SUDHIR SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-2-1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly was that one Ranjit Sarkar on his death had left some land and appellant Sudhir, his brother Narayan and sister Arati from his first wife, and three daughters and one son from his second wife Bijali Sarkar who was in possession of the land. The appellant and his brother Narayan were engaged as labour by Chinta Haran informant and his brother. On 21-8-1983 Bijali Sarkar had gone for work, leaving at the house her daughter Jhunu, 5 years old and son Ranjit three years old. The appellant had committed murder of said two children by throttling. Bijali on return from work had seek the appellant going out and found the children dead, raised alarm and people came including Chinta Haran Sarkar who later lodged the F.I.R. at P.S. R.K. Pur at about 7.20 P.M. the same day. Meanwhile, Sudhir Sarkar had been apprehended by people in the village and had made extra judicial confession. The police registered case and investigation followed. The Investigating Officer Subash Singha arrived at the place of occurrence and Sudhir was taken into police custody. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The witnesses were interrogated. The investigation completed, charge sheet was filed. The learned District Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The defence denied the allegations.

(3.) In support of the charge the prosecution examined twenty three witnesses including P.W.-1 Chinta Haran Sarkar who had lodged the F.I.R. P.W.-17 Bijali Sarkar mother of the children killed besides many witnesses to prove the extra judicial confession. The defence did not examine any witness. The version in defence was that the accused appellant had been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence held that the prosecution had established the charge against the accused, who was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.