarma.

According to learned counsel for the appellants, prosecution miserably

failed to connect „Nokia‟ mobile set with „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile set and

further he contended that prosecution further failed to link the „Nokia‟

mobile set to justify the involvement of Sachindra with the recovery,

followed by seizure of „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile phone.

17. Next, Mr. Basak, learned counsel for the appellants had taken

us to the evidence of Forensic Experts i.e. PW-52, Sri Suman Kumar

Chakraborty and PW-53, Dr. Sudip Debnath in connection with ST 52/09.

Referring to their statements, Mr. Basak, learned counsel for the appellants

tried to persuade us with the material fact that so far the SFSL reports were

concerned, the chemical found from the place of blasts failed to relate the

convict-appellants. PW-52, Sri Suman Kr. Chakraborty, being a Sr.

Scientific officer of the State Forensic Science Laboratory deposed that he

received a sealed packet from the SP, CID, Agartala which was containing

8(eight) exhibits marked in their Laboratory as CHEM/50/08(1) to

CHEM/50/08(8). The examination was conducted by him in the laboratory

from 15.10.2008 to 05.11.2008 by chemical tests and the results were

obtained as follows:-

―CHEM/50/08(1) - Nitrate ion was detected.

CHEM/50/08(2) - Ammonium ion, Nitrate ion, Nitrate ion, and elemental carbon were detected.

CHEM/50/08(3) - Nitrate ion and residual hydrocarbon oil were detected.

CHEM/50/08(4) - Ammonium ion and Nitrate ion were detected.

CHEM/50/08(6) - Elemental Carbon was detected.

CHEM/50/08(7) - Ammonium ion, Nitrate ion, Nitrate ion and elemental carbon and residual Hydrocarbon oil were detected.

CHEM/50/08(8) - Ammonium ion, Nitrate ion and elemental carbon were detected.

No common inorganic explosive ions or any organic explosive residues could be detected in the exhibit marked CHEM/50/08(5).

The ingredients detected in Exhibit marked CHEM/50/08(2), (4), (7) & (8) along with hydrocarbon oil constitute an explosive substance.‖

17.1 PW-52 further deposed that the remnants of the exhibits were

returned separately under sealed cover and he identified the report in three

pages with the forwarding report of the Director, marked as Exbt.14 series

and he identified his signature in the report being marked as Exbt.14/1.

Proceeding further, PW-62 deposed as follows:-

―On 05.11.2008 our office had received another sealed packet from the office of the SP, CID, Agartala in connection with East Agartala PS case No.157/08 which was endorsed to me for examination. The packets contain nine exhibits marked A-9 to A-17. Of these A-15 and A- 16 were examined by me. Ext. A -14 was not examined. Rest of the samples were referred to physics/Ballistics Division for examination. Ext.15 and 16 were numbered CHEM/58/08(A-15 and A-16) in our laboratory. The examination was conducted by me from 12-11-08 to 15- 11-08 by chemical tests and Chromatographic method.

No common inorganic ions or any organic explosive residues could be detected in either exhibit. I gave a report in this regard. This is the report with the forwarding letter of Director marked Ext.15 series and this is my signature in my report marked Ext. 15/1.‖

17.2 Being confronted with cross-examination, PW-52 stated that

the remnants were in intact condition. He further stated that the first sample

aforesaid were marked on 15.10.2008 and in between 04.10.2008 and

15.10.2008 there were puja holidays. PW-52 further stated that there was

no mention in the report that during that period the samples were kept in

safe and proper custody though he volunteered that those were kept under

lock in a packet. PW-52 further stated that there was no mention in the

report that during the intervening period of examination period, the samples

were kept under proper custody and that during the period of examination

precautions were taken to avoid any contamination when the witness

volunteered that though the same was not mentioned in the report necessary

precaution was taken. He went on making statement in his cross-

examination that the exhibits sent to them were remnants collected from the

blast exposition site and those were not in a condition for re-use but those

were in a condition for undertaking the tests to identify the constituents.

In his further cross-examination, PW-52 stated that he was not

thorough in the explosive substance and in his examination it was not

revealed what device was used in causing the bomb explosion. He further

stated that in a RDX explosion there would be emission of black smoke and

in other explosions there would be black smoke depending on combination

of explosive substance used. He further stated that colour spot tests is

undertaken to identify an ions and cat ions. PW-52 continuing to state that

it was not mentioned specifically in his report that colour spot tests were

conducted and the result thereof and he did not undertake the test whether it

was an oxidizer. However, he stated that molecular mass of ammonium

ions were not revealed during his examination and nitrate ions are

polyatomic. He further stated that nitrate ions were polyatomic and all the

particles or samples received were not water soluble. He further deposed

that he underwent training at CFSL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Police

Academy.

18. This is also necessary to discuss the evidence of PW-53, Dr.

Sudip Debnath who deposed in connection with ST 52 of 2009. He stated

that he being Sr. Scientific Officer was given the task of examining

whether the SIM Card bearing No.WIB 89913 30607 11356 75197 was

part and parcel of two Aircel SIM Card holders, marked Exbt.A-13/1 and

1-13/2, and also to pass opinion regarding circuit diagram book. PW-53

deposed that on 14.11.2008 while he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer he

received a sealed parcel from the SP, CID, Agartala and it was endorsed to

him for examination of six articles which were described serially in his

report. He further deposed that the opinion on examination of the items at

Sl. No.6 i.e. one LG Users Guide Book marked as Exbt.A-17 by the IO in

connection with the East Agartala PS Case NO.157/08 was sought for and

that after the examination he gave a report on 04.12.2008 with the

information that the circuit diagram present in the Exbt.A-17 indicated the

switching mechanism of an IED and the report bearing his signature was

marked as Exbt.16 and 16/1. He identified the circuit diagram book as

Exbt.16/2. Deposing further, PW-53 stated that on 14.11.2008 their office

had received another sealed packet from the SP, CID which was endorsed

to him for examination in connection with the East Agartala PS Case

No.157/08. He identified the Aircel SIM card, marked as Exbt.A-18 by the

IO. After thorough examination and mechanical matching of edges present

on Aircel SIM card vis-à-vis Aircel SIM card holder, he opined that none

of the exhibits marked A-13/1 and A-13/2 form a part and parcel of

Exbt.A-18 and he submitted his report in that regard. On identification of

the said report it was marked as Exbt.17 and his signature as Exbt.17/1. He

also identified the two SIM card holders, marked as Exbt.17/2 series.

18.1 During his cross-examination, PW-53 stated that in description

of the exhibits, it was not mentioned that Exbt.A-17 also contained a

diagram. He further stated that switching mechanism means amplified

power supply and amplified power supply means output will be more than

the input. In his cross-examination, PW-53 further stated that the circuit

diagram represented a common emitter transistor amplified circuit. He

further stated that in the diagram it is not mentioned which particular part

was input and output and the same had not been reflected in the report.

19. We have noticed the seizure list regarding recovery of

following articles from the rented premise of Dinesh debbarma, one of the

accused which are as follows:-

(i) cutter,

(ii) polythene bag,

(iii) some recharge vouchers,

(iv) a copy book with map and

(v) SIM card holder.

20. We have noticed that there are some common witnesses for all

the six cases whose versions were related to the accused persons. They are

as follows:

i. Bir Kumar Debbarma [PW-20 in connection with case no. ST 52/2009] ii. Gopal Bhowmik [PW-23 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] iii. Sanjib Debbarma [PW-24 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] iv. Bijoy Debbarma [PW-26 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] v. Uttam Dey [PW-29 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] vi. Parendra Debbarma [PW-30 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] vii. Sefal Roy [PW-31 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] viii. Tinku Debbarma [PW-34 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] ix. Jitendra Nath [PW-35 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] x. Rebati Debbarma [PW-37 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] xi. Jogendra Debbarma [PW-38 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] xii. Banajit Debbarma [PW-45 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] xiii. Satyajit Roy [PW-46 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009] xiv. Dipankar Das [PW-47 in connection with case no.ST 52/2009]

21. PW-20, Bir Kumar Debbarma deposed that Sachindra

Debbarma and Kumaria Debbarma were his cousins and they resided in his

house for a day in the month of October, about a year back. He further

deposed that about 15/20 days after they left one day police arrived in his

house with Sachindra Debbarma when Sachindra showed the latrine of his

house and thereafter the Sweepers who were also with them took out a

mobile phone from the latrine which belonged to Sachindra Debbarma and

the same was seized by the police. His signature was obtained by the police

in the seizure list.

Said PW-20 was declared hostile by the prosecution when he

failed to say that he did not know what was recovered with the mobile.

22. PW-21, Rajendra Debbarma is an adjacent neighbour of PW-

20. He also was a witness wherefrom the mobile phone was recovered. The

said witness was declared hostile when he deposed that he did not see who

showed the latrine.

23. The deposition of PW-23 was discussed in the earlier part of

this judgment.

24. PW-24, Sanjib Debbarma deposed that he used to stay in a

portion of the partition room of one Satyajit Roy at Bhati Abhoynagar and

in the month of September, 2008 two tribal persons came as tenants in the

other portion of the partition room and one of them was Bikash Debbarma

and he could not say the name of other persons. He further deposed that on

01.10.2008 in the evening he saw the incident of bomb explosion in

different parts of Agartala in the TV and along with them Bikash

Debbarma and other persons also had watched the TV at that time and on

02.10.2008 all of them left the house of Satyajit. He further deposed that

later on, he came to learn that Bikash Debbarma and other persons were

involved in the bomb blast.

25. PW-25, Subodh Chandra Majumder at the time of his

deposition stated that on 09.09.2008 he sold a LG mobile set to one Bikash

Debbarma, the cash memo of which was seized by the police.

26. PW-26, Bijoy Debbarma in his deposition stated that he went

to the studio of one Shantanu Choudhury at Panchabati bazaar. We find

Shantanu Choudhury was one of the accused who was acquitted.

27. PW-27, Suman Saha deposed that he witnessed the recovery

of a cutter, a polythene bag, some recharge vouchers and a copy book with

map like drawing therein, a SIM card holder from one of the rooms where

Dinesh Debbarma, one of the accused used to reside in the house of Sri

Satyajit Roy.

28. PW-28, Smt. Gita Rani Das deposed that she had a house with

many rooms and in one of the rooms Kumaria Debbarma and his brother

Baman Debbarma resided for about 5 years and they left the house on

01.10.2008 and did not return. She further deposed that during their stay

one Sachindra Debbarma used to come to their house. She came to know

the name of the person as Sachindra Debbarma form Kumaria Debbarma.

She identified Kumaria Debbarma in the dock.

29. PW-29, Uttam Dey deposed that he saw Bikash Debbarma as

tenant in the house of Satyajit Roy.

30. PW-30, Parendra Debbarma was declared hostile.

31. PW-31, Shefal Roy was of no importance to relate the accused

persons with the crime.

32. PW-32, Pranab Chakraborty deposed that he sold his

motorcycle to one Jadav Deb, who sold it to Sukumar Nama and Sukumar

Nama again sold it to Dinesh Debbarma.

33. PW-33, Parasar Debbarma deposed that Bikash Debbarma was

known to him. His deposition appeared to be was of no importance to

connect the accused persons with the crime.

34. PW-34, Tinku Debbarma was declared hostile.

35. PW-35, Jitendra Nath Basu deposed that he was posted as

Inspector of Special Branch, Agartala for about last 10 years. He further

deposed that after few days of bomb blast, Inspector Adhir Das of CID

seized Xerox copies of some documents namely Central Govt. notification

banning the ATTF and NLFT extremists group.

36. PW-36, Tapas Chakraborty also is of no importance to connect

the accused persons with the crime.

37. PW-37, Rebati Debbarma deposed that Baman Debbarma was

his son-in-law and Kumaria Debbarma and Sachindra Debbarma was

known to him and they used to stay at Agartala in a rented house and

Baman used to work as rickshaw puller.

38. PW-38, Jogendra Debbarma deposed that he had a tea stall at

Daigyabari market and Dinesh Debbarma had a rubber garden about 2 km

away from the bazar.

39. PW-15 and PW-16 were the Scientific Officers and their

depositions and examination reports were same in all the cases. Their

evidence also was discussed in the earlier part of this judgment.

40. PW-17, PW-18 and PW-19 were the Doctors who examined

the injured persons who suffered injuries due to bomb blasts.

41. Rests of the witnesses were the injured persons who suffered

injuries at different spots of bomb blasts.

42. Based on the depositions of the above common witnesses, Mr.

Basak, learned counsel for the appellants contended that not a single

witness is there who can directly relate the accused persons with the

alleged bomb blasts.

43. In view of the importance of the evidence of PW-45, Banajit

Debbarma we are inclined to revisit his evidence and the same is put to

minute scrutiny. One of the most relevant statements of PW-45 made in his

deposition that on 28/29th September,2008, Jestar alias Jagadish informed

him over mobile phone from Satchari camp, Bangladesh that there would

be some incidents at Agartala on 1st October, 2008. From this statement it

transpires that on that day Jestar only informed him that some incidents

were going to happen on 1st October,2008. Noticeably, Jestar did not

inform him regarding any bomb blasts. The next statement PW-45 made

that on the next day at 7 am he came to learn that there was bomb blasts in

many areas of Agartala town. Next striking point is that PW-45 deposing

further stated that Jestar also informed him that to cause the bomb blasts,

he engaged Satya alias Chara Debbarma and Dinesh Debbarma and for that

purpose he was asked to look after them. The question that strikes our mind

heavily, is that, if Jestar informed him that he engaged Satya and Dinesh

for causing the bomb blast, then, how PW-45 came to learn about the bomb

blast from the Kok-borok news on the next day of bomb blast. Naturally, it

raises a serious doubt regarding the genuinity and trustworthiness of the

statements made by PW-45 because the statements appeared to be

contradictory to each other. Further, interestingly, PW-45 who is the star

witness according to the prosecution has failed to say in connection with

which bomb blast case he was deposing in course of trial before the court.

Again, when his attention was drawn to his statement recorded under

Section 161 of CrPC, it is found that the statement which he deposed in his

examination-in-chief that "Jestar informed him over mobile that there

would be some incidents at Agartala on 1st October, 2008", is found

absent. Again, when his attention being drawn to his previous statement

recorded under Section 161 of CrPC that he stated to the CID officer that

he knew Dinesh Debbarma prior to incident is also found absent which

PW-45 has admitted in his cross-examination. According to us, these are

the most important features which are appeared to be improved versions of

PW-45 which creates serious suspicious circumstances in the mind of this

court regarding involvement and their participation to cause the bomb

blasts.

44. We are not oblivious of the law of the land in this regard. The

prosecution has miserably failed to produce Jestar as a witness to support

the statement of PW-45 that he informed PW-45 that some incidents were

going to happen on 1st October, 2008. As per Section 60 of the Evidence

Act oral evidence must be direct. Section 60 of the Evidence Act reads as

under:-

"60. Oral evidence must be direct.--Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say--

If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;

If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;

If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;

If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:

Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions

are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:

Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.‖

44.1 In the context, we may profitably refer to a decision rendered

by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Kanbi Vaghji Savji v.

State of Gujarat, (AIR 1968 Gujarat 11) where interpreting Section 60 and

Section 157 of the Evidence Act, the court had drawn the distinction

between direct and hearsay evidence and explained it in the manner as

follows:-

―Where A in his deposition refers to a talk he had with B, the accused, saying that he had scuffle of fight with deceased C, A who heard it so said can speak about it and that would be direct oral evidence in respect of that fact, and if A then spoke to D and D so says in Court, would become hearsay type of evidence as it would not fall under Section 60 of the Evidence Act with regard to the fact sought to be established in the case. Such evidence can become admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as it is sought to corroborate the testimony of A. But that can arise only if A's evidence of such fact is to be corroborated.

If, therefore, A does not refer to any such talk he had with B, the accused, in his evidence before Court, there cannot arise any question of corroboration and Section 157 of the Evidence Act cannot come into play for admitting evidence of D.‖

44.2 Considering the facts of the case in Kanbi Vaghji Savji

(supra) the court had observed thus:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx

―Now, evidence can either be oral or documentary, as contemplated in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Chapter III of Evidence Act relates to oral evidence. All facts except contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence, and under Section 60 of the Act, oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever be direct, that is to say, if it refers to a fact which would be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who saw it; and if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it. It is no doubt true that if Jivanlal's evidence was only to the fact that he was told a particular fact, viz, about Sarpanch having told that there was a scuffle between Karamshi and Vaghji, and if that fact about Sarpanch saying so, were at issue, it can be taken as proved as he had heard the Sarpanch saying so, in view of section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. But if Sarpanch had referred to a talk he had with some other person such as the accused No.1 saying that he had scuffle or fight with deceased Karamshi, the person who heard it so said, viz, the Sarpanch can speak about it and that would be direct oral evidence in respect of that fact, and if he then spoke to some third person and the third person so saying in Court, would become hearsay type of evidence as it would not fall under section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the fact sought to be established in the case. Now such evidence can become admissible under section 157; of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as it is sought to corroborate the testimony of a witness who had so told him as in this case to Jivanlal. But that can arise only if the Sarpanch's evidence of such fact is to be corroborated. If, therefore, the Sarpanch does not refer to any such talk he had with accused No. 1 in his evidence before Court, there cannot arise any question of corroboration, and Section 157 of the Indian evidence Act, cannot come into play for admitting such evidence.‖

44.3 The aforesaid view of the Gujarat High Court has received

support when the Apex Court in Bhugdomal Gangaram & Ors. vrs. State

of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 319 held that under Section 60 of the Evidence

Act, testimony of a witness based on information of another person would

not be admissible in absence of examination of the informant as a witness.

Similarly, where a witness had no personal knowledge about the accused‟s

role or his involvement in the crime, his testimony that the accused had

committed a certain offence would be inadmissible in absence of

examination of the accused as a witness in that regard.

In the case in hand, holding the similar view we are of the

opinion that since PW-45, Banajit Deb Barma had no personal knowledge

about the role of the accused persons in the commission of the crime, his

testimony that the accused persons had caused the bomb blasts would be

inadmissible in absence of examination of the accused persons as witnesses

in that regard.

44.4 Applying the aforesaid principle delineated in Kanbi Vaghji

Savji (supra), in the instant case, we find that PW-45, Banajit Deb Barma

referred to a talk which he had with Jestar alias Jagadish about the fact in

issue that Jestar engaged the accused persons to cause bomb blasts. If

Jestar would have deposed before the Court, then, his oral testimony in

regard to the fact in issue that he engaged the accused persons for causing

bomb blasts would be direct evidence, and admissible within the purview of

Section 60 of the Evidence Act. On the other hand, the oral testimony of

PW-45, Banajit to the fact in issue that accused persons would cause the

bomb blast is found to be based upon the information supplied by Jestar

and therefore, is inadmissible in evidence because it does not fall within the

purview of Section 60 of the Evidence Act. In other words, this evidence of

PW-45 would become hearsay type of evidence as it would not fall under

Section 60 of the Evidence Act with regard to the fact sought to be

established in the case. Again, if Jestar appeared as witness and confirms

the information, then, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 157

of the Indian Evidence Act as the statement of Banajit would have been

corroborated by Jestar about the fact in issue that he engaged the accused

persons for causing bomb blasts. Not only that on such appearance before

the court in the witness box Jestar must confirm that he shared the

information with Banajit, and only thereafter, the statement of PW-45

would fall within the purview of Section 60 of the Evidence Act.

45. In our opinion, on plain reading of Section 60 it clearly

manifests that the evidence of PW-45 is inadmissible due to non-

examination of Jestar who passed the information to PW-45. Section 60 of

the Evidence Act requires that the oral evidence must be direct where the

testimony of the witness is entirely hearsay, it cannot be admitted in

evidence. Here, the statement of PW-45 is entirely based upon the

information passed by Jestar and it is necessary for the prosecution to

substantiate this information only by way of producing Jestar as witness to

support the fact that he passed the said information to Dinesh Debbarma. In

our considered view, the statements made by PW-45 being based on

information from Jestar and being not substantiated by Jestar is

inadmissible evidence being hit by law of hearsay. According to us, the

hearsay evidence of the witness cannot be relied upon. As a necessary

corollary, no conviction can be based upon inadmissible evidence.

46. The use of the word "must" in the first clause of Section

imposes a duty on the court to exclude all oral evidence that is not "direct",

whether the party against whom it is tendered objects or not.

47. Accordingly, considering the overall statements of PW-45, it

appears unconvincing to us to return a finding of guilt of the accused-

appellants solely on the basis of his statement. Now coming to the question

as to whether the scientific examination reports would connect the accused-

appellants with the crime. We have noticed that it is the specific case of the

prosecution that a „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile was recovered from the septic

tank of the house of Bir Kumar Debbarma (PW-20) being shown by

accused Sachindra Debbarma. Though the said mobile was recovered in

front of him, but, he could not say whether any other material was seized

along with the said mobile.

48. Furthermore, we are at a loss to understand how the said „Sony

Ericsson‟ mobile is connected with the crime. The prosecution has failed to

unearth the source of said „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile. It is true, prosecution to

find out the source of the said mobile has tried to plant PW-12, Dipankar

Das, an employee of a mobile shop, but, this witness has stated that he sold

one Nokia 2600-C set to Sachindra Debbarma. Ultimately, we find no

connection of „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile set with the commission of crime.

49. Next, the prosecution as well as the learned trial Judge has

given much emphasis on the recovery of one circuit diagram book from the

rented house of the accused Dinesh Debbarma. Here, also we find that the

prosecution has failed to connect the said circuit diagram book with the

cause of bomb blasts. The mobile phones which were recovered do not

have any switching device to cause a bomb blast. It is necessary to mention

here-in that prosecution has relied upon the circuit diagram book for the

operation of entire bomb blasts, but, said circuit diagram [Ext.A-17] though

indicated switching mechanism of an IED, but, as we said earlier none of

the mobile phones had any switching mechanism to connect the accused-

appellants with the crime. In furtherance thereof, it is revealed that the

Aircel SIM card vis-à-vis Aircel SIM card holder [Exbt.A-13/1 and

Exbt.13/2] do not form a part and parcel of Exbt.A-18 i.e. the mobile. So,

question arises, if the seized Aircel SIM card does not match with the

Aircel SIM card holder, then, how this circumstance can relate the accused-

appellants with the commission of crime.

50. Another striking feature, we have noticed that even after

thorough examinations the scientific experts did not find any chemicals or

components in the mobile phone as well as in the SIM card that had been

used and recovered from the scene of bomb blasts. Under this

circumstance, it is an absurd proposition that the seized „Sony Ericsson‟

mobile had any connection with the bomb blasts, even if, we believe that

the „Sony Ericsson‟ mobile phone was recovered at the instance of the

accused Sachindra Debbarma. As we have noted earlier that the present

case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is well established by

leading judicial precedence that where the prosecution‟s case is based on

circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of the highest

order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In order to base

conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence put forth

by the prosecution should establish a complete unbroken chain of events so

that only one inference is to be drawn from the same. If more than one

inference can be drawn, then, the accused should be entitled to the benefit

of doubt.

51. Further, the prosecution and the trial court as well, have placed

much reliance on the gazette notification of the Central Government

banning NLFT and ATTF extremists group and also on a copy of the list

containing the names of ATTF members. We note that how a photocopy of

such list has been introduced in evidence to connect the accused persons

with the cause of bomb blasts.

In our opinion, even the original list of ATTF members is

produced, then, also the accused-appellants cannot be connected with the

crime only because of the fact that their names were found in the list as

members of ATTF extremists group. Accordingly, we are not inclined to

give any importance to such list of ATTF members to connect the accused-

appellants with the charge levelled against them.

52. In the present factual matrix, according to us, PW-45, Banajit

Debbarma is a planted witness being a surrendered member of ATTF. The

evidence of Sri Banajit is not at all appeared to be reliable due to his

contradictory statements in his own evidence that Jestar told him that on

28/29th September, 2008, there would be some incidents at Agartala, and

only on the next day he came to learn about bomb blasts; but, interestingly,

in later part of his chief examination he stated that Jestar informed him that

he engaged Chara and Dinesh to cause bomb blasts. Question arises in our

mind, which statement is to be believed, former part or later part? These

contradictory statements are irreconcilable and thus turns PW-45 most

untrustworthy, unreliable and not credible at all. Furthermore, the

prosecution has failed to connect the recovery of "circuit diagram book"

from the rented house of accused Dinesh Debbarma to „Sony Ericsson‟

mobile, the holder of which having not matched with the SIM cards.

According to us, these are all isolated instances without forming a clear and

complete chain in the entire events of causing bomb blasts. More so,

scientific examination of the chemicals from the sites of bomb blasts also

has failed to link the mobile seized by the police. The forensic examination

of the mobile phones does not indicate the existence of detonator required

to cause the bomb blasts. Even, in the mobile there was no presence of any

chemicals or components that can invariably lead us to come to a definite

conclusion that the circuit diagram book had any connection with the

operation of the mobile phone that are used in the commission of the crime

and thus, in no way can be said to be connected with the crime allegedly

committed by the accused-appellants.

We reiterate that for establishing the guilt on the basis of

circumstantial evidence, it is to be taken into account that the chain of each

and every events must be completed. It appears that the said chain of

circumstantial evidence cannot be concluded in the manner sought to be

done by the prosecution. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature.

In the instant case, after analyzing the facts and circumstances, it appears to

us that there was gap between the circumstances tried to be relied upon to

hold the appellants as guilty.

53. Thus, we find so many loopholes in the case of prosecution

and grounds in which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the

accused-appellants. Here, we would like to refer to the decision of the

Apex court in Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464

wherein it has been very aptly and succinctly stated thus:

"Circumstantial evidence is a close companion of factual matrix, creating a fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily because the said facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit us to arrive at any other inference but one, indicating the guilt of the accused.‖

54. In the case of circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the

court to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only

inference from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. If more than one

inference can be drawn, then the accused must be given benefit of doubt as

it is not the court‟s job to assume and only when guilt beyond reasonable

doubt is proved then it is fair to record conviction. Further, in our opinion,

in a case of this nature which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence,

each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by

independent evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a

complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjectures and

must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused.

55. True it is, Agartalaites had witnessed serial bomb blasts on

that fateful day when many innocent people had suffered injuries and no

doubt, it was an attempt to create a sense of fear and agony in the minds of

the people of the State, but, according to us, the investigating agencies, in

the instant case, have miserably failed to investigate the case according to

the standard of proof which is required to punish an accused. We cannot

refrain ourselves to criticize the investigation agency of the State and the

manner it carried out the investigation.

56. In the case in hand, none of the circumstances relied upon by

the prosecution and accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge can

probabilise the accused-appellants‟ guilt or involvement in the commission

of the crime. Therefore, for the reasons recorded here-in-above, the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2015 &

28.04.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3,

West Tripura, Agartala in ST 49/2009; ST 50/2009; ST 51/2009; ST

52/2009; ST 53/2009 and ST 70/2009 are set aside and quashed.

The appeals are allowed and the accused persons who are the

appellants herein, are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They

are set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other cases.

Lastly, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. A. Basak,

learned counsel for the appellants and the way he conducted the cases.

Send back the LCRs.

             (ARINDAM LODH), J                       (AKIL KURESHI), CJ