LAWS(GAU)-2011-11-66

STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SAMIR CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER

Decided On November 21, 2011
STATE OF TRIPURA Appellant
V/S
Samir Chakraborty and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Tripura is challenging the acquittal of the accused persons from the offence of murder and conspiracy. The respondents have been acquitted vide common judgment and order dated 19.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur in ST 67 (NT/KMP) of 2004 and ST 67 A (NT/KMP) of 2004.

(2.) Heard Sri D Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sri R C Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State of Tripura. Also heard Smt M Chowdhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents/convicts. At this stage, we would like to mention here that after preferring the appeal the State withdrew the appeal against the co-convict, namely, Santosh Namasudra, since he was a juvenile at the relevant time. Accordingly, the name of respondent No. 2 was struck off vide order dated 18.02.2011, passed in Crl. M. appeal No. 50 of 2007. In this way, we are only required to examine the correctness and legality of the acquittal of respondent No. 1, Sri Samir Chakraborty.

(3.) As could be gathered from the record, the prosecution case is that on 30.12.2002, the deceased was playing marbles in an abandoned house, belonging to the grandfather of the accused Sri Santosh Namasudra. In the meanwhile, the accused Sameer came to the place of occurrence and asked PW-2, who was playing marbles with the deceased, to go to the house of one Mithun Namasudra to fetch more marbles. It is the further case of the prosecution that when PW-2 returned to the place where they were playing marbles he neither found the accused persons nor the deceased. In addition to this story, the informant (PW-1) also deposed in the Court that few days prior to the incident of murder both the accused persons had come to their house and requested to give their television set to watch a film. On being denied one of the sons of the informant was beaten. It was followed by receipt of a demand letter of Rs.3 lacs in the name of a militant organization.