PARIMAL GOWALA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/accused of this appeal is challenging the judgment and order dated 12-9-2001 and the order for sentence dated 15-9-2001 passed in S.T. 22 (WT/K) 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai convicting the appellants/accused under Section 364 read with Section 34. I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- each I. D. to suffer further R.I. for 3 months and under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each I.D., to suffer further R. I. for 5 months and the sentences will run concurrently.

(2.) The golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and give benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey. (Reference : State of Rajasthan v. N. K. the accused (2000) 5 SCC 30).

(3.) Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.