Sri Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 9 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 18




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A

                            Crl. A(J) No. 13 of 2020

1.     Sri Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula, son of Sri Sitaram Debbarma of
       Village- Neuramura, South Taibandal, P.S. Melaghar, District:
       Sepahijala Tripura.

                                                             .....Appellant

                                 -V E R S U S-
       The State of Tripura.

                                                         ..... Respondent.

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)            :      Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing              :      22.12.2021
Date of delivery of
judgment and order           :      05.01.2022
Whether fit for reporting    :      YES


                            JUDGMENT & ORDER
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]

Heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the convict- appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

[2] This criminal appeal under Section-374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District, in connection with case No. S.T. (T-1) 12 of 2014, whereby and whereunder,

the appellant has been convicted under Sections-364/302/201 of IPC and thereby, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for committing offence under Section-364 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment of 3[three] months. Further, he has been sentenced to suffer R.I for life for committing offence under Section-302 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment of 3[three] months and further to suffer RI for 7[seven] years for committing offence under Section-201 of IPC with default stipulations. It was directed that both these sentences shall run concurrently.

[3] The facts which set the criminal law in motion, in short, are that on 7th day of December, 2013 at about 10.35 hours one Sri Bishu Das (PW-7), of Village-Bagmara, District-Sepahijala appeared before the O/C Melaghar police station and lodged a written FIR against the accused- person Sunil Debbarma, son of Sitaram Debbarma of Village- Neuramura, P.S. Melaghar and two others namely, Rai Chandra Noatia and Khirode Tripura alleging inter alia that his cousin Sanjit Das, aged about 30 years, son of Subodh Das of Village- Powangbari, P.S. Melaghar was an auto rickshaw driver by profession and he was also the registered owner of an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-01-D-4263. On 6th day of December, 2013 Friday, at about 07.00am victim Sanjit Das (deceased herein) had left his residence with his auto rickshaw like other days but said Sanjit Das did not return home at night. At the relevant time, victim Sanjit Das was carrying one black colour Samsung Mobile phone with sim No. 9856988417. There was also some cash money in the pocket of Sanjit Das. as the victim did not return home at night, on 07.12.2013 at about 08.00am informant Sri Bishu Das visited Melaghar motor stand and talked with several persons when he came to learn that on 06.12.2013 at about

03.00pm three tribal young boys had hired the auto rickshaw of the victim with intent to go to Birchandra Manu and since that time the victim was traceless. It has been further stated that on 7th December, 2013 in the morning Smt. Madhabi Das (PW-9), wife of the deceased lodged a missing diary with Melaghar P.S. Then and there, police started an inquiry and they recovered the auto rickshaw of the victim from the village Induria and at about 08.00 pm the informant received one telephone call from Melaghar P.S. with a request to visit Melaghar P.S. along with the family members of the victim. Thereafter, the informant along with the family members of the victim visited Melaghar P.S. when the informant and others were taken at Bhuraghat under Kakraban police station by the police personnel of Melaghar police station and, thereafter, all of them entered into a rubber garden whereat they found the dead body of the victim Sanjit Das with bleeding injuries. The vocal cord of the deceased was cut by sharp cutting weapon. There were so many marks of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon in the dead body of the deceased. At that place, PW-7, the informant came to learn that the accused-persons, Sri Sunil Debbarma, Rai Chandra Noatia and Khirode Tripura, of village Neuramura were involved with the murder of Sanjit Das, the deceased.

[4] On the basis of the aforesaid complaint dated 07.12.2013, the Officer-in-charge of Melaghar Police Station treating the said complaint as FIR, registered Melaghar P.S. Case No. 153 of 2013 under Sections- 302/34 of IPC against the accused-persons, namely, Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula, Rai Chandra Noatia and Khirode Tripura. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer, PW-29 submitted charge-sheet against the accused-persons, for commission of offence punishable under Sections-364/302/201/34 of IPC. However, in the charge-sheet Rai Chandra Noatia and Khirode Tripura have been shown as Juveniles in

conflict with law. Accordingly, after taking cognizance of offences, initially the case record was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sepahijala District, Sonamura for holding inquiry against the charge sheeted Juveniles in conflict with law. The trial in the case held only for the accused- appellant Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula.

[5] After commitment of this case from the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District, to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District, after hearing the both sides and on perusal of the documents submitted by the prosecution, the learned Court framed the charge against the accused-person, namely, Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula with reference to the offences punishable under Sections-364/302/201 of IPC read with Section-34 of IPC to which, the accused-person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[6] To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 29 [twenty-nine] witnesses including the complainant and also exhibited certain relevant documents and materials [Exbts.1 to 16] including the surathal report.

[7] On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused-person was examined separately under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. for having his response in respect of the incriminating materials surfaced in the evidence, as adduced by the prosecution, wherein, the accused-person expressed willingness to adduce evidence himself as DW-1 and two other defence witnesses namely, Sri judhya Kumar Debbarma (DW-2) and Sri Lekhapada Debbarma (DW-3) on his side. Thereafter, on appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2015 against the above named accused-person.

[8] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated. Hence, this appeal.

[9] Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the accused- person at the time of argument has submitted that PW-1, Sri Radhakanu Debnath in his deposition made inconsistent statement regarding identity of accused Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula and as such, the oral evidence of PW-1 can no way be relied upon to hold accused Sunil Debbarma guilty for the alleged crime. PW-7 i.e. the informant Sri Bishu Das also narrated different stories in his cross-examination. PW-8 Sri Adhin Das who as per prosecution version is the most important witness, in his cross-examination admitted that he made no statement to the investigating officer during the course of investigation. The missing information (Exbt.7) proved by the prosecution side is itself a document which indicates the innocence of accused Sunil Debbarma. As per prosecution story, on the relevant date and time victim Sanjit Das went to Birchandramanu carrying passengers in his auto rickshaw but Exbt.7 shows that on the relevant day, the so-called victim Sanjit Das went to Udaipur on a reserved trip.

[10] Mr. Saha, has argued that the seizure witnesses in their respective deposition made contradictory statements regarding recovery of blood stained wearing apparel of accused Sunil Debbarma. Moreover, the investigating officer (PW-29) in his cross-examination specifically admitted that he did not send the seized dagger to finger print expert for examination and opinion. PW-29 also did not collect any "Charpatra" from Melaghar Motor stand by which it may be proved that on the relevant date

and time the auto rickshaw of victim was hired by anyone for going to Birchandramonu. Surprisingly, no Test Identification Parade was held after arrest of accused Sunil Debbarma to ascertain the actual truth rather, the prosecution side relied upon the testimony PW-8 Sri Adhin Das, who claimed himself to be a known person to accused. Mr. Saha has further stated that no idenpedent witness was present at the time of recovery of dead body of victim Sanjit Das and nothing was found at search from the auto rickshaw in presence of independent witnesses. He has submitted that the prosecution side adduced oral evidence to establish the fact that still photographs were taken and video recordings were done when police recovered the dead body of victim and also the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Sunil Debbarma but, surprisingly, the prosecution side did not adduce any electronic evidence to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant when the prosecution side was very much aware of the fact that non-production of electronic evidence though was available to the prosecution side, is certainly most fatal for the prosecution case.

[11] In regard to the question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 286, wherein it was held thus:

"4. The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstances by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis.

6. In assessing the evidence to find these principles. It is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them. On the other, In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is a long distance between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully the chain of events which should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypotheses but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone."

[12] On the other hand, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the convict-appellant had committed the offence and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced. He has submitted that on 6th day of December, 2013 at about 3.30pm the accused-person along with two other FIR named accused-persons had hired the auto rickshaw of the deceased bearing registration No.TR-01-D- 4263 at Melaghar Motor Stand with a view to go Birchandramanu but, on that day, the deceased did not returned home at night for which on the following morning Smt. Madhabi Das, wife of deceased Sanjit Das, lodged a missing diary with Melaghar P.S.

[13] Learned P.P. has further argued that the accused Sunil Debbarma along with two other charge sheeted juveniles in conflict with law had hired the auto rickshaw of deceased Sanjit Das with intent to take possession over the said auto rickshaw after committing murder of Sanjit Das and subsequently, to sell the auto rickshaw in Bangladesh. But, fortunately, on the same day, at about 23.30/24.00 hours, while the accused-person and his associates were coming towards Melaghar driving the said auto at high speed, they caused a road traffic accident at Induria in-front of the house of one Sri Haradhan Das. Then and there, the local people and some drivers of other vehicles who gathered at that place to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Sri Haradhan Das, detained accused Sunil Debbarma with that auto rickshaw but the two other accompanying tribal boys fled away from that place.

[14] He has further submitted that PW-8, Sri Adhin Das to whom accused Sunil Debbarma was previously known, caused identification of accused Sunil Debbarma to all the people gathered thereat. However, on being asked by PW-8 and others, accused Sunil Debbarma told them that he was not the actual owner and driver of that auto rickshaw and the actual driver of the auto rickshaw was sleeping in a house at tribal area after consumption of liquor. Thereafter, that auto rickshaw was taken away by the local people from the possession of accused Sunil Debbarma and it was kept in the custody of PW-3 Sri Motilal Debnath.

[15] Mr. Debnath, advanced his arguments on the point that after registration of the police case, when accused Sunil Debbarma was arrested, the accused-person confessed his guilt and also disclosed the names of his associates and ultimately, the accused-person led the investigating officer and other police personnel in presence of independent witnesses to the

place wherein accused Sunil Debbarma and his associates had concealed the dead body of victim Sanjit Das after committing murder. Police also recovered the weapon of offence as shown by accused Sunil Debbarma and seized the weapon. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. further submitted that PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the prosecution witnesses who had opportunity to see the full operation of the police personnel regarding recovery of dead body of victim Sanjit Das and the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Sunil Debbarma. He has argued that from the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution, it has been proved that accused Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula along with other charge sheeted juveniles in conflict with law had committed the murder of victim Sanjit Das with intent to take possession over the said auto rickshaw of victim Sanjit Das and to enjoy the sale of that auto rickshaw amongst themselves and as such, the Mr. Addl. P.P. prayed for adequate punishment for accused Sunil Debbarma.

[16] According to prosecution case, deceased Sanjit Das, the owner-cum-driver of the that auto had left Melaghar motor stand carrying three tribal passengers in his auto on a reserved trip and since then the deceased was missing. As such, let us open the discussion on the evidence adduced by PW-9, Smt. Madhabi Das, the wife of the deceased.

[17] PW-9, Smt. Madhabi Das in her deposition has stated that on 6th day of December, 2013 in the early morning her husband Sanjit Das went to Melaghar motor stand with his auto like other days. Sanjit Das normally used to return home by 5.00/6.00pm everyday and he also used to take his lunch at about 2.00/3.00pm every day. But on that fateful day he did not return home for his lunch rather, at about 3.00 pm he made a telephone call to PW-9 and told her that he was going to Taibandal on a reserved trip and he would return home by 6.00pm, but, her husband did

not return home for which at about 7.30pm, she made contact with her husband over phone while, her husband told her that he will return home by 10.00/10.30pm since he will have to go some other places with three tribal passengers on a reserved trip. But, when at 10.00 pm her husband did not return, PW-9 made several attempts to connect her husband over phone but she failed to connect till the next morning. Accordingly, PW-9 went to Melaghar police station on 07.12.2013 and lodged missing information in writing. Then and there, police started to collect information about the Sanjit Das (deceased herein). At about 6.00/6.30 pm PW-9 PW-9 came to know from her brother-in-law Sri Pradip Das (PW-6) and others that her husband had been murdered by the tribal passengers with whom Sanjit Das went on a reserved trip on the previous day.

[18] PW-6, Pradip Das, PW-7 Sri Bishu Das and PW-10 Sri Samir Das in their respective depositions stated that deceased Sanjit Das was their cousin and he was the owner-cum-driver of that auto. On 06.12.2013 Sanjit Das went to Melaghar motor stand as usual like other days with his auto rickshaw but he did not return home at night. Accordingly, the father of Sanjit Das informed those witnesses over telephone that Sanjit did not return home with his auto rickshaw at night. On the following morning, those witnesses visited that house of their cousin Sanjit Das and came to learn that the wife of Sanjit Das also lodged a missing diary with Melaghar police station and then those witnesses also visited the motor stand and talked with the drivers of other auto. Subsequently, the witnesses came to know from the syndicate that the auto rickshaw of their cousin was detained by local people at Induria but Sanjit Das was missing. The witnesses also came to learn from the police in presence of others that those tribal boys had hired the auto rickshaw on the previous day from Melaghar motor stand to go to Birchandramanu and subsequently, those

tribal boys killed Sanjit Das in a forest at Boraghat, Taibandal. Those tribal boys also confessed their guilt and led the police personnel and those prosecution witnesses and others to the place wherein they had concealed the dead body of Sanjit Das after committing murder. They have further deposed that police recovered the dead body from a rubber plantation at Boraghat at the instance of all the three accused-persons. After causing of identification of the dead body of Sanjit Das by these witnesses, police prepared inquest report in presence of them. Police also seized the "Chappal" [Exbt.5/2] of deceased by preparing a seizure list in presence of witnesses. Thereafter PW-7 Sri Bishu Das lodged a written Ejahar at Melaghar P.S. on 07.12.2013 and that ejahar was written by PW-13, Sri Manish Deb.

[19] PW-1, Sri Radhakanu Debnath, the driver of TR-01-3432 (Tata Magic), PW-17 Sri Uttam Das and PW-18 Sri Sukanta Das, he is also a driver in their respective deposition has stated that on 6 th day of December, 2013 their vehicles were taken on hire by Sri Nepal Paul on the occasion of marriage ceremony of his son and also for carrying the invitees from Mayarani to Induria. At about 24.00 hours an auto rickshaw dashed the vehicle of PW-18 for which all the drivers detained three persons including the driver of that auto rickshaw and all of them were tribal. But somehow two boys managed to escape from the place of incident. They have stated that they identified the auto rickshaw which was belonged to the victim Sanjit Das who used to operate the auto rickshaw from Melaghar motor stand. At that relevant point of time, few persons also rushed to the spot and identified the accused-Sunil Debbarmab @ Kutula.

[20] PW-3, Sri Motilal Debnath, PW-8, Sri Adhin Das, PW-14, Sri Yubaraj Debnath, PW-15 Sri Niropama Debnath and PW-19 Sri Swapan

Bhowmik in their respective depositions stated that on that fateful day these witnesses attended the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Sri Haradhan Das at Induria. At about 23.30/24.00 hours hearing hue and cry they rushed to the spot and found the drivers who accompanied the groom party to talk with a tribal boy namely, Sunil Debbarma who dashed one of the vehicles attending in the marriage ceremony.

[21] PW-2, Sri Jhuton Deb, is a driver who deposed that on 6th day of December, 2013 at about 03.00 pm three tribal boys of tender age talked with PW-2 at Melaghar motor stand for hiring one auto to go Birchandramanu and thereafter, to come at Taibandal via Chandul but the fare offered by those tribal boys did not match with the fare claimed by PW-2 and then PW-2 saw those tribal boys including accused Sunil Debbarma to hire the auto of deceased Sanjit Das.

[22] The investigating officer PW-29 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 7th day of December, 2013 he was posted at Melaghar P.S. as a Sub-inspector of police and on that day one Smt. Madhabi Das had lodged one missing diary in regard to her husband Sanjit Das and the said information was entered to GD Entry Book vide Melaghar P.S. G.D. Entry No. 275 dated 07.12.2013. He has stated that on instruction of O/C he visited to Melaghar motor stand and talked with PW-2 and he came to know that on the previous day three tribal boys had hired the auto of the deceased and went to Birchandramanu. Thereafter, the I.O. visited Induria as he was informed that previous night local people of Induria detained an auto of the deceased Sanjit Das. After examining some witnesses PW-29 came to know that accused Sunil Debbarm was also detained along with the auto rickshaw and two of his associates fled away from that place. PW- 29 talked with witness Sri Adhin Das (PW-8) and visited Taibandal

accompanied by the relatives of the victim and other witnesses to find out the actual location of the house of accused Sunil Debbarma. He has further stated that at Neuramura when he was talking with other persons infront of a tong shop to find out the exact location of the accused-person, a tribal boy to flee away from the back side of that shop. Then and there, PW-29 with the help of local people detained that tribal boy who disclosed his identity as Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula.

[23] During the course of interrogation, the accused-person in presence of the local people and police personnel disclosed that he along with two other tribal boys namely, Khirode Mani Tripura and Rai Chandra Noatia had hired the auto rickshaw of the deceased from the Melaghar motor stand on the pretext of visiting Birchandramanu and subsequently, they consumed alcohol in a hotel at Birchandramanu and on the way to Taibandal accused Sunil Debbarma and his associates had a quarrel with the victim in regard to the mode of driving and lastly they stopped the auto on the road near a rubber plantation at Boraghat and thereafter, they took the victim at a lonely place and murdered him by "Kukri" and concealed the dead body of Sanjit Das in the jungle. However, the information given by the accused-person was found correct while PW-29 recovered the "Kukri" (Exbt. 2/1) the weapon of offence, one pair of "chappal" (Exbt. 5/2). PW-29 also stated that the accused-person also disclosed that he along with two other tribal boys named above had decided to earn money after selling the auto rickshaw of the victim to a person in Bangladesh after committing murder of Sanjit Das. PW-29 at the time of arresting the two other accused named above, recovered the mobile phone of the victim without sim card (Exbt.3/1). Finally, after interrogation of all the three accused-persons, they confessed their guilt and expressed their willingness to identify the spot whereat they committed murder of the victim and

concealed his dead body and the dead body (Exbt.4/3) was recovered in presence of the accused-persons.

[24] PW-20 Sri Debabrata Das in his deposition has stated that he is a professional photographer. On that relevant date he visited one place at Boraghat accompanied by the O/C Kakraban P.S. wherein there was huge number of police personnel and other people besides three tribal boys. Thereafter, those tribal boys identified the dead body of an auto rickshaw driver who was murdered by those tribal boys.

[25] PW-23, Dr. Ashim Roy and PW-24 Dr. Runak Debbarma are the two medical officers who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body. At the time of postmortem examination those witnesses found total 17 numbers of injuries which were caused by sharp cutting pointed weapons like dagger, knife etc. PW-23 also stated that all the injuries were homicidal in nature and the "Bhojali" (Exbt.M.O/1) was sufficient for causing the injuries found in the dead body of the victim Sanjit Das.

[26] PW-27 Dr. Sabyasachi Nath, the scientific officer of Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh in his examination-in-chief confirmed that the bold stain found in the exhibits matched with the blood group of deceased Sanjit Das.

[27] Now, to reach at a definite conclusion about what offence the accused-appellant has actually committed, we have gone through the evidence brought on record. As a defence witness, accused-person in his deposition stated that he has falsely been implicated by the police at the instant of some political persons of his locality and at the instance of those political persons, police took him from his house in presence of Rekhapada

Debbarma DW-3, Judhya Debbarma, DW-2 and Sitaram Debbarma and arrested him falsely. But DW-2, Sri Judhya Kumar Debbarma and DW-3, Lekhapada Debbarma in their respective examination-in-chief stated that they know nothing about this case and they also do not know as to why police arrested Sunil Debbarma. It is pertinent to mention herein that the accused-person in his examination-in-chief did not say anything about his political identity and he also did not examine any person of his locality who had knowledge about the political activities of accused-person and also about the alleged political rivalry of the accused with PW-8 Sri Adhin Das and others.

[28] According to accused-person, the victim was sleeping in a house at tribal area while the accused-person was detained with the auto of the victim by some drivers and local people of village Induria. If that version of accused-person is true, then victim was alive when people detained the accused Sunil Debbarma on the public road at Induria. In that case, a question may arise as to how accused-appellant and his associates came to learn about the presence of the dead body of the victim inside a rubber plantation at Boraghat where from the police recovered the dead body having been led by the accused-appellant and other charge sheeted juveniles in conflict with law in presence of so many independent witnesses.

[29] In the case of State of U.P. vs. Brahma Das, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1769, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "the prosecution version cannot be held to be concocted unless defence evidence places material to support such a conclusion."

[30] PW-1 Sri Radhakanu Debnath and PW-3 Sri Motilal Debnathin their examination-in-chief stated that after detention of the

accused-appellant with the auto of the victim at Induria by other drivers, the accused-person averred that the victim was sleeping in a house after consuming alcohol. But, the accused-person did not lead the police of that house and he also did not examine any of the people of that tribal area to substantiate that fact. Rather, the movement of the accused-person and his associates towards Induria with the auto rickshaw of the victim in absence of the driver-cum-owner of that auto supports the prosecution story that the accused-persons had a plan to earn money by selling that auto in Bangladesh.

[31] The discovery of the knife (kukri) with blood stain as well as the dead body of the victim and his mobile phone at the instance of accused-appellant are the circumstances which may raise the presumption of participation of accused Sunil Debbarma in the alleged crime. Exbt.13 i.e. the biology and serology report prepared by PW-27 shows that the blood stain of human origin could be detected in the seized dagger (Kukri) and the bold stain found in the wearing apparels of the deceased were determined as "B Group). So, there is no doubt that the said dagger (kukri) was used to commit the crime. The accused-appellant led the I.O. to discover that dagger from the auto of the victim which was found in the possession of the accused Sunil Debbarma.

[32] After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution proved all the circumstances and linked them with each other in such a manner that those circumstances lead to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of accused Sunil Debbarma in regard to the alleged offence and after perusal of oral evidence specially the testimonies of the defence witnesses, we find no chance of any doubt that any other

miscreants except the accused-appellant, Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula and his associates had committed the murder of the victim Sanjit Das.

[33] From the testimonies of PW-2, Sri Jhuton Deb and PW-9 Smt. Madhabi Das, the wife of the deceased it has been proved that on that fateful day accused Sunil Debbarma along with two other charge sheeted juveniles in conflict with law showing them genuine passengers induced the victim by deceitful means to go to Birchandramanu with his auto though, they had intention to abduct the victim and to murder him for taking possession over the said auto for their wrongful gain. Further, the present case in our hand is not only based on the principle of last seen together, rather, in this case, the I.O. discovered the dead body of the deceased and also the weapon of offence leading to the information given by the accused-appellant in presence of independent witnesses when the accused-person was in police custody.

[34] Apart from all this, the accused-appellant also led PW-29 to the house of co-accused from whose possession mobile phone of the victim was recovered. The sim card was missing from that phone, itself proved the fact that the accused-person obtained that mobile phone from the possession of the deceased after committing murder and they removed the sim card from that phone. The accused-person also concealed the dead body of the deceased inside a rubber plantation at Boraghat with intent to disappear the evidence of the offence of murder committed by them and as such, after perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home all the head of charges framed against the accused Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula beyond any shadow of doubt since, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the

prosecution in this case are of such a character that these are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of accused Sunil Debbarma.

[35] In our ultimate analysis, it is crystal clear that there is no reason as to why the continuity of the chain of circumstances and the complaint made against the accused-appellant to be disbelieved. All the witnesses supported the entire case of the prosecution with regard to commission of offence by the accused-person. Hence, the conviction and sentence as held by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura Judicial District in connection with S.T.(T-1) 12 of 2014 against the accused-appellant, Sunil Debbarma @ Kutula, stands affirmed.

[36] In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.

            JUDGE                                            JUDGE




A.Ghosh