UMESH CHANDRA TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether conduct of the witnesses in promptly not disclosing motive of crime is a relevant fact in issue, in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act); whether the act of the accused in not searching for his missing wife can be said to be a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and as to whether such a fact casts a burden upon him, in explaining the factum of his absence from the spot of crime and his presence at another place, being a fact within his knowledge by virtue of Section 106 of the Act. Whether under Section 114 of the Act, Court can presume existence of a fact, which may likely to have happened, considering the conduct of the accused. And whether prosecution has been able to discharge its burden of the accused having abetted the commission of a crime within the ambit and scope of Section 107 of IPC necessitating presumption of certain facts in issue. These are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) ***

(3.) It is a matter of record that to establish the charge, beyond reasonable doubt, Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereafter statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded. Significantly, in such a statement accused admitted to have rebuked the deceased and his daughter for not answering his phone call, but denied any act of assault or abetment.