Tripura High Court

Sri Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy vs The State Of Tripura on 8 July, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                    Page 1 of 12




                            HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
                              Crl. A(J) No. 24 of 2024
Sri Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy, son of Sri Chayamani Tripura, resident
of village- Desharai Para, P.S. Raishyabari, District: Dhalai Tripura.

                                                             .....Appellant

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

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)              :          Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing and
delivery of judgment and order :          08.07.2025
Whether fit for reporting      :          YES/NO


                        JUDGMENT & ORDER[ORAL]
[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]

Heard Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. R. Saha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State.

[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-374(2) of Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, Tripura, in connection with case No.ST(Type-1) 06 of 2020 convicting the accused-appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section- 302 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence and in default to suffer RI for six months. Further, sentenced to suffer RI for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section-326 of the IPC and also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for a further period of six months.

[3] The factual backdrop of this case is that one Shri Hemanta Tripura, Son of Shri Brajendra Tripura of Desharai Para, PS-Raishyabari, District- Dhalai Tripura, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, lodged an oral ejahar with the Officer-in-charge of Raishyabari police station to the effect that on 22.09.2019 at about 02:00 pm the daughter of complainant Miss Shiyari Tripura aged about 12 years, along with her two friends namely, Miss Jinesh Tripura aged about 9 years, daughter of Shri Petusa Tripura of Desharai Para and Master Kakrachan Tripura aged about 9 years, son of Shri Jyoti Ranjan Tripura of Desharai Para went to Potacherra near Desharai Para for collection of bamboo shoots from adjacent jungle area. Thereafter, accused Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy, son of Shri Chayamani Tripura of Desharai Para suddenly arrived there and attacked and assaulted Miss Shiyari Tripura, Miss Jinesh Tripura and Master Kakrachan Tripura in the jungle with a sharp cutting weapon, i.e., a „Dao‟ and giving repeated blows with the said „Dao‟ with intent to kill them.

[4] As a result, Miss Shiyari Tripura, Miss Jinesh Tripura and Master Kakrachan Tripura suffered grievous bleeding injuries on their person and Miss Jinesh Tripura and Master Kakrachan Tripura somehow managed to rescue themselves and flee away from the spot and informed the matter to the complainant, who is the father of Shiyari Tripura (now deceased). Accordingly, the complainant and his family members went to the jungle and found the dead body of Miss Shiyari Tripura with bleeding injury on her body.

[5] On the basis of the FIR, police took up investigation and on completion f the investigation, police filed charge sheet on 18.03.2020 against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sections- 302/376 of IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Dhalai Tripura for trial and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhalai Tripura framed charge under Sections-302/376 of IPC against the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[6] To prove the charge, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and the accused person was examined under Section-164(5) of Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating circumstances that surfaced against him in the evidence on record. His plea is of total denial and false implication. However, he declined to adduce any witness on his defence.

[7] Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the material evidence on record, the learned Court below has observed as under:

"7. Thus, considering all the state of affairs and the facts and circumstances of this case and the seriousness of the offences as discussed above, this court sentenced the convict Shri Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy, Son of Shri Chayamani Tripura of Desharai Para, PS- Raishyabari, District- Dhalai, Tripura (Present address- Vill- Ratan Nagar, PSRaishyabari, District- Dhalai, Tripura) to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousands) for the said offence and in default of payment of such fine he is liable to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 6 (six) months.

8. This court also sentenced the convict Shri Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands) only for the said offence and in default of payment of such fine he is liable to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 6 (six) months.

9. 10. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Upon realization of fine of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/will be paid to Shri Hemanta Tripura (PW-1), father of the deceased Shiyari. Tripura. Another Rs. 10,000/- will be equally distributed amongst the victims Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) through their guardians.

11. From the case record it is revealed that convict Shri Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy, Son of Shri Chayamani Tripura of Desharai Para, PS- Raishyabari, District- Dhalai, Tripura (Present address- Vill- Ratan Nagar, PS- Raishyabari, District- Dhalai, Tripura) was in custody from 2001-2020 to 15- 07-2020 i.e. the convict already underwent 177 (one hundred seventy seven) days during the investigation and trial of this case, so the period of detention already underwent by the convict be set off against his term of imprisonment imposed under this Judgment and order of conviction as per the provision of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

12. Thus, this case is disposed of on conviction and on contest.

13. Seized alamat, if any, be disposed of after expiry of the period of appeal.

14. Send a copy of this judgment to the District Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Dhalai with regard to take necessary steps for the compensation that may be paid to Shri Hemanta Tripura (PW-1), father of the deceased Shiyari Tripura and to the victims Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) through their guardians."

[8] The appellant herein, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, has preferred this appeal before this Court for ends of justice.

[9] Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the evidences as adduced by the prosecution do not constitute any offence punishable under Section-302 and 326 of IPC and prima facie charge could have been framed against the accused-appellant and as such, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is liable to be set aside.

[10] It has been contended that PW-1 in his deposition has deposed that he lodged one oral complaint against the present appellant to a police officer who reduce oral complaint into writing but in cross-examination, the witness specifically stated that police personal did not record the oral complaint thoroughly as per version of the witnesses and also did not read the total ejahar recorded by the police personal. Further, prosecution witness No.1 stated in his cross examination that he did not state the nick name of any other name of the assailants while recording oral ejahar and the police personal recorded the statement as per dictation of Brajen Tripura and has also not been examined during the course of investigation.

[11] PW-2 in her statement has stated that during recording her statement under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. she never stated that the present appellant involved in this case. PW-3 in her statement has stated that the appellant suddenly appeared at jungle with a Dao and gave blows on the neck of Shyari Tripura but in the cross examination not specifically stated the same that the appellant assaulted indiscriminately with the said Dao.

[12] PW-4 & 5 in their cross examination specifically stated that they did not see appellant to kill their niece with their own eyes and in her statement she specifically stated that they heard the incident from one Jinesh Tripura and Master Kakrasan Tripura. The accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case and there is no evidence towards the identification of the accused. Further, in the instant case there is no eye- witness to the occurrence. Hence, there is no evidence to link the present

accused with alleged crime. Therefore, accused-appellant is completely innocent and deserves acquittal.

[13] It has been further stated that most of the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and naturally they are interested witnesses in the prosecution case. So, their evidence needs to be scrutinized very carefully and without having any cogent and material corroboration, this court should not reach to any conclusion which may cause serious miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the accused person contended that there is no independent witnesses in this case and there are various discrepancies inherent in the prosecution evidence. Hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused person.

[14] Mr. R. Saha, learned Addl. PP submitted before this court that the evidence of the witnesses is synchronized and very much trustworthy and furthermore there is no missing link in the act from the very inception to the end. It has been further submitted that evidence of all the witnesses have corroborated with one another and the evidence of the witnesses has strengthened the case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to rebut the evidence of the witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. Accused person do not deserve any sympathy and he is not entitled to get any benefit under any beneficial legislation.

[15] The accused person committed a heinous crime like murder of a girl aged about 12 years and attempt to murder of two children aged about 9 years and thus the mens rea of committing the crime by the accused person is very much clear in this case. Hence, he deserve to be handled very carefully to protect the society. Learned Addl. P.P. further added that in this case the chain of circumstances is interlinked and the evidence against the accused person is like a fabric intermingled by threads and it left no iota of doubt of the commission of the crime by the accused person and finally argued that the their case is proved beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt and thereby the accused person deserve an order of conviction and consequential exemplary punishment.
[16] Mr. Saha, learned Addl. P.P. in support of his case has placed his reliance on a decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Goverdhan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 378, wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"82. Even assuming that the seizure of the weapons was effected without meticulously following the procedures and thus doubtful, in the view of the medical evidence which clearly showed that the deceased died because of the injuries caused by sharp weapon which was seen by a direct eye witness, namely, Lata Bai (PW-10), in our opinion, it would not prejudice the prosecution case. The doctor (PW-1) who examined the victim testified that he examined the weapons of crime on 29.9.2001 which were brought to him by the police in a sealed packet and he opined that the injuries no. (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) may be caused by the sharp edge of an axe and injuries no. (i), (vi), (viii) and (ix) may be caused by the iron pipe. There was no cross examination of this witness PW-1 by the defence on this crucial medical evidence. Thus, this medical opinion remained unshaken, which supports the prosecution case and evidence of Lata Bai, PW-10.

83. It is now well settled that non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses as held in Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188, wherein it was observed as follows:

"12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the firearm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is doubtful and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. At the most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non. PW 1 and PW 2, as observed hereinabove, are reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated that A-1 Rakesh fired from the gun and the deceased sustained injury. The injury by the gun has been established and proved from the medical evidence and the deposition of Dr Santosh Kumar, PW 5. Injury 1 is by gunshot. Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 -- eyewitnesses who witnessed the shooting. It has no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 that A-1 shot deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by bullet in the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW 2 and PW 5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report shows that the bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW 1 and PW 2.

(emphasis added)

84. In this context one may also refer to the decision of this Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291 in which it was observed that the testimony of the police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. It was held that,

"8. Shri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in the absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the

appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. .........................."

(emphasis added)

85. Thus, we do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of the police/I.O. (PW-15).

86. It is to be noted that the plea of the defence is of total denial. The appellants also claimed complete ignorance of the incident. They have taken the plea that they were not in the village during the time of the incident and had gone on 22.9.2001 to another place at Nayapara, to attend the housewarming ceremony of one Champa Lal Sahu on 23.09.2001 and returned only in the evening of 23.09.2001. However, the defence did not lead any evidence about the plea of alibi. The appellants also sought to put the blame of assault to Ramesh Kumar Verma, PW-9 which miserably failed. They also took the plea that the prosecution witnesses, more particularly PW-10, were coerced by the police to falsely implicate the accused in support of which the appellants had adduced two defence witnesses. However, we find their evidence unconvincing as also held by the High Court."

[17] In view of above and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the observations made by the learned Court below, for a definite conclusion, let us revisit the material evidence once again. It reveals on scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses that the defence case is nothing but the denial of the entire prosecution evidence. No strong and credible specific case could be made out on behalf of the defence to rebut the prosecution case. Some omissions and exaggerations are found in the evidence of the witnesses but such omissions and exaggerations also failed to shake the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and these omissions and inconsistencies are also not material and are incidental. We cannot become oblivious of the fact that capacity of a person to observe a fact and retain the same in his memory and reproduce the same differs from another. In the process of reproducing the facts from memory there may be some incidental variations which do not go to the root of the main fact.

[18] In the present case, the PW-1 (complainant Shri Hemanta Tripura) in his evidence categorically stated that on the fateful day of

incident, his daughter Shiyari Tripura along with Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-

2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) went to a nearby jungle at Potacherra near Desharai Para to collect bamboo shoots and in the evening Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) rushed to the house of the PW-1 and reported that accused Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy suddenly attacked and assaulted his daughter Shiyari Tripura and murdered her by cutting her throat with a „Dao‟. At that time, PW-1 also found cut injuries in the person of Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3).

[19] Thereafter, PW-1 along with his wife and other family members went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of his daughter Shiyari Tripura lying in the jungle inside a drain covered with bushes. Subsequently, police personnel of Raishybari Police Station rushed to the spot and removed the dead body to Gandacherra Sub-Divisional Hospital for post-mortem examination. The evidence of PW-1 is consistent with the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-10). The defence could not shake the credibility of PW-1 in any way. Furthermore, as noted above the eye witnesses PW-2 (Miss Jinesh Tripura) and PW-3 (Master Kakrachan Tripura) have also supported the version of PW-1 and they categorically stated in their evidence that while they along with deceased Shiyari Tripura went to a nearby jungle at Potacherra near Desharai Para for collection of bamboo shoots, accused Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy suddenly arrived there and attacked and assaulted indiscriminately to all of them with a sharp cutting weapon (Dao) and the Shiyari Tripura succumbed to her injuries on the spot and PW-2 received severe cut injuries on her left shoulder and PW- 3 received severe cut injuries on his neck and left shoulder joint, but somehow PW-2 and PW-3 managed to flee away from the spot and informed the matter to PW-1 (complainant) and subsequently, they were removed to Hospital for treatment.

[20] The defence also could not shake the credibility of said witnesses by way of cross-examination. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is crystal clear to this court that it is the accused

Sefaljoy Tripura @ Shipaljoy who attacked and assaulted the Shiyari Tripura, Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) with a „Dao‟ and thereby, Shiyari Tripura sustained severe injuries and she succumbed to her injuries on the spot and Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) received severe cut injuries on her left shoulder and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) received severe cut injuries on his neck and left shoulder joint.

[21] The sequence of events and the injuries do not exclude the defence version. It is a settled law that the defence needs to only establish its case based on probability, whereas the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable shadow of doubt. Though the defence tried to establish that the accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case and accused is completely innocent but the defence has failed to do so. The defence neither adduced any defence witness nor could shake the credibility of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 or any other prosecution witnesses. It is settled law that only giving blunt suggestions is not sufficient. The said facts are required to be proved by adducing positive evidence. In this case, as pointed out above the defence only gave some blunt suggestion but did not adduce any evidence to prove those facts.

[22] On the other hand, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are supported by medical evidence. The prosecution has examined the Medical Officer, i.e., PW-15 (Dr. Sulakshana Mitra) who examined Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) in the AGMC & GBP Hospital. From the evidence of PW-15 (Dr. Sulakshana Mitra) and injury report (Exhibit: P-8) it reveals that a stitched wound over left shoulder joint measuring about 5 cm in length was found over the body of Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) which was grievous in nature and caused by blunt trauma.

[23] On perusal of the injury report (Exhibit: P-7) it also reveals that a deep lacerated injury on occipital region and scalp measuring about 6 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm, small cut injury on left temporo parital region measuring about 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, deep cut injury 1 cm above nape of the neck

measuring 4 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm, another deep cut injury on nape of neck measuring 6 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm, besides a stitched wound 6 cm over left shoulder joint were found over the body of Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-

3) and the patient was advised for NCCT of brain and neck and on perusal of NCCT of brain and neck, found (i) compound elevated fracture involving left parital-occipital bone with interior displacement of fracture fragments,

(ii) acute hemorrhagic contusion with pneumocephalous involving left occipito parital lobe and (iii) fracture of left side laminal process of 2nd cervical vertebra with air attenuated collection which is a sign of surgical emphysema and the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3.

[24] Furthermore, the defence also could not shake the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as the evidence of the witnesses are synchronized and there is no missing link in the chain of circumstances and furthermore, there is no contradiction and or any other defects in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Defence also failed to bring any material and cogent evidence to rebut the credibility of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. No other ground has been raised from the side of defence to disbelieve the prosecution case.

[25] In the instant case, the weapon used is a very serious type of sharp cutting weapon which is justified by the oral evidence of the witnesses inclusive of the victim supported by the evidence of Medical Officers and the injury reports of PW-2 and PW-3 coupled with the Postmortem report of the deceased prepared by the Expert witnesses (PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17). In this case the daughter of complainant succumbed to her injuries on the spot and the injuries sustained by the PW-2 on her left shoulder joint and the injuries sustained by the PW-3 on his neck, left shoulder joint and other parts of his body are also very serious. PW-2 and PW-3 could have died but somehow by the grace of God they could survive.

[26] Furthermore, there is no doubt that the accused had the knowledge that the weapon, he used to assault the deceased is sufficient

enough to cause her death. It is not at all a fact that the accused simply took an attempt and showed the „Dao‟ to the deceased and the witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) to generate fear in their mind. In the instant case, it could be seen that the accused had the specific intention to kill them; otherwise he would not have given repeated blows to the deceased and the witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) indiscriminately.

[27] This Court very carefully examined the circumstances in which the accused attacked and assaulted the deceased Shiyari Tripura, Miss Jinesh Tripura (PW-2) and Master Kakrachan Tripura (PW-3) with a sharp cutting weapon namely, „Dao‟. Considering the fact that the assault was made to the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3 after pre-determination and pre-planning and furthermore, that the accused attacked the deceased Shiyari Tripura in presence of PW-2 and PW-3 while they went to collect bamboo shoots in a nearby jungle at Potacherra for which Shiyari Tripura succumbed to her injuries and PW-2 and PW-3 sustained severe injuries on their body. Accordingly, considering all aspects of this case coupled with the nature of weapon of offence used in the commission of the offence, nature of injuries caused to the Shiyari Tripura (now deceased) for which she succumbed to her injuries. However, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed his reliance on some decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court which have not relevance on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

[28] Here in the case at hand, we have discussed the evidence on record of the prosecution in detail. Now we are to conclude our decision on the basis of material evidence on record. 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 appellant to be disbelieved. The witnesses supported the entire case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence by the appellant herein and furthermore, we find that the statement made by the eye witnesses who are also the victims of the present case thus, there is no necessary for any interference. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the observation made by the learned Court below and thus, the same is affirmed.

[29] In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.
                  B. PALIT, J                                         DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J



A.Ghosh
ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH
            Date: 2025.07.11 16:07:03 +05'30'
 