MANTU TELENGA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.6.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial No. 109 (WT/K) 95 convicting the appellants Mantu Telenga and Sarat Kanda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default, a further imprisonment of six months.

(2.) On 22.2.1992 some time after 7 p.m. Surjya Kumar Das, a young man of 19 years only was done to death allegedly by the two appellants herein Shri Mantu Telenga and Sarat Kanda along with another Manu Telenga, an absconder. Prosecution version, in brief, is that on 22.2.1992 in the afternoon deceased Surjya left his house stating to his father (P. W. 1) that he was going to the house of Ujjal Das (P.W. 10). He did not return that night. On the following morning his father went to the house of Ujjal Das) and learnt from him that his son had left at about 7 p.m. Later, he was found playing a tape recorder at Chowmuhani near the house of Ujjal Das. The two appellants herein and the absconder Manu Telenga were found with him. Thereafter, the three assailants had taken the deceased to a place known as Udnacherra on the pretext of hunting wild hens and as premeditated, he was brutally killed by them. There was a land dispute and consequent acrimony between the informant and Ramnath Telenga, the father of Manu Telenga. Though the dispute was settled by the village elders in a meeting, Ramnath Telenga was not satisfied with the decision taken in the village meeting. The motive behind the murder, according to the prosecution, was attributable to the said dispute. Manu Telenga absconded to Bangladesh immediately after the murder. He could not be arrested during investigation and trial.

(3.) From the prosecution story, as noticed above, it would appear that the occurrence having taken place at night and in a desolate place where deceased and his assailants were only present, it was not expected that the prosecution would be able to present any eye witness. Thus, the entire case of prosecution had to be woven on the basis of circumstantial evidence including the conduct of the convicts. During investigation only the two appellants could be booked and taken to custody. One of them Mantu Telenga disclosed to the prosecution witnesses that he along with Sarat Kanda and Manu Telenga had killed Surjya. He also led the investigating police officer and the villagers to the place where (the deadbody had been thrown by them immediately after the murder. On the basis of (the evidence regarding "last seen", extra- judicial confession and discovery of the deadbody by Mantu Telenga in presence of the villagers and the police, the prosecution presented its case against the appellants herein, which after a full dressed trial was accepted by the learned trial court. The result was the conviction and sentence as aforesaid.