BIMAL KAPALI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29. 10. 2003 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sesssions Trial No. 23 (WT/a) of 2002 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and in default to suffer further S. I. for one month.

(2.) HEARD Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. B. R. Das Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was falsely implicated and convicted on the basis of unreliable and uncorroborated testimonies of prosecution witnesses including the testimony of hostile witness (P. W. No. 8 ). The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances from which an inference of the guilt of the appellant could be drawn conclusively. The learned trial court convicted the appellant merely on presumption without evidence on record. In view of the evidences available on record, the learned trial court should not have convicted the appellant. The learned Special Public Prosecutor reacting to the arguments advanced by the other side submits that the prosecution has proved the circumstances cogently beyond all reasonable doubt leading only to the guilt of the appellant.

(3.) UPON hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are satisfied that there is no direct evidence of the occurence in the case in hand and the conviction was based solely on the circumstantial evidences. Thus, we have scanned carefully the facts and evidences available on record to satisfy ourselves whether the conviction is sustainable in law or well-proved by the prosecution.