PRANESH DHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC for causing cruelty on 09.12.2013 and before and murder of his wife namely Sampa Purkayastha on 09.12.2013 at Gobindapur, Kailashahar. On regular trial, the appellant has been convicted for causing cruelty and murder by the judgment dated 20.12.2017 by the Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar in Case No. ST/39(NT/K) of 2014. Pursuant to the said conviction, by the order dated 20.12.2017, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. The sentences are directed to run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the convict has been directed be set off against the term of imprisonment as per provision of Section 428 of the CrPC. It has been also observed that if the fine money is realized that shall be paid to the parents of the victim.

(2.) By this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged on multiple objection, including inadequacy of legal evidence to prove guilt of the appellant, suspicion has been given the colour of substantive evidence and there is no proper examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC. It has been also asserted that the import of disclosure under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as the incriminating evidence is grossly against the settled proposition of law. Even, according to the appellant, the last seen together has been applied without taking into consideration the gap between time of seeing together and the time of death. The chain of circumstances cannot in the case in hand be held to have been proved to meet the requirement of the standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Finally, it has been asserted that the trial court has not separated the 'improved versions' and did not give any importance to the facts as brought out during the cross-examination.

(3.) The prosecution against the appellant has evidently been commenced when one Subinay Purakayastha (PW-1) filed an oral ejahar to the Officer-in-Charge of Kailashahar Police Station on 10.12.2013 revealing that his younger sister Sampa Purakayastha married the appellant following a love affair. After marriage, they had started residing in a rented house at Gobindapur at Kailashahar and both the appellant and his sister had continued their study at RKM College. It has been alleged in the complaint that after someday of their marriage, his sister was pressurized for bringing dowry. PW-1 used to help his sister by providing some money regularly. On 10.12.2013, he was informed that the dead body of his sister was lying in the rented house and her husband consumed poison and had been admitted in the RGM hospital. PW-1 suspected that his sister had been strangulated by the appellant on demand of dowry. Based on the said ejahar dated 10.12.2010, Kailashahar PS case No.246/13 under Section 304B was registered and taken up for investigation.