MRITUNJOY CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of Subal Chakma.

(2.) Prosecution case can be summarised as follows : Appellant and Subal Chakma owned adjoining paddy fields, separated by a bundh. There was a dispute between them regarding this bundh. It was settled at one stage. A few days before the occurrence, the dispute again cropped up and intervention of Gao Pradhan, P. W. 6, and local M.L.A., P.W. 16 was sought. On the day fixed for settlement talks, appellant did not attend. On 14.7.80 Subal Chakma went to the house of his uncle, P. W. 2 and sat at the door talking to P. W. 2. At about 2.30 P. M. appellant armed with Ext. M. O. 2 dagger rushed there, inflicted a stab injury on Subal Chakma in the abdominal region and ran away. The incident was seen by P. W. 2, who alone was present. He called out to P. W. 3 that appellant had stabbed Subal Chakma and asked him to come. P. W. 3 went there and thereafter called out Subal Chakma's mother, P. W. 5. P. W. 5 rushed to the scene of occurrence followed by another son, P. W. 4 and a little later by Subal Chakma's wife P. W. 8. The injured told his mother that the appellant had stabbed him and he was not going to live. He made similar statement to P. W. 8 also. P. W. 8 went to the market to fetch a doctor. She met P. W. 9 who showed the Gao Pradhan, P. W. 6 to her and she sought his help to get a doctor. P. W. 6 told her that it would not be possible to get a doctor but they can take the injured to hospital. He engaged a vehicle and both of them came to the scene of occurrence and found that Subal Chakma was dead.

(3.) Meanwhile appellant left the scene with the dagger, met P. W. 7 on the way and told him that Subal Chakma had been finished. He sought the help of P. W. 7 to meet P. W. 6. Both of them went to the market. P. W. 7 returned from the market. Meanwhile P. W. 4 went to the market, met P. W. 1 and told him about the occurrence. Both of them went in search of P. W. 6. Meanwhile, P. W. 15, A. S. I. of Police of Kanchanpur Police Station had been sent to the market to look after law and order since that was a Rathajatra day in the market. P. Ws. 1 and 4 met P. W. 15 and the latter was informed about the occurrence. Meanwhile appellant saw P. W. 15 in the market and made a confession to him and also handed over M. O. 2, dagger to him. This was witnessed by P. Ws. 1, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 15. P. W. 15 seized the dagger under Ext. P. 12 attested by P. Ws. 12 and 15. P. Ws. 6, 15 and others went to the scene of occurrence and found the injured dead. P. W. 1, who had reached the scene of occurrence meanwhile gave oral information to P. W. 15 who recorded the same as Ext. P. 1. He held inquest over the dead body and prepared Ext. P. 2, inquest report, witnessed by P. W. 6 and others. He searched the house of the appellant, seized M. O. 1 shawl belonging to the appellant and at 11.30 P. M. reached the police station with appellant, the seized articles, Ejahar and other records. Next day post-mortem was conducted by P. W. 19, Medical Officer in the local hospital. P. W. 17, Officer-in-Charge of the station took up investigation, questioned witnesses, took other steps for investigation and after completing the same laid charge-sheet against the appellant.