MOHAN TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Shanta Rai alias Kanta Rai Tripura. As the appellant denied the charge, a regular Sessions Trial commenced in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia and on termination by the judgment dated 25.07.2012 delivered in the sessions trial being S.T.12(ST/B) of 2012, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and pursuant to the said judgment, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. By means of this appeal, the said judgment of conviction has been challenged.

(2.) The prosecution against the appellant is rooted in the complaint (Exbt-5) filed by one Hemanta Tripura (PW-2) revealing that on 14.10.2010 which was a Thursday, the father of the complainant namely Shanta Rai alias Kanta Rai went to the forest for collecting firewood along with the appellant and two/three other persons, but his father did not return home even on fall of the evening. They inquired his whereabouts from the appellant. The appellant had informed them that their father 'had gone to my sister's house". But when they took information from their sister's house at Abindrapara, Kowaifang, they got the information their father did not visit their sister's house. Being suspicious, they searched for him in the nearby jungle and in the nearby houses. On 25.10.2010, after 13 days, the decomposed body of his father was found in the abandoned strip of Galachipa streamlet in the deep jungle of Birendranagar, Manaighar. On getting the information, at that point of time, the appellant offered to settle the matter on accepting a sum of Rs.10,000/-. For that reason, the involvement of the appellant in the murder has strongly been suspected. On the basis of the complaint dated 27.10.2010, Baikhora PS case No. 76/2010 was registered under section 302/201 of the IPC and taken up for investigation. On completion the investigation, the final police report charge-sheeting the appellant was filed under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The police papers were committed to the jurisdictional court (the court of the Sessions) and the charge was framed in the due course under Section 302 of the IPC as stated, the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, as many as 8 witnesses including the post mortem doctor (PW-6) was examined in the trial and seven documentary evidence (Exbts-1 to 7) including the postp-mortem examination report (Exbt-4) and the statement of the appellant leading to discovery of weapon of offence (Exbt-7) were admitted. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC to provide him opportunity to have his say on the incriminating materials those surfaced in the trial. The appellant denied the evidence as concocted but in response to the question No.22 by which he was asked whether he had anything else to say about the case, the appellant stated as follows: