Sri Kalam Joy Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 2338 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Kalam Joy Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 7 April, 2026

Author: T.Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                             Page 1




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                      Crl. A. (J) 71/2025
Sri Kalam Joy Tripura, son of late Bhadu Kumar Tripura,
resident of Girachandra Para, P.S. Gandacherra, District- Dhalai,
Tripura, PIN-799284;
                                                 .... Appellant
                             Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat-799010,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura.
                                                  ----Respondent
For the Appellant(s)         :        Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
                                      Mr. S. Saha, Advocate
                                      Mr. U. Das, Advocate
                                      Ms. I. Chakma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)        :        Mr. Raju Datta, PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order        :          07.04.2026
Whether fit for reporting    :        Yes

                          BEFORE
             HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
                          JUDGMENT(ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The appellants, by means of filing the present appeal

have challenged the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence dated 27.03.2024 and 30.03.2024, respectively, passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa,

in connection with case No. S.T.(Type-1) 6 of 2023, whereby the

appellant had been convicted under Section 302 IPC, and

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay

a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation under Section 302

IPC.

Page 2

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, on

31.03.2023, the complainant, Ranajoy Tripura (husband of the

victim) lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of

Gandacherra police station alleging inter alia that on 25.03.2023

in the morning at about 7 a.m. his wife, Brihabala Tripura, went

out of her dwelling hut to a nearby jungle, but when she did not

return home till evening, the complainant searched for his wife in

the nearby jungle, but was not traceable. It was also alleged that

on the next day afternoon, the complainant accompanied by

40/50 nos. of villagers conduced search in the jungle of Raja

Singh Hadok area from where the dead body of his wife was

recovered. It was also alleged that when his wife was entering

into the said jungle, some villagers could see the accused-

appellant to follow the deceased from her back and also they saw

the accused-appellant to come out of the jungle. It was further

alleged that the accused-appellant might have murdered his wife.

4. The complaint thereafter was registered as FIR vide

Gandacherra PS case No. 9 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 under

Section 302 IPC and the same was endorsed for investigation to

PW-32. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the PO,

seized some available materials under seizure lists from the

possession of the accused-appellant in presence of witnesses,

arrested the accused-appellant, recorded the disclosure statement

of the accused-appellant followed by pointing out memorandum.

The I.O. has also recorded statements of the material witnesses,

arranged medical examination of the accused-appellant, collected Page 3

medical evidences, and upon completion of investigation,

submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On

receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the SDJM,

Gandacherra and documents were supplied to the accused. At

commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused

under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to substantiate the charge adduced as

many as 32 witnesses and introduced some documents which

were exhibited by the learned trial court. On closure of the

prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. to which he denied all the allegations and declined to

adduce evidence on his behalf. After completion of recording of

evidences and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the

accused, as stated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal before this

court.

6. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant has submitted that there are substantial contradictions in

the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel has

also submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has not been

properly explained and first part of the FIR is totally different from

deposition of the complainant before the learned Court. He has

also submitted that initially the complainant did not lodge any

missing diary before the police though in his complaint he alleged Page 4

that he wife was missing. Learned counsel has further submitted

that the prosecution case is hit by Section 26 and 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Learned counsel has further questioned the

authenticity of the examination report/SFSL report. Learned

counsel also has raised serious objection to the discrepancies

arose between the complainant, the witnesses, seizure and the

reports. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution

has failed to mention the exact date and time of the alleged

murder of the victim. He has also submitted that from the PO

except some soil, nothing was discovered and the same would

reveal that the appellant has been falsely involved with the alleged

incident. Learned counsel has tried to persuade this court that PWs

1,5,7,8,9,10,11,19 and 30 are hearsay witnesses and their

deposition has no credibility. He has also submitted that PWs

2,4,20 and 28 had been declared hostile by the prosecution.

Showing all the discrepancies therein learned counsel has

submitted that the entire investigation is perfunctory, hence, has

submitted that this is a clear case of acquittal.

7. On the other hand Mr. Datta, learned PP appearing for

the State-respondent has submitted that the presence of the

accused at the scene of occurrence on that fateful date has been

proved beyond reasonable doubt though there is no eye witness.

Mr. Datta, learned Additional PP has submitted that from the

deposition of the witnesses, it is aptly clear that the accused had

entered into the jungle following the victim and had murdered

the victim by strangulation. Learned PP has further submitted

that the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Page 5

Cr.P.C. declined to adduce any witness on his behalf. Further the

disclosure statement of the appellant is taken in police custody in

presence of DCM and the said disclosure statement subsequently

led to discovery. Learned PP has further submitted that the

conviction returned by the learned trial court is based on a

thorough and careful appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidences which is well-reasoned and legally sound and the same

requires no interference.

8. This court has meticulously gone through the case

records, the orders and the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel to the lis, contained therein.

9. To prove the case prosecution has examined as many

as 32 witnesses. Out of those 32 witnesses, PWs 1,5,7,8,9,10,

11,19,30 are hearsay witnesses, but they had conjointly deposed

in trial that from other villagers they had come to learn that the

appellant had followed the victim to the jungle, but none could

establish that the appellant had committed the crime. Further,

PWs- 2, 4, 20, 27, 28 had been declared hostile by the

prosecution. Further, from the post mortem report (Exbt. P/24) it

is evident that no specific mark of ligature has been ascertained

on the neck of the deceased and dissection of neck shows no

fracture of thyroid bone or thyroid cartilage and cause of death

could be due to advanced decomposition and putrification of

whole body which means advanced stage of decomposition.

Further, PW-17, who conducted post mortem examination over

the dead body of the victim also opined that no bruises, abrasion Page 6

or any other injuries were found in the dead body and no specific

mark of ligature could be ascertained on the neck of the dead

body. He also has deposed that there was no trace of common

pesticides or drugs or ethyl alcohol. The evidence of PW-15,

Deputy Director, DNA Department also shows that there was no

possibility to draw any DNA profiling. Thus, medical evidence also

did not support the prosecution case.

10. The disclosure statement of the victim was without

any pressure or coercion, and the same led to discovery of

material i.e. soil. There is no evidence on record to show that

anything material has evolved from testing of the seized soil from

the place of occurrence so as to support the prosecution story.

The manner of recovery and preparation of seizure memos raises

grave doubts about the version of disclosure and recovery put

forth by the prosecution. Also, there is absence of corroboration

in the testimonies of independent prosecution witnesses for

which this Court has doubt with respect to the 'last seen'

circumstance too. The evidence led by the prosecution cannot by

any mean said to be credible, reliable, trustworthy.

10. It is trite law that conviction under Section 302 IPC

shall be set aside when there is no direct eyewitness and the

circumstantial evidence is weak, inconsistent, or fails to form a

complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused. The benefit of

the doubt shall be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case in

hand, on over all appreciation of the evidence available on Page 7

record, this court of the considered view that the prosecution has

miserably failed to proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

As a result, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order of conviction dated 27.03.2024 as well as

sentence recorded by the trial court dated 30.03.2024, is set

aside. The appellant, is hereby, acquitted of the charge for which

he has been tried. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be set

free from incarceration, if not required in any other case.

11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal

stands, allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA,J                DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J






  SAIKAT KAR                  SAIKAT KAR
                              Date: 2026.04.16
                              13:17:45 -04'00'