BIMAL SINHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.6.86 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Ktailashahar in Sessions Case No. 33 (N.T./K) 1985 convicting the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him thereunder to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) The case, in short, is that on 23.2.81 at about 4.05 a.m. PW.8, Smti. Sitarani Debnath lodged an information at Kailashahar Police Station stating, inter alia, that night show exhibition of the cinema was over at about 1 a.m. on that very day and her brother-in-law (husband of the elder sister) had a tea stall in front of that cinema hall. After the exhibition of the night show cinema was over, her torother-in-law (since deceased) closed his shop and completed the daily accounts of his shop till about 2.30 a.m. and thereafter he returned home. After his return, deceased alongwith his mother-in-law and one Sukumar were taking their dinner while the third elder sister of the informant was serving them with food. At that time the informant alongwith her younger sister Mono was gossiping in the very same hut after taking their dinner. At about 2.45 a.m. appellant came there and from outside the house called for the deceased and requested him to come out. Deceased replied that he was taking his food and yet the appellant insisted deceased to come outside the hut. Appellant even threatened the deceased. Yet the deceased did not go out. At that time the appellant was heard saying that he was cutting the curtain of the door and accordingly requested the deceased to came out and he would be cut in the like manner. Upon hearing this deceased went out in front of the door of the house without washing his hands and at that time appellant asked him to come after washing his hands. His hand was not washed as he was halfway through his dinner. However, deceased told the appellant that he was taking his food and he had not finished it and accordingly deceased requested the appellant to say whatever the appellant had to say. Despite this, the appellant asked deceased to come outside ami accordingly deceased went to the road in front of the shop of the deceased. Simultaneously, PWs. 9, 11 and one Sukumar also followed the deceased and went near the road. PW.11 is the mother of the informant and PW.9 is an elder sister of the informant. The moment deceased went to the road, appellant stabbed the deceased in his abdomen with a dagger. At that time the other accused Sankar Dhar (since acquitted) and another unknown Manipuri boy were seen there with lathis in their hands. After being so stabbed, deceased cried out. Simultaneously, the appellant and other miscreants fled away towards west on a motor cycle. PW.4, Sri Krishna Bahadur Gurung, who was the motor transport officer of the police reserve, was informed about the incident and PW, 4 provide them with a jeep for taking the deceased to the hospital. The Medical officetr-in-charge of the hospital declared the deceased dead after he was produced at the hospital. On the basis of the said information, an FIR under Section 302IPC was registered at the Kailashshahar Police Station against the appellant and the other accused Sankar Dhar. After usual investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant and the other accused. In course of time the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailaehshahar. It must be mentioned here that for a long time the present appellant was not available for trial and accordingly trial was proceeded with and concluded separately against other accused Sankar Dhar. On conclusion of the trial Sankar Dhar was acquitted. Subsequently, when present appellant could be arrested, the trial was completed against him. Learned trial Court upon perusal of the materials on record framed charge under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge. In course of the trial in all 13 (thirteen) PWs were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the appellant no witness was examined. His case was of complete denial of the prosecution.

(3.) We have heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Das, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.