Sachi Ranjan Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 962 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sachi Ranjan Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 24 February, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA

                            Crl. A. (J) No.7 of 2025

Sachi Ranjan Tripura,
S/o Matilal Tripura, resident of Chapaliaroazapara, PS- Dhumchhera,
District - Dhalai, Tripura.

                                                             ......Appellant(s);
                            VERSUS
The State of Tripura
To be represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Hon'ble High
Court of Tripura, Agartala.
                                                   ......Respondent(s);


For Appellant(s)                 : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Legal Aid Counsel.
For Respondent(s)                : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment and Order              : 24.02.2026.
Whether fit for reporting        : NO.

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

[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]

This present appeal is filed under Section-374(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 24.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in connection with Sessions

Trial 24(NT/K) of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been

convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457/302 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for life for the

commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with fine of

Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with default stipulation as well as to suffer

RI for 1(one) year for the commission of offence punishable under Section

457 of IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) with default

stipulation. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

[2] Facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 19.07.2013 in

the evening, while Matakanya Tripura along with her husband, Annalal

Tripura & their minor child were sleeping inside their living hut at

Chapalaiaroaza Para under Dhumachhera PS, the accused, Sachi Ranjan

Tripura, i.e. the appellant herein, entered into the living hut, and by a dao,

inflicted a few blows on the head and face of Annalal Tripura who was lying

on a cot. The accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura was identified by the light of a

kerosene lamp burning inside his living hut. Accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura

had a red clolour T-shirt and one half pant as his wearing apparels.

Matakanya, the wife of deceased Annalal, out of fear took shelter in the

house of Purnalata Tripura when the accused left the PO. These

statements of Matakanya Tripura were reduced into writing on the

intervening night of 19.07.2013 & 20.07.2013 at around 01:00 AM by

Inspector Surasen Tripura, who proceeded to the PO after receiving

information over telephone. This oral complaint of Matakanya Tripura,

reduced into writing by Inspr. Surasen Tripura was treated as FIR vide

Dhumachhera PS Case No. 03/2013 under Section 457/302 of IPC. As

such, criminal law was set into motion. Thereafter, the investigation was

started and after full-fledged investigation the I.O submitted charge sheet

against the accused, Sachi Ranjan Tripura for commission of offence

punishable under Section 457/302 of IPC

[3] After that, considering the materials on record charge under

Section-457/302 of IPC, was framed against the convicted appellant

namely, Sachi Ranjan Tripura, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. In order to prove the charges framed against the convicted

appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 27(twenty seven)

witnesses and exhibited several other evidences in the form of documents

as well as material objects were also adduced by the prosecution starting

from Exbt.-1 to Exbt.-13/1 and after closure of the prosecution evidence,

the convict accused person was examined by the trial Court under Section

313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied to adduce evidence in

self-defence.

[4] Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and after

perusal of the prosecution witnesses the learned Court below convicted the

appellant and thereby sentenced him to suffer as stated supra.

[5] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District,

Kailashahar, vide No. Sessions Trial 24 (NT/K) of 2014, the appellant

preferred this present appeal.

[6] Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattachrjee, learned legal aid counsel

appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

[7] Learned legal aid counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattachrjee, submits

before this Court that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the

evidence judiciously and as a result thereof, there has been totally

misinterpretation and misreading of the evidence on record. The findings of

the learned trial Court to the effect that, the appellant has committed

offence punishable under Sections 457/302 of IPC is based on surmise and

conjecture and as such, it is liable to be interfered with. During argument,

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned legal aid counsel submitted that the appellant is

in jail for about 13 years and moreover, he committed the offence out of

provocation and on that ground learned legal aid counsel has prayed before

this Court for conversion of conviction under Section 302 of IPC to Section

304 Part II of IPC. Learned legal aid counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee, also

submits that there had been disputes between the deceased Annalal

Tripura and the accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura over the issue of some

properties for a long time and most often they used to take up quarrel.

[8] On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

various injuries were discovered upon examining the deceased's body,

including a deep (chop) wound on the face beneath the forehead,

numerous cuts on the scalp, and multiple wounds on the orbit and central

region of the scalp. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that there

was no sudden provocation because the accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura

entered the hut with a dao in his hand and randomly struck deceased

Annalal's head and face while he, his wife and their young child were lying

on a cot inside their living hut. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that

the sentence passed by the Court below is just and proper and needs no

further interference, and as such, the appeal needs to be dismissed.

[9] Though there are evidences of many witnesses examined

during the trial of the case but this Court is considering only the evidences

of key witnesses for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

(i) PW12, Matakanya Tripura, wife of the deceased, deposed that

on 19.07.2013 while she along with her husband Annalal and two years old

minor child were lying on a cot inside their living hut at night, the elder

brother of her husband i.e. the accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura entered into

their hut with a dao in his hand and indiscriminately inflicted quite a few

blows on the head and face of deceased Annalal Tripura. At that time, a

kerosene lamp was buring inside the hut. Accused Sachi Ranjan had a red

colour T-shirt and one half pant as his wearing apparels. After that, out of

fear neither PW12 tried to resist Sachi Ranjan nor did she look at the

injuries sustained by her husband, Annalal. She only raised alarm after the

accused Sachi Ranjan left the PO and went to the house of Sudhuishya

Tripura, PW1 and informed the incident. By this time somebody informed

police and the police arrived in their house and immediate thereafter local

people also arrived in their house. She lodged oral information to police

officer in her house. The police officer reduced it into writing. Police shifted

the dead body to hospital. On the following afternoon the dead body was

again brought to her house from hospital. PW 12 also deposed that over

the issue of some properties, my husband and Sachi Ranjan were at logger

heads and repeated quarrels were also going on over the issue of some

properties.

Being confronted with cross-examination, PW12 deposed as

under:

"At the time of occurrence we were inside the living hut but did not take sleep. I did not state to the Magistrate that at the time of occurrence we had been sleeping. It is not a fact that my husband used to suspect my chastity. It is not a fact that our conjugal relationship was strained. It is not a fact that the dao that is the weapon of offence, is our family property. It is not a fact that I killed husband by this dao. Purnalata Tripura is my nearest neighbour. It is not a fact that I did not inform anything Purnalata, Sudeshya regarding the incident. It is not a fact that no lamp was burning inside my hut at that time. It is not a fact that Sachiranjan did not kill my husband. It is not a fact that I found Sachiranjan in the P.S. and as tutored by police I have identified his wearing apparels. It is not a fact that since I killed my husband I did not notice that injuries

sustained by my husband. It is not a fact that my husband had no enmity with Sachiranjan."

(ii) PW15, Dr. Soubhik Debbarma, being the Medical Officer,

Manu CHC, deposed that on 20.07.2013 one dead body of Annalal Tripura

was produced to him and it was identified by the other police personnel.

Then, he conducted P.M. examination on the same day and found one

deep (chop) wound on the face behind the forehead (two in numbers), as

well as multiple cuts and wounds on the scalp (five in numbers), central

area of the scalp and the orbit. Frontal area of few brain matters protruding.

He also deposed that the cause of death was due to homicidal injury

leading to Neurogenic and Hypovolumic shock.

During cross-examination he stated that the P.M. Examination

was done at 12:30 p.m, on 20.07.2013.

(iii) PW17, Sri Surasen Tripura, being the O.C. of Dhumcherra

P.S., deposed that on 19-7-13 at about 2305 hours on receipt of information

that one person was killed at Chapalila, he along with other police

personnel went to the spot and found a dead body of one male person lying

on a cot in the living hut of the deceased with bleeding injuries. There was

no other inmate. They called neighbouring people to help them. They

searched for wife of Annalal and found her available in the house of

Sudeshya Tripura. Matakanya, wife of the deceased gave statement to him

that she took sleep with her husband Annalal with her kid and one kerosine

lamp was lighting inside the hut. At that time accused Sachiranjan entered

into the hut and by a dao inflicted a few cut blows on Annalal. Out of fear

she did not raise alarm and left the house. Then PW17 recorded her

statement as per her version at the PO, and instructed S.I. Dulal Das to

take up investigation in the spot. Thereafter PW17 verbally examined the

witnesses whose statements were recorded by S.I. Dulal Das and found

their statements were correctly recorded. On 03.08.2013 in the morning

PW17 arrested the accused person from the house of Sudeshya Tripura

and brought him to the P.O. The accused divulged that he could bring out

the weapon of offence as he threw it in a paddy land. Now in presence of

local people he brought out the dao from a paddy land but PW17 did not

record any statement in the form of discloser even after recovery of the

dao. PW17 also deposed that he seized the dao in presence of witnesses

by preparing a seizure list. After that, PW17 produced the witness

Matakanya Tripura to the court on 06-8-2013 for recording her statement

and on that day PW17 recorded her statement. During the course of

investigation PW17 collected her judicial statement from the court. PW17

further deposed that on 16-8-13, he received the P.M. report and after that

on17.01.2014, the report of the FSL was received. Thereafter, PW17

seized the C.D. and then a prima facie case was established for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 457/302 IPC, and hence

he filed charge sheet against Sachi Ranjan Tripura on 21-09-2014 .

During cross-examination PW17 deposed as under:

"It is not a fact that the wearing apparels belong to deceased, not of the accused person. It is not a fact that the accused person did not give any discloser statement. It is not a fact that the accused person did not search for the dao. It is not a fact that I seized the dao from the hut of the accused person only to make out a case against him. It is not a fact that Sudeshya Tripura did not inform Jarasindshu that the accused killed Annalal".

(iv) PW24, Sri Subindra Debbarma, deposed that on 17.01.2014

Ripon Debbarma of Dumcherra Police Station handed over one C.D.

cassette to the I.O and the I.O. seized it by preparing the seizure list.

Cross-examination was declined.

(v) PW27, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath, Scientific Officer, Tripura State

Forensic Science Laboratory, deposed that on 17.08.2013 he received a

parcel from the Director, SFSL, Agartala containing Ext.A, (blood sample of

deceased Annalal Tripura), Ext.B (one red colour pachra collected from the

P.O), Ext.C (containing blood stain), Ext.D (one takkal dao), Ext.E

(subsequently marked Ext.E1 and E2 in the laboratory).

Cross-examination was declined.

(vi) PWs 1, 3, 10, 11, 14, 20, and 23 are the witness to whom

PW12, Matakanaya Tripura divulged that accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura in

the evening of 19.07.2013 entered into their living hut with a dao in his hand

and inflicted quite a few cut blows on the face, head and forehead of

Annalal while Annalal was lying on the cot and consequently, Annalal died

instantly.

[10] It is seen from record more particularly, from the impugned

order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the learned Court below in case No.

Sessions Trial 24(NT/K) of 2014 that in the evening of 19-07-2013 PW 12,

Matakanya Tripura, the informant-wife of the deceased, Annalal, rushed to

the house of Purnalata Tripura, PW 23 an divulged him that accused Sachi

Ranjan killed Annalal and they approached the house of PW 1, Sudheshya

Tripura, where Matakanya again divulged to Sudheshya Tripura that when

they were living inside their living hut accused Sachi Ranjan entered into

their living hut with a dao and inflicted cut injuries on the face, head and

forehead of Annalal and killed Annalal while Annalal was lying on a cot.

Now, PW 1 out of apprehension closed the door of his hut and confined

Purnalata and Matakanya inside his hut and requested PW 13, Jarasindhu

Tripura, a panchayat member, to take up the issue with the police when

Jarasindhu Tripura informed the matter over telephone to Sunendu

Chakma, a police person, known to PW 13 and then PW 11 formally lodged

information with Dhumachhera PS and police party accompanied by PW

14, Lalana Tripura, arrived at the PO house at 12.30 p.m and found nobody

present there and approached to the house of PW 1, Sudheshya Tripura,

wherein Matakanya was found available and then Matakanya, Purnalata,

Sudheshya accompanied the police party to the PO house and immediately

Matakanya Tripura divulged to the police party in presence of Lalana

Tripura, PW 14, that accused person entered into their living hut and

inflicted dao blows on the face, head and forehead of her husband, Annalal

and killed him while Annalal was lying on a cot. Thus, these bundle of facts

though not fact in issue but in proximity of time and place are so much

interwoven and formed part of the fact in issue, i.e., accused Sachi Rasnjan

Tripura killed Annalal Tripura in the evening of 19-07-2013 when Annalal

was lying on a cot inside his living hut. Thus, the evidence of PW 12,

Matakanya Tripura, who is a solitary eye witness, has found extremely

reliable corroboration from the circumstantial evidence of these witnesses.

Further, PW 12 has proved that she identified the accused person by the

light of kerosene lamp, which was seized. She also identified the wearing

apparels of accused Sachi Ranjan at the time of the occurrence, i.e., red

coloured T shirt and half pant, which were subsequently seized and proved

by the prosecution. The prosecution has also successfully proved that with

intent to kill Annalala Tripura, accused Sachi Ranjan Tripura entered into

the living hut of Annalal in the evening of 19.07.2013 with a dao in his hand

and inflicted fatal blows on the face, head and forehead of Annalal by the

dao when Annalal was lying on a cot inside the living hut and he was killed

instantly.

[11] This Court has carefully considered the entire evidence on

record, the impugned judgment of conviction & sentence and the

submissions advanced by the learned legal aid counsel for the appellant, as

well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. After

reviewing all of the material on record and the findings made by the Courts

below, we are of the opinion that there was no sudden provocation because

the accused killed the deceased while the deceased was sleeping with his

wife and young child.

[12] Though there are multiple injuries all arising out of only one

single blow, it cannot be said that it attracts Section 304 Part II of IPC i.e.

culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused is entitled for

benefit considering his case under Section 304 Part II of IPC. But, in view of

the bleak relation among the accused and the deceased as they were at

logger heads and repeated quarrels were also going on for property

disputes, considering the said issue, the accused person might have

attacked his brother with a single blow of the dao and the deceased died.

Since pre-planned murder has not been proved and out of heat of anger,

the crime could have taken place, this Court considers the punishment for

accused appellant to be RI for life with all the benefits of remissions to be

extended to the convict under Section 302 IPC and he may be released

thereafter. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of

argument, it is represented on behalf of the appellant that the accused

convict is in jail for the last 13 years. This Court directs the jail authorities to

take a note of this.

[13] With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands

partly allowed and thus, disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

[14]         Send down the LCRs forthwith.


S. Datta Purkayastha, J.                                               Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.




Munna MUNNA SAHA   Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
                   Date: 2026.02.27 17:41:27 +05'30'