Tripura High Court
Sri Akhil Das vs The State Of Tripura on 20 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A.(J)57 of 2020
Sri Akhil Das,
son of late Dhirendra Chandra Das,
Village-South Pulinpur (Kuishar Tilla),
P.S. Teliamura, P.O. Hawaibari,
District : Khowai, Tripura, Pin : 799205
----Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
Mr. J. Majumder, Adv.
Date of Judgment
& Order : 20.07.2022
Whether fit for
reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order
Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.
Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai
Tripura in Case No.ST(T-1)06 of 2018 convicting the appellant under Section
302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one
year.
3. The prosecution case was set in motion by way of a complaint
lodged by one Sri Swapan Das to the O.C. Teliamura P.S. on 07.04.2017.
4. The brief fact of the case is that in the year 2007 marriage
ceremony was solemnized in between the deceased Sima and the FIR named
accused person Akhil Das as per social customs. The complainant who is the
father of the deceased alleged that since after marriage, the accused Akhil
Das subjected to cruelty upon his wife [daughter of the complainant] both
physically and mentally. Several times these issues were amicably settled up
by the local people. The complainant also alleged that the husband of the
deceased is a central government employee and used to stay outside the
state. Once when the husband returned back to his house on leave, he
tortured upon the victim and administered poison in her mouth and she was
admitted to G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala. The complainant alleged that since
for the last ten years the FIR named accused Akhil Das subjected to cruelty
to the victim both physically and mentally. On 07.04.2017 at about 0600 hrs.
the complainant came to know from his son Uttam Das that his daughter is
no more alive. Accordingly, the complainant along with others visited the
house of Manik Das i.e. the rented house of his deceased daughter and
found his daughter in hanging condition with some blood stain in her face
and nose. The complainant alleged that accused Akhil Das murdered his
daughter and after murder, he hanged her body and he committed this
heinous offence due to the abatement of his brother Apurba Das.
5. On receipt of the said complaint, TLM P.S. Case
No.2017/TLM/0012 dated 07.04.2017 under Section 498(A)/302/109 of the
IPC was registered and thereafter, the case was endorsed to SI Mangesh
Patrai for its investigation. In course of his investigation, IO visited P.O.,
prepared hand sketch map with separate index, recorded statement of the
available witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., arrested FIR named
accused person Akhil Das, collected postmortem examination report and
State Forensic Science Laboratory report from the said laboratory and finally,
on completion of his investigation, as he found a prima facie case against the
accused persons filed charge-sheet vide Teliamura P.S. charge-sheet
No.60/17, dated 30.11.2017, under Section 498(A)/302 of the IPC against
the accused namely Akhil Das and under Section 498 (A)/302/109 against the
another namely Apurba Das.
6. On receipt of the charge-sheet the then SDJM, Khowai took
cognizance of offence under Section 498(A)/302 of the IPC. Attendance of
both the accused persons were procured and the case record was committed
to this court since this is a sessions trial case. On 27.04.2018 this court
received the case record from the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, West
Tripura, Khowai. Thereafter, charge was framed against both the accused
persons for the offence committed under Section 498A/302 read with Section
34 of the IPC explaining the contents of charge to the accused persons
translating the same in Bengali to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Accordingly, to prove the case from the prosecution adduced as
many as 22(twenty two) witnesses and are examined in this case who are
also duly tested by cross-examination by the defence.
7. After completion of evidence of prosecution side, accused
persons were examined under the provision of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and
they adduced evidence in their defence by producing four numbers of
witnesses.
8. The court below has framed the following points for
determination :
(I) Whether the present accused persons being husband and
brother-in-law of deceased Sima Das subjected her to cruelty
both mentally and physically ?
(II) Whether on 07.04.2017 at any point of time before 0600
hours at Gauranga Tilla under TLM P.S. accused Akhil Das
intentionally committed murder of the victim Sima Das and
Apurba Das instigated Akhil to do the same ?
9. After examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as
well as the defence witnesses the trial court finds that though the
prosecution has able to prove their case against accused Akhil Das but the
evidence on record are not sufficient to come to a conclusion that accused
Apurba Das was instigated Akhil Das and thereby committed any offence as
charged against him. Hence, the present appeal.
10. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has emphasizes that it is a case of suicide but it is not the case of
homicide.
11. On the contrary, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for
the state has stated that the medical evidence is not a conclusive proof in the
present case but it has been corroborated by the statement of the land lady
and the minor daughter that the accused was present in the hut. He has
further submitted that the corroboration, the last seen together, the special
knowledge is the case of the prosecution.
12. PW-2 being the owner of the premises and PW-9 the wife of
the owner of the land where the accused person was residing along with his
family. PW-13, the daughter of the accused has deposed before the court
that there is a variation and improved version appeared in the statement
recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Even Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement which
was recorded on 21.04.2017 was after so many days when the FIR of the
cause of action has taken place on 06.04.2017 and the FIR has been issued
on 07.04.2017. PW-2 and PW-9 in their cross-examination has specifically
agreed that they have not indicated regarding most of the statements. Their
attention has been drawn in 161 Cr.P.C. statement before the police officer.
This is only the evidence of PW-2 and PW-9 including PW-13 made before
the court, which is an improved version.
13. In so far as the medical evidence of PW-21 who has conducted
the postmortem examination is inexperienced and has no special knowledge
in forensic segments and even the medical evidence has not been
categorically confirmed with regard to the death of the deceased. The mere
presence of the accused persons and the last seen of offence along with the
child in the hut with the deceased woman (wife) in a hanging position cannot
draw an inference and the circumstantial evidence cannot be connected that
the husband has killed the wife. It is needless to observe that in a family the
wife, the husband and the child who stays under one roof, any conjugal
relation is obvious amongst the couple. Since it has not been proved who
had killed the wife, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
14. In view of the above discussion, we feel that the prosecution
has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
person.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. As consequence
thereof, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 is set aside and
quashed. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sabyasachi B
