ANANDA TANGLA Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ananda Tangla was aged around 16 or 17 at the time of occurrence. He is the son of late Kangsha Tangla (since dead), a tea garden labourer. He did not do anything for living. P. W. 2 Girthani Tangla is his stepmother. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 8 -5 -73 around 11 -30 P.M. Kangsha, father of the appellant returned home after taking wine. It was raining and a dark night. P. W. 2 Girthani heard some altercation outside their hut supposedly between the accused and the deceased. She came out from the hut and found her husband lying on the ground. With the help of Anand, the accused, she took Kangsha inside the hut. Although Kangsha could speak, he made no allegation that he had been beaten by his son. P. W. 2 Girthani did not see the actual assault but heard altercation supposedly between the accused and the deceased. In the morning Kangsha died. Girthani raised alarm and neighbours arrived at her hut. She did not find Anand as he had allegedly slipped away. She has stated categorically "I did not see beating due to darkness." In the morning Dr. Amiya Bhushan Choudhury (since dead) and P. W. 3 Gopal Goala came on hearing about the death of Kangsha. They found some injuries on the person of the deceased and suspected it to be a case of homicide. Thereafter, the doctor and P. W. 3 Gopal went to the nearby Police Station and lodged an information on 9 -5 -73 at about 12 -30 P.M. The said report is marked as Ext. P -3. This is the first written report about the incident by two responsible persons, Dr. Amiya Bhushan Choudhury and P. W. 3 Gopal. It does not contain an inkling that Anand was the perpetrator of the offence or a suspect. We find from the evidence of P. W. 3 Gopal that they found P. W. 2 Girthani crying. However, he has stated that Girthani did not tell them that the accused had beaten his father. It is the positive case that Dr. Amiya Bhushan Choudhury and Gopal went to the house of Girthani, had seen her, found persons around but there is nothing to show that Girthani and/or any other person could tell them about the name of the assailant of Kangsha. As such it is clear that when Dr. Amiya Bhushan Choudhury and P. W. 3 Gopal had been to the house of Girthani nobody could tell them for sure the name of the assailant. Thereafter, as it appears, after Anand's departure from the house, Girthani told some of the witnesses namely P. W. 1 Shib Narayan Lodhi, P. W. 4 Harendra Goala and P. W. 5 Jogendra Mohan Roy that Anand had assaulted Kangsha at night. It will be seen from the evidence that Anand was found present in the morning at his house by P. Ws. 1 and 4. Even P. W. 5 Jogendra Mohan Roy stated that the accused had been to him to make necessary arrangement regarding his father's cremation.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY P. W. 2 Girthani is the only person to implicate the accused. The accused has been examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and he has put forward his own case. His case is that P. W. 2 Girthani being his stepmother did not like him and there were constant quarrels, his father came home after taking liquor, fell down on the ground and was taken by him and his stepmother, Kangsha died in the morning and his stepmother falsely implicated him.

(3.) WHEN a case is dependent on the testimony of a single witness proving circumstantial evidence, it is very much necessary to scan and scrutinise his testimony. Although it is not the principle of law that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a single witness yet it is the well known principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that before convicting a person on the sole testimony of a witness the Court must have implicit faith and reliance on his testimony.