Tripura High Court
Sri Herenta Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 17 June, 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. 20 of 2024
Sri Herenta 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. B. Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Date of hearing and
delivery of judgment and order : 17.06.2025
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER[ORAL]
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
also heard Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the respondent-State.
[2] This is an appeal filed under Section-374 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in connection
with case No. ST (T/1) 22 of 2021 vide judgment dated 12.01.2022 in which
the learned Court below convicted and sentenced the convict to suffer RI for
one month for an offence punishable under Section-341 of IPC and also
sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section-376(1) of IPC and in default to suffer RI
for two months. The convict is further sentenced to suffer RI for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-302 of
IPC and in default to suffer RI for three months. The convict is also
sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section-201 of IPC and in default to suffer RI for
15 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
[3] The fact of the case in a nutshell, is that, on 05.10.2020 at
around 10 a.m. the victim-wife of the informant went out of her dwelling hut
to collect firewood from the litchi garden of North Hichacharra. But the
victim did not return to her dwelling hut till evening, hence the informant
with his family members started to search the victim and ultimately found
the victim in dead condition under a litchi tree in the litchi garden of North
Hichacharra. Thereafter local people informed police, then police came and
the informant lodged FIR with the O/C, Baikhora P.S.
[4] O/C, Baikhora P.S. registered Baikhora P.S. Case No.
2020/BKR/073 under Section-302 IPC and the case was endorsed to W.S.I.
Ruma Noatia for investigation. The case was investigated and on completion
of investigation, W.S.I. Ruma Noatia filed charge sheet against the accused
Herenta Tripura for commission of offence punishable under Sections-341,
376, 302 and 201 of IPC. Having received the charge sheet, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia took cognizance of offence
punishable under sections 341, 376, 302 and 201 of IPC and the case being
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to this court
for trial.
[5] On commitment of the case to this Court charges against
accused person were framed under Sections-341, 376(1), 302 and 201 of
IPC. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the
accused person, to which, he pleaded not guilty and desired to stand the
trial. In total seventeen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to
prove the charges against the accused person. After the process of recording
the evidence of witnesses so adduced from the side of the prosecution was
concluded, the accused person was subjected to examination as warranted
under Sections-313(1)(b) 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.
[6] Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the material
evidence on record, the learned Court below has observed as under:
"In the result, I find that, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges
framed under Sec.341, 376(1), 302 and 201 of IPC against the accused
Herenta Tripura. Accordingly, accused Sri Herenta Tripura is hereby
convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec.341, 376(1), 302
and 201 of IPC. He is already in custody. Sentence will be pronounced after
the convict on 13.01.2022."
[7] The appellant herein, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the same, has preferred this appeal before this Court for ends of justice.
[8] Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that PW 1 Sri Dhananjoy Tripura stated in his examination in
chief that hi is the informant of the case. On 05.10.2020 his wife went for
collection of wood in the jungle but did not return. He along with local
people started to search and his mother-in-law was also with them. On the
next day they recovered the body of his wife Thuikraoyo Mog in a litchi
garden at Kalshi. They saw the body of his wife and she was dead as well as
there was injury mark on her neck and her tongue was out of her mouth.
After recovery of the dead body of his wife police was informed by local
people and police of Baikhora PS came. Thereafter, he has submitted written
ejahar to police and the ejahar was written and signed by him. In the spot
police prepared inquest report and the son of informant i.e. PW-I Sanjoy
Tripura noticed injury mark on the neck of Herenta Tripura and his son
asked that what is the reason of the injury to which Herenta told that said
injury happened at the time of fishing. After knowing the aforesaid fact from
his son he informed the PS and thereafter, the police arrested the appellant.
[9] PW-3, the son of the informant in his evidence has stated that
on that day his father went for his work. His mother after preparing of food
went for collection of wood in the forest and after completion of work his
father came at 2 pm. It has been stated that she went to forest for collection
of wood and when his mother did not return, his father went to the house of
grandmother for enquire. His father did not find his mother there and
thereafter, his father with the help of the people of the village started to
search his mother. In search, they found the dead body of her mother in the
government Litchi garden at Kalshi. He further stated that accused Herenta
Tripura met with him and he noticed nail mark on his neck to which he
asked him the reason for the nail mark on his neck but he told that at the
time of fishing he got this injury. He also informed about this injury of
Herenta Tripura to his father thereafter his father informed that matter to
police but in his cross-examination he stated that police came at about 6/7
pm on the same day and the house Herenta Tripura is near to his house. He
also stated about an incident of peeping by the accused person during the
bath of his deceased mother but no specific date and time has been
mentioned and he did not state about any meeting or the name of the persons
by whom the aforesaid matter was solved in the locality but the learned
Court below most erroneously convicted the convict appellant after
believing the said portion of evidence on record.
[10] PW 7 Sri. Prachai Mog stated that on 05.10.2020 the wife of
Dhananjoy Tripura went for collection of wood and when she did not return,
he started to search his wife. They started to search her band dead body of
the wife of Dhananjoy Tripura was found in the Government Litchi garden.
Police was informed by the local people; police took the dead body to
Baikhora Hospital. Later on, police team came to the spot with dog squad
and on suspicion police arrested Herenta Tripura and took him to PS and
again came in the night along with accused. At that time Dhananjoy Tripura
called him and he accompanied them to the bank of Kalshi river. Police
team recovered ornaments (golden chain and ring) of the deceased and also
one dao of deceased and a gamcha. But in cross examination this witness
categorically stated that he has not put his signature on the seized items at
the time of seizure which creates a strong doubt about the seizure procedure
and that has not been considered by the learned Court below.
[11] PW-16 Sri. Arghya Saha SDM Santirbazar stated in his
examination in chief that on 06.10.2020 he was posted as SDM Santirbazar,
on that day at 01:30 am SDPO Santirbazar informed him that one murder
was taken place and one accused has been arrested. His team going to
recover the weapon team as he required his presence during the period of as
Baikhora PS where SDPO, OC and IO along with other police personnel
were present accused was also there and the statement of accused was
recorded in his presence. He further stated that accused disclosed before him
that he committed the homicide and he also disclosed that he can point out
the place where the weapon of murder along with other things have been
secretly hidden. He also put his signature on the recorded disclosure
statement of the accused. This witness again stated that after recording the
disclosure statement of the accused person he accompanied police team
along with SDPO and IO and went to the house of accused where certain
jewellery of the deceased were recovered. They also went to the spot where
the gamcha which were used for strangulation of the deceased was
recovered is shown to the witness and deposed that when these were
recovered it was night but he is not sure that whether this gamcha is same
one but the learned Court below without considering all these on fact
convicted the convict appellant. Moreover, the learned Court below also did
not consider the vital fact that the SDM Santirbazar did not state anything
about the independent witness and the procedure adopted during recovery of
articles nor about any special identification marks on the recovered articles
and the most vital thing which the learned Court below over looked that the
SDM has recorded the disclosure statement of the accused at PS and before
recovery of articles as well as prior going at place of occurrence. Apart from
that, it was recorded by police which is barred by Section-24 of the
Evidence Act read with Section-162 of Cr.P.C.
[12] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further
contended that the FIR was lodged after recovery of the dead body and also
after the discussion of the informant with his son. However, the accused has
not been named in the FIR. He further submitted that this creates a doubt on
the case of the prosecution that why the accused was not named in the FIR
and being an innocent person he has been planted at the later stage of
investigation in this case. He submits that accused is an innocent person and
he has been implicated in this case because of the previous enmity between
both the families as the informant has admitted that there was a dispute with
this accused earlier on the false ground that accused used to peep the
deceased at the time of her bathing. So, this admission of the informant
shows that the informant has some ulterior motive to lodge case against this
accused.
[13] The prosecution has examined total seventeen witnesses and
maximum witnesses are official witnesses and the witnesses who are
independent have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits
that PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 have not supported the case of the
prosecution, rather PW-7 has only suspicion against this accused. The
deceased was a married woman, so there was chance that she had sexual
intercourse with her husband and only because of this, the doctor has found
some material of sexual intercourse. But this does not show that this accused
has committed rape upon the deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove
the case by examining any direct witness. But in this case, prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person.
So, the accused should be acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
[14] Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this case is based on the
circumstantial evidence and disclosure made by the accused under Section-
27 of the Evidence Act as well as expert opinion in favour of the
prosecution case. He also submits that although there is no eye witness of
this case but the chain of circumstance which is based upon the disclosure of
the accused is completed and there is corroborative evidence given by the
expert. So, there is no question of doubt in the case of the prosecution. He
further submits that for proving the case the prosecution has examined total
seventeen material witnesses and all the witnesses have supported the case
as per their knowledge and information. He submits that there is no doubt
that the accused person is not the offender of this crime because all the
circumstances shows that only this accused has committed this heinous
crime. So, the accused should be given maximum punishment for giving a
message to the civilized society.
[15] In view of above and having gone through the material
evidence and the finding of the learned Court below, to come to a definite
conclusion, let us revisit the evidence once again.
[16] PW-7, Sri Prachai Mog has also supported the fact that this is
the incident of 05.10.2020. On that day wife of PW-1 went for collection of
wood. When the wife of PW-1 did not return, he started to search her. They
started to search her and dead body of the wife of PW-1 was found in the
Govt. litchi garden. Police was informed by the local people. Police took the
dead body to Baikhora hospital. Later on, police team came with dog squad.
On suspicion police arrested Herenta Tripura and took him to Baikhora PS.
Again police team came in the night along with the accused. At that time,
PW-1 called him. He also accompanied them to the bank of Kalshi river.
Police team recovered ornaments (golden chain and ring) of the deceased
and also one dao of deceased and one gamchha (big size of napkin) on
information of accused Herenta Tripura. He was one of the seizure
witnesses of seized articles which were seized by police on 06.10.2020. He
identified his signature on the seizure list of seizure of ornaments and dao of
the deceased as Exbt.P-3/PW-7. He also identified his signature on the
seizure list of the seized big napkin (gamchha) as Exbt.P-4/PW-7. He
identified ring and chain of the deceased which has been marked as Exbt.
MO (1)/PW-7. He also identified the dao which is marked as Exbt. MO (2) /
PW-7. He also identified the big napkin (gamchha) of accused which is
marked as Exbt.MO(3)/PW-7.
[17] PW-8, Sri Angkeya Mog has also deposed in similar version of
PW-7. He deposed that this is the incident of 05.10.2020. On that day, wife
of the informant (PW-1) went to forest for collection of wood. When she did
not return, he informed them and they all started to search his wife. Her
dead body was found in the Govt. litchi garden. Local people informed
police and police came and took the dead body to Baikhora hospital. At
about 12/12.30 am in the night police came with dog squad at the spot where
the dead body was found. Police arrested the accused Herenta Tripura
seeing nail injury on his neck and body. On 06.10.2020 in the early morning
at about 3 am police came along with accused Herenta Tripura again. Police
team came with the accused at the Kalshi river bank near bamboo garden.
Police seized golden ear ring and golden chain. Police also came at the place
of dead body from where police seized one dao and one gamchha (big
napkin). This witness is also the seizure witness and he identified his
signature on the seizure list of ear rings and chain of the deceased and also
the dao as Exbt.P-3/1/PW-8. He also identified his signature on the seizure
list of the big napkin(gamchha) as Exbt.P-4/1/PW-8. He also identified
Exbt. MO (1) to MO(3).
[18] PW-16, Sri Arghya Saha, SDM, Santirbazar also corroborates
PW-17, the I/O and deposed that on 06.10.2020 he was posted as SDM
Santirbazar. On that day at 1.30 am SDPO. Santirbazar informed him that
one murder has taken place and accused has been arrested. His team is going
to recover the weapon through accused. He requested him to accompany the
team as he required his presence during the period of recovery through the
accused. First of all he went to Baikhora PS where SDPO, O/C and IO along
with other police personnel were present. Accused was also there and the
statement of the accused was recorded in his presence. 10 of the case wrote
the statement of the accused so far he recollects. Accused disclosed before
him that he committed the homicide and he also disclosed that he can point
out the place where the weapon of murder and other things have been
secretly hidden. He also put his signature on the recorded disclosure
statement of the accused which is marked as Exbt.P-17/PW-16. Then he
accompanied the police team along with SDPO and IO and went to the
house of the accused where certain jeweleries of the deceased were
recovered. They also went to the spot where the gamchha (big napkin)
which was used for strangulation of the deceased was recovered. This
witness does not confirm Exbt.MO (3), the gmachha, because when it was
recovered, it was night. He further deposed that he put his signature on the
seizure list prepared by 10 before him. He identified his signature on the
seizure list of the jewelery of deceased which is marked as Exbt.P-
3/2//PW16. He also confirmed the MO(1). He also identified his signature
on the seizure list of gamchha (big napkin) which is marked as Exbt.
4/2/PW-16.
[19] PW-17, the I/O has deposed that on suspicion accused was
detained and brought to the P.S. The accused was interrogated by her in
presence of O/C PS. The accused disclosed that he strangulated the deceased
by gamchha and committed her murder. He disclosed that he took the
ornaments of the deceased. Ornaments were two ear rings (gold) and one
chain (golden). He disclosed that he can show the place where the gamchha
and dao have been hidden. Thereafter, SDM, Santirbazar was called and in
presence of SDM, Santirbazar, disclosure statement of the accused was
prepared on his disclosure. Thereafter, accused was arrested. The
interrogation report of the accused was prepared and signed by PW-17 and
the same is marked as Exbt.P-21/PW-17. Then they went to the spots
(Exbt.P-20/PW-17) accused they went to the spots (Exbt.P-20/PW-17).
They went to the bank of Kalshi river after crossing the river and at the
bank, two ear rings (gold) and one chain (golden) were recovered by
accused in their presence. On direction of the accused they went to Kalshi
litchi garden where accused recovered one gamchha and dao. She prepared
the disclosure statement in presence of witnesses and the same is marked as
Exbt.P-17/1/PW-17. She also prepared the seizure list of articles recovered
by the accused in presence of witnesses. The seizure list is marked as
Exbt.P-3/3/PW-17. The seizure list of gamchha and dao is marked as
Exbt.P-4/3/PW-17. Both the seizure lists were certified by SDM (PW-16).
The SDM also certified the disclosure statement of the accused. Thereafter
the team came to the PS along with the accused.
[20] Therefore, by the above depositions of PWs.7, 8, 16 and 17,
this Court finds that the accused appellant discovered the material objects
which were used in the crime and also the ornaments of the deceased which
he kept hidden after the death of the deceased.
[21] PW-14, Dr. Subhankar Nath, Deputy Director, DNA Typing
Division, SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala during his evidence stated that On
21.10.2020 his Director received one sealed parcel in connection with
Baikhora PS case No.2020/BKR/073 dated 05.10.2020 under Sec. 302 of
IPC which was forwarded by SDPO., Santirbazar, South Tripura. The
Director endorsed the exhibits for examination and opinion. The sealed
parcel contained the following exhibits:- Exhibit-A was dried blood in
gauze, inside which one brown stain gauze piece, contaminate with micro
organism, not properly dry preserved, said to be the blood in dry gauze of
the deceased and Exhibit-B in the laboratory, these were marked Exbt.B/1
and B/2. B/1, high vaginal swab of deceased. B/2, low vaginal swab of the
deceased. Exhibit-C one green colour chaya having mud like stain at various
places, said to be the one deep green colour chaya of the deceased. Exhibit-
D one green colour pachra having pink colour border at two edge bearing
mud like stain, said to be one pink colour and deep green colour pachra of
deceased. Exhibit-P, blood dried gauze with dark brown stain gauze piece,
said to the blood of dry gauze of accused Herenta Tripura. Exhibit-Q,
prepusal swab and coronal swab and in the laboratory, they were marked as
Q1 and Q2 respectively. Q1 penile swab of accused Herenta Tripura which
does not bear any blood or semen like visible stain and Q2 coronal swab of
accused Herenta Tripura and it does not bear any blood or semen like visible
stain. The exhibits marked-A, B1, B2, C, D, P, Q1 and Q2 were examined
by visual examination under different light sources, Tetramethyl
Benzidine(TMB) tešt, Phenolphthalein Test and Takayama test for detection
of blood. The exhibits B1, B2, C, D, Q1 and Q2 were examined by visual
examination under different light sources, Acid phosphate and Microscopic
examination for detection of seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin.
Blood stain was not detected in the exhibits marked B1, B2, C, D, Q1 and
Q2.
[22] Blood stain was detected in the exhibits marked A and P.
Seminal stain/spermatozoa of human original was not detected in the
exhibits marked Q1 and Q2. Seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin
were detected in the exhibits marked B1, B2, C and D. A portion of blood
stained gauze of Exhibit-A (source: blood in dry gauze of deceased). The
semen stained cotton piece of Exhibit-B1 (source: high vaginal swab of
deceased), Exhibit-B2( source: low vaginal swab of deceased), semen
stained cloth piece of Exhibit-C (source: one deep green colour chaya of V),
Exhibit-D (source: pink colour and deep green colour panchra of V) and a
portion of blood stain gauze of Exhibit-P (source: blood in dry gauze of
accused Herenta Tripura) were subjected for DNA isolation by organic
extraction method.
[23] DNA recovered from the above-mentioned exhibits was
subjected to multiplex PCR reaction for co-amplification of the 15 STR loci
and Amelogenin using AmpF/STR Identifiler Plus TM PCR amplification
kit. The amplified products along with controls were run on the Automated
DNA Sequencer. The sizing of the fragments was carried out using Gene
Mapper ID software V3.2 with respect of Gene Scan 500 LIZ size standard.
The resultant allelic distribution for the studied loci in the different exhibits
is shown in the table of Annexure-A. No alleles has been amplified for
exhibit-A (source: blood in dry gauze of deceased) except amelogenin,
indicative of human female origin. (2) Male genetic profile was generated
for exhibit-B1 (source: high vaginal swab of deceased). (3) Partial male
genetic profile was generated for exhiba-B2 (source: low vaginal swab of
deceased). (4) No alleles has been amplified for exhibit-C (source: one deep
green colour chaya of deceased) except amelogenin, indicative of human
male origin. (5) Only four alleles namely, D21511, THOI, VWA. TPOX and
amelogenin were amplified fer exhibit-D (source: pink colour and deep
green colour pachra of deceased) indicative of human male origin. (6) Male
genetic profile was generated for exhibit-P (source: blood in dry gauze of
accused Herenta Tripura). (7) The alleles of the amplified loci of DNA
profile of exhibit-B1 (source: high vaginal swab of deceased) matches with
the alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of blood sample of exhibit-P
(source: blood in dry gauze of accused Herenta Tripura). On the basis of the
above observations he concluded that the semen stain detected in the
exhibit-B1 (source: high vaginal swab of deceased) originated from single
source of exhibit-P (source: blood in dry gauze of accused Herenta Tripura).
He also proved the report along with the forwarding which has been marked
as Exhibit-P-15/PW-14 as a whole.
[24] There is evidence of recent vaginal penetration. PW-13 also
find recent vaginal penetration in his examination and finally, on the basis of
the SFSL report opined that the semen stain detected in Exbt. D/1, source as
high vaginal swab of the deceased, originated from the single source of
Exbt.P, the source blood in dry gauge of accused Herenta Tripura.
[25] Hence, this Court finds that the accused appellant wrongfully
restrained the deceased in the forest when she was collecting firewood and
thereafter he committed rape forcefully and murdered her by strangulating
using gamchha to screen himself and took her ornaments, gamcha and dao
and secretly hidden these articles also to screen himself from legal
punishment. But ultimately those articles were recovered as per his
disclosure. This Court finds that the prosecution has proved all the charges
framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the
prosecution has successfully discharged the bounded duty of establishing the
fundamental facts against the accused. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has placed reliance on some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in support of his case but these are irrelevant to the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
[26] 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. Consequently,
we find no reason to interfere with the observation made by the learned
Court below and thus, the same is affirmed.
[27] 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 T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A.Ghosh
ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH
Date: 2025.06.25 13:46:25 +05'30'
