ARAB ALI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel for the convict-appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor along with Mr. R C. Debnath, learned spl. P. P. for the State.

(2.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-7-2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Session trial No. 78 (ST/b) of 2001. The appellant arab Ali has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302, IPC by the said judgment. No separate sentence has been imposed under Section 201 of IPC. The appellant has been booked for committing the murder of one Ali Miah on 15-8-2001, sometime in the afternoon. The victim was aged 70 years at that time. According to the prosecution version on 15-8-2001 in the afternoon the victim and the convict-appellant were proceeding towards birchandra Nagar Bazar. The victim had Rs. 2100/2200/- with him. At about 1. 30 p. m. they were last seen together by P. Ws. 2. 3 and 10. Thereafter, this victim was missing. The informant Hachan Ali is the son of the victim who was Instructed by his father to meet him in the market. But the father could not be found in the market. In search of his father the informant returned home and came to know that his father was seen together with the convict in the afternoon. He then along with 10/12 villagers went to the house of the convict in the evening and interrogated him when he made a confession to them that he had murdered Ali Miah and took away the money from the victim. The convict was then apprehended and confined in the house of Sura) Mia (P. W. 1 ). Thereafter, the police was informed. Again in presence of the police the convict made the disclosure verbally that he had killed the victim and concealed his dead body in a nearby-jungle. He led the villagers and the police to the place wherefrom the dead body of the victim and the lathi which was used as weapon of offence were recovered. The investigation was thus set in motion with the fir lodged by Hachan Ali (P. W. 9) the son of the victim. During the course of investigation post-mortem on the dead body was done which showed that the death had occurred due to multiple fractures in the skull caused by blunt weapon like lathi. The learned trial court proceeded to convict the appellant on the basis of the (i) extra judicial confession by the convict to P. Ws. 1,4,5 and 11 which led to the discovery of the dead body and weapon of offence; (ii) on the last seen evidence coming from P. Ws. 2, 3 and 10; (iii)on the recovery of the dead body and (iv) the post mortem report.

(3.) SEVERAL questions have been raised before the learned trial Court as well as before this Court in appeal whether the circumstantial evidence coming from the aforementioned category of witness can be said to have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and whether it can be said that no reasonable hypothesis can be drawn from such circumstances which is consistent with the innocence of the victim. Before adverting to these questions which have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment impugned we may briefly notice the evidence coming from the aforementioned witnesses.