[Cites 30, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Rupam Das @ Rupan vs The State Of Tripura on 6 January, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 25
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
Crl. A(J) No. 11 of 2021
Sri Rupam Das @ Rupan, son of Sri Gopal Das, village-East Dukli, P.S.
East Agartala, District: West Tripura, PIN-799003.
.....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 S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. N. Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing : 10.12.2025
Date of delivery of
judgment and order : 06.01.2026
Whether fit for reporting : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, 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 of Cr. P.C. against the
judgment and order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. ST (T-I) 55 of 2016 convicting
the appellant under Section-302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to suffer SI for further
one year. Further, convicted the appellant under Section-392 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default to suffer SI for further six months. More so, the appellant was
convicted under Section-201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.
[3] The miniaturized version of the prosecution in short is that on
09.02.2016 at about 1330 hours one Sabita Ghosh, W/O- Radha Mohan
Ghosh aged 55 years of East Dukli under PS East Agartala, West Tripura
laid an FIR to O/C MG Bazar TOP, which was reduced into writing by O/C
MG bazar TOP himself, alleging inter alia that on that day at about 9 am the
informant was present at her residence when she could know through
whispering that one Smt. Gouri Chakraborty, W/O- Dulal Chakraborty of
that area has committed unnatural death. Knowing the fact the informant
immediately rushed to the residence of Dulal Chakraborty and found the
dead body of said Gouri Chakraborty was lying on the floor with bleeding
injury on her person. The informant could perceive that somebody has
committed murder of said Gouri Chakraborty. Later on police came and
started investigation along with dog squad and started thorough searching of
that area and in course of searching on the northern side of rubber garden on
the northern western side of the pond found some sign of fresh blood.
[4] That time police asked one Kajal Banik to search the pond after
getting down on the pond. In course of search by Kajal Banik the dead body
of the son of said Gouri Chakraborty namely, Debabrata Chakraborty was
found with deep neck cut injury on his person. Seeing the dead body of
Debabrata Chakraborty, the informant and the others could perceive that on
the earlier day night somebody with preplan have committed murder of said
Debbabrata Chakraborty and his mother with sharp cutting weapons. Hence,
the informant laid the FIR. As I have already stated the ejahar of the
informant was scribed by OC MG Bazar TOP himself and after receipt of
the same necessary entry was made in the GD Entry book and the same was
forwarded to O/C East Agartala PS and accordingly, O/C East Agartala PS
registered East Agartala PS case No. 09 of 2016 under Sections-302/201 of
IPC and the OC himself took up the investigation of this case as an I.O.
[5] During investigation the IO caused arrest of accused Rupam
Das and Prasenjit Paul and forwarded them before the Court, arranged for
conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased Gouri Chakraborty
and Debabrata Chakraborty, visited PO and prepared hand sketch maps of
the PO with separate indexes (in total ten sheets), seized 7 number blue
colour Hawai Chappal from the pond of one Pradip Sarkar at East Dukli,
seized some blood stained earth, seized one blood stained banana leaf
sample by preparing seizure list on 09.02.2016 at about 1305 hours, seized
one red color gamcha belonging to the deceased on 09.02.2016 at about
1300 hours.
[6] As per instruction of O/C, SI Naro Gopal Deb on 10.02.2016
seized viscera of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty along with liver, spleen,
kidney etc, in separate container, one multi color gamcha which was
wrapped on the neck of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty, one black colour
full track suit belonging to the deceased Debabrata Chakraborty with one
brown colour full sleeve inner (wearing apparel of deceased) by preparing
seizure list at AGMC & GBP Hospital morgue. Further WSI Mamtaj Hasina
on 10.02.2016 at about 1605 hours seized viscera preserved in bottle No. 1,
stomach with contents, small intestine with contents in another bottle, seized
liver section, spleen, kidney etc by the seizure list of Gouri Chakraborty.
The IO further on 18.02.2016 at about 1115 hours in the house of Gopal Das
seized one original ROR in the name of Gopal Das by preparing seizure list.
Conducted search in the house of Babul Borua on 19.02.2016.
[7] On 11.02.2016 the IO also seized one blank wrapper of modern
Dalmoot standing in the name of 'Maran Chandra Saha' for 60 grm packet,
one empty bottle of 2 ltrs. wrapping with Eco fresh sticker, two numbers one
time water glass by preparing seizure list from the pond of Pradip Sarkar as
per identification of Rupam Das. On 13.02.2016 the IO also seized one gold
made bangel, ear ring, one pair bangle, some coins, cash money amounting
to Rs. 1,30,000/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 2000/-, one gold made chain, one pair
Sakha, two pairs of silver made finger ring, one pair Churi, coin Rs.
10,000/- from the house of Dulal Chakraborty in presence of witnesses by
preparing seizure list. On 14.02.2016 the IO from the pond of Dulal
Chakraborty seized one bank (bhar) made of soil containing coins of
different denominations amounting to Rs. 7171/-, one blood stained knife on
14.02.2016 at about 1300 hours from the Kaccha latrine of one Sabita Das,
W/O- Sri Gopal Das of East Dukli by preparing seizure list in presence of
witnesses. Seized one iron made piece (used for sharping tools) with
bamboo made handle by preparing seizure list on 14.02.2016 at about 1345
hours at East Dukli nearby one Bijoy Kutir from the bottom of one Pichli
tree. The IO also on 11.02.2016 from the dwelling hut of one Chitta Ranjan
Paul at about 1610 hours seized one pair sports shoe measuring 7 No. worth
Rs. 750/- mixing with mud. Also seized one pair sports shoe measuring 7
No. belonging to Prasenjit Paul, seized one jeans full pant belonging to
Prasenjit Paul, seized one Pulsar motorbike bearing registration No.
TR01W-4601 by the same seizure list.
[8] On 11.02.2016 at about 1535 hours the IO also seized one full
shirt with white strip having some sign of blood and a trouser with coffee
colour by preparing seizure list belonging to accused Rupam Das from the
house of Sabita Das, W/O- Gopal Das at East Dukli. Released the gold made
ornaments and cash money on execution of Zimma Nama in favour of Dulal
Chakraborty, collected PM examination reports of deceased, report of SFSL,
DNA profile report, collected certificate of videographer regarding
conducting of videography and examined some witnesses and recorded their
statements under Section-161 of Cr.P.C., recorded the disclosure statement
of accused and after completion of investigation the IO being prima facie
satisfied laid charge sheet against accused Rupam Das @ Rupan under
Sections-302/201/34 of IPC with Section-14 of the Foreigners Act and
Section-3 of (Entry into Indian) Passport Act, 1920 and under the same
provisions of law against another accused Gopal Sutradhar showing him as
absconder in the charge sheet. The IO also submitted another prayer before
the Court for discharging accused Prasenjit Paul as during investigation no
incriminating evidence revealed against the said accused.
[9] On receipt of charge sheet learned CJM, West Tripura,
Agartala transferred this case to the court of Learned JM 1st Class, Court
No-1, West Tripura, Agartala who by order dated 09.06.2016 took
cognizance of offence against accused Rupam Das @ Rupan and Sri Gopal
Sutradhar @ Malay @ Hanker under Sections-302/201/34 of IPC with
added Section-14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section-3 of Entry into India
(close Passport Act, 1920) and by order dated 17.02.2016 splitted up this
case under Sections-317(2) of Cr.P.C. and after compliance of the provision
of Section-207 of cr.P.C. Finally committed this case to the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, WestTripura, Agartala for trial of accused Rupam Das.
[10] Learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala after receipt of
the case record transferred this case to the Court of the then learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Court No-3, West Tripura, Agartala for disposal as per law
and thereafter, the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated
10.08.2016 framed charge under Sections-302/392/120(B)/201 of IPC read
with Section-34 of IPC and also under Section-3 of the Passport (Entry Into
India) Act, 1920 and under Section-14 of the Foreigners Act against the
accused Rupam Das @ Rupan and the same was explained to him orally in
Bengali to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[11] During trial prosecution in this case has adduced in total 29
numbers of witnesses and the prosecution also tendered and relied upon
some documentary evidences to prove the charge against the accused which
were marked as exhibits in this case.
[12] Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the material
evidence on record, the learned Court below has observed as under:
"*****6. However, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the
facts and circumstances of the case I would like to impose following
sentences upon the convict Rupam Das @ Rupan. Hence, it is ordered that the
convict Rupam Das @ Rupan shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) in default to
suffer SI for 1 (one) year for commission of offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC. Also I sentenced the convict Rupam Das @ Rupan under Section
392 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and
to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands) in default to suffer SI
for further period of 6 (six) months for commission of offence punishable
under Section 392 of IPC, and Also for commission of offence punishable
under Section 201 of IPC further I sentenced the convict Rupam Das @
Rupan to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) in default to suffer SI for a further
period of 3 (three) months. All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.
7. The convict Rupam Das @ Rupan already was in custody during the period
of investigation and trial w.e.f. 12.02.2016 to 24.10.2017 and w.e.f.
08.06.2018 to till date. So the period of detention undergone by the convict in
custody during the investigation and trial shall be set off from the quantum of
sentence under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
8. A copy of this judgment duly certified be given free of cost to the convict
Rupam Das @ Rupan under Section 363 of Cr.P.C.
9. A copy of this judgment also shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate,
West Tripura, Agartala under Section 365 of Cr.P.C.
10. The Court Inspector, Sadar Police Court be asked to keep all the alamats
of this case for safe custody until further order.
11. But this case shall remain pending against another accused Gopal
Sutradhar who is still absconding. Process has already been issued against
him.
12. This case is thus partly disposed of on contest.*****"
[13] The appellant herein, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the same, has preferred this present appeal before this Court for ends of
justice.
[14] Learned senior counsel appearing for the accused appellant has
submitted that the learned Court below has committed gross error in passing
the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The charge was not framed
according to law causing grave prejudice to the appellant since the charge
did not give sufficient notice to the appellant.
[15] The learned Court failed to appreciate the fact that PW-1,
Smt.Sabita Ghosh, the informant of the case was a hearsay witness and
during her cross examination she admitted that she stated that in her
statement under Section-161 Cr.P.C, it was written that the body of Gouri
Chakraborty was on the floor, as such her evidence should have been
discarded by the learned Court below.
[16] PW-7, Sri Subhajit Sutradhar in his cross examination stated
that another accused of the case namely Prasenjit Paul always used to visit
the house of Debabrata Chakraborty. That from the evidence on record it
would be luminous that it was this Prasenjit Paul, who was the master mind
behind the whole crime, but most unfortunately he was not charge sheeted in
the instant case. PW-13 Sri Debasish Das, the Deputy Collector and
Magistrate in his examination in chief stated that on 14.02.2016 police
recorded the confessional statement of the appellant in the P.S. During his
cross examination the witness admitted that in his presence the dead body
was not searched, as such his statement important regarding leading to
discovery was not admissible. This important point was not considered by
the learned Court blow.
[17] PW-14, Sri Billamangal Sutradhar, neighbour of Dulal
Chakraborty, in his examination in chief stated that accused Rupam Das
took one Knife from him 7/8 before the date of offence. The same knife was
seized from the house of accused Rupam Das by police. He further stated
that when he handed over the knife, it was of full size, but during
identification of the Knife, (Ext M.O.-2) the same was broken from its head.
During cross examination, seeing the seized M.O.2 the witness admitted that
in local tongue the same is also called Kachi. As such there was discrepancy
regarding the seized knife being the weapon of offence, since the seized
knife was different. As such the learned Court below should have discarded
the evidence of this witness.
[18] It has been further contended that PW-15 Dr. Pranab
Choudhury, who was one of the autopsy surgeon during his examination in
chief stated that on receipt of viscera toxicological analysis report, ethyl
alcohol was found in the viscera of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty.
During the whole investigation and trial, prosecution did not throw any light
as to how alcohol was found in his stomach and under what circumstances,
making the Judgment and order of conviction bad in law and liable to be set
aside. PW-20 Sri Sagar Debnath in his examination in chief stated as he was
coming to his house from a fair (mela) at 9.30 PM he saw Prasenjit Paul,
Gopal Sutradhar and Rupam Das were going towards the pond of Pradip
Sarkar with Debabrata Chakraborty. During his cross examination the
witness stated that in his locality there was no street light. During his cross
examination he further admitted that he stated to police that he was going
towards North from Southern side. However in the Court he stated that he
was going from Southern side from North. He further admitted that there is
no path near his house from North to South. That as such it is evident that
the witness was not speaking the truth, making his version doubtful.
[19] PW-21 Sri Chitta Ranjan Paul during his examination in chief
stated that from his house sport shoes, jeans pant and one Pulsar bike was
seized. During cross examination he admitted that there were marks of
blood on the Jeans pant and the said pant belonged to his son Prasenjit Paul.
Despite of aforesaid hard evidence against Sri Prasenjit Paul, most illegally
he was not charge sheeted thereby vitiating the whole trial. PW-22 Sri
Swapan Deb in his examination in chief stated that about one year back the
I.O. seized sports shoes, jeans pant and one Pulsar bike in his presence.
During cross examination the witness admitted that the aforesaid seizure
was made from the house of Chitta Ranjan Paul and the materials belonged
to his son Prasenjit Paul. He further stated during seizure Prasenjit Paul was
in police custody. Despite of such hard evidence, said Prasanjit Paul was not
charge sheeted as an accused in the present case.
[20] The learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that PW-
26 Suman Kumar Chakraborty, in his examination in chief stated that ethyl
alcohol was detected in the viscera of said Debabrata Chakraborty. During
the whole investigation and trial prosecution did not throw any light as to
how alcohol was found in his stomach and under what circumstances,
making the Judgment and order of conviction bad in law and liable to be set
aside. PW-28 Sri Dulal Chakraborty who is the father and husband of the 2
victims, in his examination in chief stated that on 14.02.2016 police seized
one earthen made pot from the possession of appellant Rupam Das. It is
submitted that the pot was in-fact recovered from the pond and not from the
possession of the appellant.
[21] Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel further argued that PW-
29 Sri Satyendra Basu Roy Choudhury, who is the I.O. of the case, in his
cross examination admitted that he did not cite Gopal Das a witness who
purportedly produced the blood stained wearing apparels of Rupam Das
before him making the prosecution case doubtful.
[22] Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in support of his case has placed his reliance on some decisions of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 434, Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2013) 14 SCC 745, Bhim Singh and Another v. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 281, Ashok v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 393, V. K. Mishra and Another v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another and Rahul Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588.
[23] Mr. R. Saha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-
State has submitted that the prosecution in this case has been able to prove
the charge leveled against the accused Rupam Das beyond reasonable doubt
and submitted that the accused by the trend of cross-examination of the
witnesses of the prosecution could not raise any doubt to discard the
evidence on record of the prosecution. Learned Addl. P.P. further submitted
that although in the case at hand there is no direct eye witness of the alleged
occurrence of offence. But from the evidence of PW 20, i.e., only one
solitary witness it is clearly established that prior to the alleged occurrence,
the accused was found with the deceased along with other accused persons
were proceeding towards the pond of Pradip Sarkar from where the dead
body of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty was recovered. The accused by the
trend of cross-examination could not discard that portion of evidence, i.e.,
"last seen together".
[24] Learned Addl. P.P. further submitted that the disclosure
statement of the accused is also very much applicable for decision of this
case and at the instance of the accused the weapon of offence was recovered
by which the crime was committed and the accused himself in presence of
Magistrate (PW-13) and other witnesses stated that he has committed the
crime of murder of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty and Gouri Chakraborty
along with another and thrown the body of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty
at the pond and furthermore at the instance of said accused the seized coins
were recovered from which it is clearly established that with a view to
commit the crime of robbery in the dwelling hut of Dulal Chakraborty (PW-
28) he himself and another absconding accused have committed the crime
and this part of evidence according to learned Addl. P.P. is well proved in
view of the provision provided under Section-27 of the Evidence Act.
[25] Learned Addl. P.P. in course of hearing further submitted that
the report of bloodstained cloth of the accused clearly matches with the
blood of the deceased Debabrata Chakraborty and from the evidence of PW-
25 Subhankar Nath, Deputy Director of SFSL who went to PO after
telephonic information of SP (West) and examined the dead body of the
deceased Gouri Chakraborty and Debabrata Chakraborty and examined the
house of deceased Gouri Chakraborty and in his presence also the dead body
of Debabrata Chakraborty was recovered and the weapon of offence (knife)
was recovered from the Septic tank in the house of accused Rupam Das and
also the earthen pot from where Rs. 7171/- (coins) was recovered and he
examined Exhibits E2, F, G1, G2, G3, G4, L2, O, P, Q, R, S and after DNA
examination he found Exhibit S matches with other exhibits. The accused by
the trend of cross-examination could not raise any doubt or cloud to
disbelieve the evidence of said PW-25 also.
[26] Further according to Learned Addl. P.P. the evidence of PW-26
Mr. Suman Kumar Chakraborty, Deputy Director cum Assistant Chemical
Examiner and PW-27 Dr. Sabyasachi Nath, Senior Scientific Officer of
SFSL are also very much applicable for decision of this case and the
evidence of PW-15 Dr. Pranab Choudhury and two others who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of deceased Gouri Chakraborty and Debabrata
Chakraborty opined that after holding PM examination they came to the
finding that the cause of death in respect of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty
was hemorrhagic shock resulting from injuries present over the neck which
were caused by sharp cutting weapon and in respect of injury No. 1 and 2
they opined that those were fatal and sufficient enough to cause death in
ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively and after
examination of the weapon they also opined that the two numbers of
external injury found on the neck of the deceased as mentioned in the post
mortem report of late Debabrata Chakraborty were possible by the said
weapon (Exhibit MO-2) or similar type of weapon. In respect of another
deceased Gouri Chakraborty after holding PM examination the cause of
death was combined effect of asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation and
head injury caused by impact of blunt force and were homicidal in nature
and those injuries as mentioned in the report were sufficient enough to cause
death in ordinary course of nature individually and as well as collectively
and all the injuries mentioned in the report were ante mortem in nature and
fresh in duration and finally in summing up of argument Learned Addl.P.P.
referred the following citations:
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2006) 10 SCC 681, Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharshtra,
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 637, Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported
in (2008) 11 SCC 425, Kedar Singh and Ors. V. State of Bihar, reported in
AIR 1999 SC 1481, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, reported in (2000) 1
SCC471, Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, represented by Inspector of
Police, Mehbood Ali and Another v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016)
14 SCC 640, Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 745, (2015) 4 SCC 281, (2015) 9 SCC 588 and (2012) 5
SCC 777.
[27] The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 has observed as under:
"22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife
and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before
the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed
in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the
wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is
a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission
of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it
was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the
house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the
relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any
cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of
Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder
of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the
death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give
a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with
absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of
the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime
accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr.
Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed
that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning
and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the
husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he
was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives
showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and
further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the
husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and
accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the
accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v.
Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had
caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen
together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning
through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was
a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter.
The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of
strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot
be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband)
who was the perpetrator of the crime."
[28] In Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharshtra, reported in
(2009) 11 SCC 637, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"8. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of
two decisions of this Court. In 276152 it was noted as follows:
22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the
point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person
other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It
would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was
last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other
persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive
evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen
together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those
cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused
were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of
PW-2."
[29] In Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2008) 11
SCC 425 it has been held that:
"7. In Anwar Hussain v. The State of U.P. and Anr. (AIR 1981 SC 2073) it
was observed that even if there is insufficient light, a witness can identify a
person, with whom he is fairly acquainted or is in intimate terms, from his
voice, gaits, features etc. Therefore, there is nothing to discard the evidence of
PW8 so far as his claim to have recognized the appellant is concerned."
Regarding disclosure statement recorded under Section-27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, in Kedar Singh and Ors. V. State of Bihar, reported in AIR
1999 SC 1481, it has been observed that:
"3. We have gone through the judgment under appeal. We have also gone
through the statement of PW-2, Narayan Singh. The only blemish pointed out
against this eye witness is that situated as he was he could not have witnessed
the occurrence. It has been maintained that it was a dark night and that the
temple whereat an electric bulb of high power was said to be on could not be
enough to identify the assailants. The Courts below have given sufficient
reason to dispel such argument. Examining it again, it is noticeable that the
deceased and PW-2 were within a short distance of each other going on the
pathway when the deceased was surrounded by the accused persons in order
to be assaulted. At that time PW-2 may have been stunned when firing was
resorted to by Tuna Singh and his two acquitted co-accused as it was done at
the spur of the moment. That apart, the act of Shivjee Singh in immobilising
the deceased while lying down and let Kedar Singh chop off his head should
have been an act comparatively slower and by that time, PW-2 could have
gathered his wits and identify the assailants. It has also to be observed that
even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other
means to identify another through the shape of his body, clothes, gait, manner
of walking etc. etc. Identification possible by voice too. That apart, we have
the positive evidence that the temple light was on with the aid of which PW-2
claims to have identified the assailants. It is noteworthy that the occurrence
took place at about 8.00 p.m. a time in the month of September when
normally a place of worship becomes a visiting point. Thus neither can the
presence of PW 2 at the spot be doubted nor can his ability to identify the
assailants be questioned when he was stated to be 50 yards away from the
temple and by the means of the light he could have certainly identified the
assailant, his perception having sharpened. We thus are of the view that he
was rightly believed by the Courts below."
[30] Regarding medical and forensic evidence in Barku Bhavrao
Bhaskar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 745, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:
"8. The circumstances which were examined by the trial Court were
formulated and noted by the High Court, which were five in number. The
circumstances were:
"(i) Rakhi being last seen in the company of the accused.
(ii) Extra-judicial confession of the accused.
(iii) Discovery of the blood stained shirt at the instance of the accused which
bears blood stains of the same group as that of the deceased.
(iv) Discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused.
(v) Motive."
Both the Courts have discussed each one of the circumstances in depth. The
ultimate conclusion was that the circumstances were incapable of being
explained on any other reasonable hypothesis, except that the guilt of the
appellant, were totally inconsistent to draw an inference of innocence of the
appellant.
14. As far as the other circumstance, namely, about the blood stains found on
the clothes of the appellant was concerned, it was contended that though the
blood group found on the clothes of the appellant was „A‟ and that the blood
group of the deceased was also „A‟, it was submitted on behalf of the
appellant that the blood group of the appellant was not tested. While
examining the said contention, the High Court has taken pains to note that
when at the instance of the appellant, his shirt was recovered under Exts.16
and 17 and when the appellant was physically examined, it was found that
there were absolutely no injuries on the body of the appellant and, therefore,
the question of the blood stains from the body of the appellant to get
transmitted to his shirt was ruled out. It was, therefore, held that the blood
stains found on the appellant‟s shirt, considered along with the factum of the
appellant having led the prosecution to discover his blood stained clothes and
the body of the deceased put together, the blood stains found in the shirt of the
appellant, could have been only that of the deceased and none else. The said
conclusion arrived at by the High Court was fully justified and no fault can be
found with the said conclusion. As regards the blood stains found on the shirt
of the appellant, except the ipsi dixit submission made on this aspect, no other
submission was made and there was no valid explanation offered on behalf of
the appellant as to how the blood stains came to be found on his shirt, which
was recovered at his instance, in the presence of the panch witnesses."
[31] In view of overall analysis and having gone through the
observations made by the learned Court below, for coming to a definite
conclusion, let us revisit the evidence once again.
[32] PW-1 Smt. Sabita Ghosh is the informant of this case who laid
the FIR. Before the Court on oath she deposed that on 09.02.2016 she was at
her house when she heard from the people of the locality that wife of Dulal
Chakraborty has been killed. She went to the PO and found the dead body of
Gouri Chakraborty in blooded condition and her body was pull on the blood.
She heard that son of Dulal Chakraborty has also been killed. According to
her on that day dog squad came and some mark of blood found near the
pond of one Pradip Sarkar. After that they proceeded towards the pond
where in the corner of northern western side, she saw the dead body of
Debabrata Chakraborty. She saw cut injury on the front side on the neck of
the deceased Debabrata Chakraborty and seeing the condition of the body
she came to the conclusion that someone has killed them. She made the oral
ejahar before O/C Golbazar Outpost and put her signature on the ejahar. The
witness identified the ejahar with whole contents marked Exhibit 1 as a
whole. She further stated that police prepared the surathal report of Gouri
Chakraborty and she put her signature on the surathal report as witness and
identified her signatures on the surathal report marked Exhibit 2/1 and 2/1A
respectively.
[33] PW 2 Sri Santu Bhattacharjee deposed that Surathal report of
deceased Gouri Chakraborty was prepared in his presence on 09.02.2016
and he put his signature on the surathal report as a witness and identified his
signatures marked exhibit 2/2 and 2/2A. He was declined to cross-examine
by the accused.
[34] PW 4 Sri Kajal Kumar Banik deposed that on the day of
alleged incident he was at his house and on that day he also went to the pond
of Pradip Sarkar in the locality of Thakurbari when police officer called dog
squad. During search in the pond, body of Debabrata Chakraborty was
found with cut injury mark on his neck. As per direction of investigating
officer he brought the dead body of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty from
the pond when Darogababu conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased and identified his signature on the surathal report marked Exhibit
3/2. He further stated the IO of this case has seized some materials on
09.02.2016 by preparing seizure list wherein he put his signature as a
witness. The witness identified his signature on the seizure list dated
09.02.2016 marked Exhibit 4/1.
[35] PW 8 Constable, Dipak Marak deposed that on 09.02.2016 he
was posted at MG Bazar TOP and on that day he brought the body of
Debabrata Chakraborty to the morgue of GB Hospital for PM examination
and after PM examination the body of Debabrata Chakraborty was handed
over to him and he took the viscera articles and report and handed over the
same to the IO of this case at East Agartala PS on 10.02.2016. The witness
identified his signature on the seizure list prepared by IO marked Exhibit
5/1.
[36] PW 10 Constable, Laxmi Rani Debbarma deposed that on
09.02.2016 she was posted at East Agartala Women PS. On that day she
along with constable Shipra Chakraborty brought the dead body of Gouri
Chakraborty to GB morgue for the purpose of holding post mortem
examination. The PM examination was held on 10.02.2016 and the doctor
handed over the viscera to them and thereafter they handed over the viscera
and other articles to SI Mamtaj Hasina who after that prepared the seizure
list and seized the viscera and other articles and obtained the signature of
witness on the seizure list marked as Exhibit 6/2.
[37] PW 11 Rinku Ghosh deposed that on 14.02.2016 he was called
by police and accordingly, he went when so many persons of that locality
were present and he further stated that wife and son of Dulal Chakraborty
were killed. He along with other persons went to the pond of Dulal
Chakraborty along with accused Rupam Das and on the basis of statement
made by Rumpam Das the pond was searched and from the pond one soil
made bank (Bhar) was recovered and from the Bhar a sum of Rs. 7171/- was
seized by police. The coins and notes were taken out from the pond and the
bhar was seized at about 12 pm on 14.02.2016. After that police officer
seized all the coins and notes by preparing seizure list and obtained the
signature of the witness on the seizure list. The witness identified his
signature marked as Exhibit 7/1. The witness further identified the seized
coins marked Exhibit MO-1. He also stated that the seized currency notes
and coins were belonging to Dulal Chakraobrty. He further stated on the
statement of Rupam Das one knife was recovered from the septic tank of
Rupam Das when Rupam Das disclosed before him and other persons that
he killed Debu and his mother by the knife. The knife was 14 inch length.
The knife was also seized by IO by preparing seizure list and the witness
identified his signature on the seizure list marked as Exhibit 8/1 and
identified the seized knife marked Exhibit MO-2. He also stated that
accused Rupam Das informed before him and other persons of that area that
there is one Reta (instrument for sharping the knife) which was also
recovered near by a tree on the information of Rupam Das.
[38] PW 13 Debasis Das deposed that on 14.02.2016 he was posted
in the office of SDM, Sadar as DCM. On that day as per instruction of
SDM, Sadar and requisition of East Agartala PS he went to East Agartala PS
when he saw accused Rupam Das at PS. That day accused Rupam Das
confessed that he committed murder of Gouri Chakraborty and Debabarata
Chakraborty and provided information regarding the disposal of dead body
of Debabrata Chakraborty and also regarding the instruments used in the
commission of offence and also regarding some coins. Further according to
this witness as per information of accused Rupam Das one hand broken
knife was recovered from the septic tank of accused Rupam Das in his
presence and Bhar (Bank) also recovered containing coins in presence of
him and there were total coins of Rs. 7171/-. One Reta also recovered as per
information of Rupam Das. The witness identified his signature on the
seizure list relating to Bhar and coins which is respectively marked as
Exhibit 7/3 and also identified his signature on the seizure list regarding
seizure of knife marked Exhibit 8/3 and further identified his signature on
the seizure list regarding seizure of Reta marked Exhibit 9/3. Further stated
that accused Rupam Das made a confessional statement before him and
identified the confessional statement in two sheets recorded by police
personnel and his signature on the same marked Exhibit 10/1 and 10/2 and
also confirmed Exhibit MO-1, MO-2 and MO-3 and also identified the
accused in the court in the dock.
[39] PW 15 Dr. Pranab Choudhury deposed that on 10.02.2016 he
along with Dr. Ranjit Kr. Das and Dr. Pradipta Narayan Chakraborty
conducted post mortem over the dead body of Debabrata Chakraborty in
connection with East Agartala PS GD entry No. 16 dated 09.02.2016 arising
out of East Agartala PS case No. 09/2016. According to this witness at the
time of conducting PM examination they have found the following injuries
on the person of deceased Debabrata Chakraborty. After holding the post
mortem examination they opined cause of death in this case was
hemorrhagic shock resulting from injuries present over the neck which are
caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 are fatal and sufficient
enough to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as
collectively. The injuries mentioned in the report are ante mortem in nature
and fresh in duration. However, viscera have been preserved to rule out any
concomitant intoxication. Manner of death is homicidal.
[40] The witness further stated that on 16.05.2016 after receipt of
visceral toxicological analysis report No. SFSL 132/16/TOX/52/15/16/2798
dated 28.04.2016 issued by Tripura State Forensic Lab. Govt. of Tripura and
result of chemical analysis, ethyal alcohol has been detected in the vesra of
the deceased. Final opinion there was associated presence of ethyal alcohol
in the viscera. On 16.02.2016 they received two numbers of reports from Sri
S. Basu Ray choudhury O/C of East Agartala PS regarding opinion of the
seized weapon. After examination of the weapon they opined based on post
mortem findings of the deceased and physical examination of the said
weapon they were of the opinion that the two numbers of external injuries
found on the neck of the deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report of
late Debabrata Chakraborty PM No. 157/2016 were possible by the said
weapon or similar type of weapon.
[41] PW 15 further stated that on the same day they conducted
another post mortem over dead body of Gouri Chakraborty in connection
with same case number and on examination they found following injuries:
A broad faint ligature mark having a maximum with of 5 cm
placed tranversaly is present on the front of both sides of middle part of
neck. The upper margin of this mark is situated 4 cm below the tip of right
mastoid process , 5 cm below the chin, 4 cm below the tip of left mastoid
process and its lower margin is situated 5 cm above the supra sternel notch
in midline. This mark is prominent on the right side of neck over and area of
.8 cm x 02 cm is present horizontally 50cm below the angle of mandible and
4.5 cm away from midline. On reflection of the neck skin haemorrhage is
present in the muscles of the neck on the submental and submendibular
region on either side. Underlying joa bone is fractured in midline at the
center of chin. Bruising is present in the right side carotid sheath and lower
part of sternocladomastoid muscle near its clavicular attachment. Other neck
structure are healthy mucosa of the larynx is congested. One raddish colured
abrasion .5 cm x .5 cm is present on the left side of the face just infront of
the tragus of left ear. One raddish colured abrasion 1.8 cm x 09 cm is
present on the left side of back of trunk which is situated 18 cm below the
talk of shoulder and 14 cm away from the midline. One radish colured
abrasion .5 cm x .5 cm is present on the dorsum of the right big toe which is
situated just at the base of nail bed. The injury mentioned above in ante
mortem in nature and fresh in duration.
[42] After holding the post mortem examination they opined the
cause of death in this case was combined effect of asphyxia caused by
ligature strangulation and head injury caused by the impact of blunt force
and are homicidal in manner. These injuries are sufficient enough to cause
dead in ordinary course of nature individually and as well as collectively
and all the injuries mentioned in the report are antemortem in nature and
fresh in duration. However, viscera have been preserved to rule out any
concomitant intoxication. Opinion regarding commission of rape before
death was kept pending till the vaginal swab analysis report is made
available from SFSL Narsingarh, Agartala.
[43] PW 16 Sri Rana Chatterjee SI of Police deposed that on
09.02.2016 he was posted at MG Bazar Outpost under East Agartala PS. On
that day he accompanied by SI S. Basu Roy Choudhury went to East Dukli
to the house of Dulal Chakraborty. In the house of Dulal Chakraborty the
dead body of wife of Dulal Chakraborty was found and he saw the dead
body and as per direction of O/C East Agartala PS he has recorded the
statement of Sabita Ghosh who made the oral ejahar before him. He
identified his signature and hand writing marked Exhibit 1/1 and further
stated that the oral ejahar was later on treated as FIR and O/C himself took
up investigation of this case. He prepared the seizure list of the material
recovered from the house in the dwelling hut of Chitta Ranjan Paul at
Madhya Dukli relating to two sports shoe, one jeans and one motor bike
bearing No. TR01W4601. He identified the signature on the seizure list
marked as Exhibit 16 and also identified another seizure list for the material
seized from the dwelling hut of Sabita Das, W/O- Sri Gopal Das relating to
Full shirt containing bloodstained and one trouser belonging to Rupam Das.
The witness further identified his signature on the seizure list marked
Exhibit 17.
[44] PW 17 Kanti Das is a seizure list witness. He stated that in his
presence one bottle of 2 liters water, two disposable glasses and one empty
packet of snacks were seized before him and he identified his signature on
the seizure list dated 11.02.2016 marked as Exhibit 18/1. He further stated
that he was also the seizure witness of the materials seized from the house of
Chitta Ranjan Paul. The witness identified his signature on the seizure list
marked Exhibit 16/1. He further stated that he was also the seizure list
witness of the articles seized from the house of Sabita Das and identified his
signature on the seizure list marked as Exhibit 17/1. He also stated that he
was present at the time of disclosure statement of accused Rupam Das and
he made his signature on the disclosure statement prepared by IO and
identified his signature on the margin of disclosure statement made by
accused Rupam Das marked as Exhibit 19/1.
[45] PW 27 Dr. Sabyasachi Nath deposed that on 29.02.2016 he was
posted as Sr. Scientific Officer in the office of SFSL. On that day one sealed
parcel containing some exhibits were received from toxicology division of
their laboratory in connection with East Agartala PS case No. 09/2016 and
accordingly, he examined the exhibits w.e.f. 05.04.2016 to 07.05.2016. after
sub sampling of the exhibits in Biology/ Serology division some exhibits
marked as Exbt. E2, F, G1, G2, G3, G4, L2, O, P Q, R and S were
forwarded to DNA typing division of our laboratory for further examination
and report. The exhibits examined in Biology/ Serology division include
exhibits E1, E2, F, G1, G2, G3, G4, L1, L2, M1, M2, M3, N, O, P, Q, R, S,
T and U. on examination of the exhibits the results obtain is that 1. blood
stain of human origin could be detected in the exhibits F, G1, G2, G3, G4,
O,P, Q, R, S and T.
[46] Now in coming to the conclusion of the case we are to see how
far the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused by
showing circumstantial evidence and last seen together and also other
connected evidences on record. There is no dispute on record in this case
that on the alleged unfortunate day two murders were committed for which
deceased Gouri Chakraborty and Debabrata Chakraborty had lost their lives.
Admittedly in this case from the evidence on record no exact time could be
ascertained when the murders were actually committed but it is the admitted
position from the evidence on record that the alleged incident took place on
08.02.2016 in the night. In this regard there is no counter evidence on record
from the side of the alleged accused meaning thereby there is no dispute on
record in respect of death of the deceased persons on that relevant date and
time.
[47] From the evidence on record of the witnesses of the prosecution
it is clearly established that accused Rupam Das had friendship with
deceased Debabrata Chakraborty including another absconding accused
Gopal Sutradhar and for that they frequently used to visit the house of the
deceased time to time. It is also the admitted position that at the time of
alleged occurrence excepting deceased Gouri Chakraborty no other persons
were present in the house and from the evidence of PW 28 it appears that on
that relevant day at about 7.30 pm he came out from his house and went to
East Dukli and then went to Golbazar and after that he went to Laxmi
Narayan Temple and stayed therein in the night and from his evidence
further it appears that he closed the temple at about 9.30 pm and after that he
tried to talk to his wife (deceased Gouri Chakraborty) over phone but found
her phone "switched off". That means the alleged incident took place either
prior to 9.30 pm on 08.02.2016 or thereafter.
[48] Now to link the accused person with the alleged crime this
Court has to see how far the evidence of PW 20 is relevant for determination
of this case to substantiate "last seen together". Because here in the case at
hand only this PW 20 has seen the accused persons to proceed towards the
pond of one Pradip Sarkar with deceased Debu from where the dead body of
deceased Debabrata Chakraborty was recovered and excepting the said
witness there is no other witness of the prosecution who have seen the
accused with the deceased on the alleged day of occurrence just prior to the
alleged occurrence. This witness PW 20 Sagar Debnath in his evidence very
specifically stated that when he was coming back to his house from a mela
(fair) on the day of alleged occurrence at about 9.30 pm he saw the present
accused and other two accused persons were proceeding towards the pond of
Pradip Sarkar with Debabrata Chakraborty (deceased). Although accused
Prasenjit was later on discharged after investigation by police and from the
pond of said Pradip Sarkar the dead body of deceased Debabrata
Chakraborty was recovered by PW 4 Kajal Kr. Banik. The accused by the
trend of cross-examination could not raise any doubt to disbelieve the
aforesaid fact and there was no suggestion from the side of accused that
there was no scope on the part of the witness to identify the accused at the
time of proceeding towards the pond of Pradip Sarkar with the deceased on
that relevant point of time. Although he stated that there was no street light
in the locality and furthermore, there was also no contrary evidence from the
side of the accused that due to darkness it was not possible for the said
witness to identify the accused to proceed towards the pond of Pradip Sarkar
along with other accused and also with the deceased on the relevant point of
time. So from the evidence on record this Court is of the considered view
that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond any doubt that prior to
the alleged occurrence the accused was found available with the deceased
Debabrata Chakraborty at the time of proceeding towards the pond of Pradip
Sarkar.
[49] Now in respect of disclosure statement of the accused learned
defence counsel although tried to satisfy the Court that the same was not
proved as per the provision of the Evidence Act. In this regard we are to say
that from the evidence of PW 11 Sri Rinku Ghosh, PW 12 Sri Gobinda
Chandra Mandal, PW 13 Sri Debasish Das, DCM, PW 17 Sri Kranti Das
and PW 18 Sri Goutam Das, it appears to us that in their presence the
accused admitted that he committed the murder and at his instance the
seized weapon of offence, i.e., Exhibit MO-2, Exhibit MO-1 and Exhibit
MO-3 were recovered and seized by police in presence of witnesses. The
accused by the trend of cross-examination could not raise any circumstance
to disbelieve the evidence on record of the said witnesses and furthermore, if
we go through the evidence of PW 14 Billa Mangal Sutradhar, he in his
examination in chief specifically stated that at about 7/8 days back prior to
the day of alleged occurrence accused Rupam Das took one knife from him
which was seized by the police from the house of accused Rupam Das and
he identified Exhibit MO-2. Although he stated that when he handed over
the knife to accused that time it was of full length but after identifying
Exhibit MO-2 before the Court he stated that it was broken from the side of
the head. It may so happen that after the commission of offence the said
knife had been broken by the accused with an ill intention. Other seizure
lists witnesses very specifically supported the story of the prosecution
regarding seizure of alamats as stated above which have been marked as
exhibits in this case and from the evidence of the Medical Officers who
conducted autopsy and the scientific experts it is clearly established that the
deceased Debabrata Chakraborty was murdered through Exhibit MO-2
which was used by the accused at the time of alleged occurrence and after
the commission of offence the accused thrown the weapon of offence in the
Kaccha latrine in his house and scientific examination conducted by the
experts in respect of the exhibits as we have already stated found matching
with the blood stain in the trouser of AP Rupam Das with the wearing
apparel of the deceased and blood stained found near the pond of Pradip
Sarkar and banana leaf and from the PM examination report in respect of the
deceased Debabrata Chakraborty it is clearly established that the injuries
found in his neck was caused by sharp cutting weapon and from the report
of Gouri Chakraborty it appears that the cause of death was combined effect
of asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation and head injury and from
Exhibit MO-1 it is also clearly established that the accused along with
another committed the crime to commit robbery of valuable articles like
cash, jewelery etc. from the house of Dulal Chakraborty (PW 28) who is a
priest by profession of Laxmi Narayan Temple.
[50] From the evidence on record as stated above it appears to us
that the evidence of PW Nos. 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 cannot be disbelieved or
discarded because in their presence the accused admitted that he committed
the crime and in their presence he traced out the stolen bhar (bank) and
seized weapon of offence (Exhibit MO-2) and Reta (Exhibit MO-3) and the
seizure lists witnesses of the prosecution very specifically supported the
seizure of alamats leading to discovery which draws the attention of the
court the relevant provision of Section-27 of the Evidence Act.
[51] Thus, from the discussions made above it appears to us that the
prosecution in this case has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt
the involvement of the accused with the alleged crime. As such the accused
Rupam Das @ Rupan in our considered view has committed the offence in
this case and he is found guilty. Accordingly, 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 accused-appellant to be disbelieved. All the
witnesses supported the entire case of the prosecution with regard to
commission of offence by the accused-person. The citations as has been
placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant, has no
relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
[52] For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity in
the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while convicting
and sentencing the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence as declared by learned Addl. Sessions Judge is
affirmed and upheld and thus, the present appeal preferred by the convict-
appellant shall stand dismissed.
[53] As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall
also stand closed.
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A.Ghosh
ANJAN GHOSH Digitally signed by ANJAN GHOSH
Date: 2026.01.06 17:21:11 +05'30'
