NIRMAL DEB Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very unfortunate case where a man has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC read with Sec. 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC and has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the IPC, when there is no evidence against him.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that on 05.09.2011, the accused Nirmal Deb lodged a report with the Kamalpur police station that his wife was missing from about 9.00 am on 4th September, 2011. The FIR was lodged by none other than the mother of the accused (PW -20) and she stated that her daughter -in -law had left the house at about 9.00 am on 04.09.2011 and had not returned home. Her son had lodged a missing person report with the Kamalpur police station but on 06.09.2011 at about 11.00 am, she had come to know from one Ratansing Bhumis (PW -2) that the body of her daughter -in -law was lying in one jungle. She then went to the place of occurrence and realized that her daughter -in -law had been killed by somebody. Therefore, the FIR had been lodged.

(3.) The police investigated the matter and according to the prosecution story on 7th September, 2011, the accused made some confession to the effect that he had murdered his wife and also led the police party to a place where the weapon of offence (16 inch long bamboo) was kept and on the basis of this recovery of the bamboo and the confessional statement, the accused was charge sheeted. The motive given is that the appellant and his wife used to fight off and on and, therefore, the deceased was murdered. The learned trial Court relied upon the confessional statement as well as the recovery of the bamboo to come to the conclusion that the appellant had murdered his wife. Hence, the present appeal.