Tripura High Court
Shri Jogendra Chakma @ Jogen vs The State Of Tripura on 22 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 349
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 11
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
CRL. A(J) NO. 62 OF 2017
Shri Jogendra Chakma @ Jogen, son of late Mergaram
Chakma, resident of Village Khaklaipara, P.S. R. K. Pur,
District: Gomati Tripura.
.....Appellant
-V E R S U S-
The State of Tripura.
..... Respondent
B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. S. Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing : 06.05.2020
Date of judgment
And order : 22.05.2020
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
J_ U_ D_ G _M_ E_ N_ T & O_R_D_E_R
(Arindam Lodh, J)
Heard Mr. P. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.
Page 2 of 11[2] The appellant being charged under Section-302 of IPC for committing murder and also under Section-201 of IPC for his intentional disappearance of evidence has been convicted vide judgment and order of conviction dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in connection with case No. ST 57(ST/U) of 2014 (T-1) and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation and also to suffer RI for 3(three) years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for committing offence under Section-201 of IPC. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. [3] Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 31.07.2012 at about 1730 hours, Inspector Chabir Ahammed recorded the complaint lodged by one Sri Baren Chakma of Taihurchung village to the effect that on that day at about 1400 hours the complainant having learnt from his younger sister Hajanti Chakma that there was altercation between his father, namely, Changri Chakma and his cousin brother Jagen Chakma at the tilla of Taihurchung village, he along with his elder brother Ragen Chakma rushed to the spot and found the bicycle of his father lying on the road. They found wounded body of their father in the ditch. Boren Chakma had a serious doubt that Jagen Chakma had murdered his father and concealed the dead body in the lunga of the tilla (ditch). Page 3 of 11 [4] In course of investigation, SI Sri Ramendra Debbarma being the investigating officer (PW-13), had recorded the statements of the available witnesses, prepared the inquest report along with separate index, prepared hand sketch map of the place of occurrence and arranged for postmortem of the deceased. [5] On completion of the investigation, the IO submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections-302 and 201 of the IPC. Being committed, the case was put to trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. The learned Judge after taking the cognizance had framed the charges against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded his innocence. [6] As many as 13 witnesses were examined in order to substantiate the charge and the prosecution also introduced 8 documentary evidences. To make out the defence case, the appellant was examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. and in course of which, he stated that all incriminating statements of the witnesses and the evidences on record by the prosecution are fake and re- iterated his plea of innocence. However, he refused to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Having appreciated the evidence led on by the prosecution side, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated. Hence, this appeal. Page 4 of 11 [7] Mr. P. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the involvement of the appellant with the aforesaid crime and the learned trial Judge had committed serious error in relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there are series of contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. [7.1] Next, learned counsel submitted that PWs-1 and 2 are not the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-5 in her cross-examination has stated that he had low vision and therefore, it was not possible for her to witness the murder and to identify the appellant. He further argued that it was a tilla class of land and the deceased had fallen down to the ditch and suffered fatal injuries. [8] On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent defending the judgment passed by the learned trial court has submitted that PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident of assault and murder. The entire chain of circumstances is found from the statements of PWs.1, 2, 6, & 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the records for appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and also relevant materials therein. For the purpose of brevity, firstly, we may consider the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5. Page 5 of 11 [9] PW-3, Smti. Sachirung Reang deposed that on 31st July, at about 12.00 to 1.00 pm while she along with Jagnati Reang and Sangsati Reang were working at joom field, at that time they heard sound like goat's crying and hearing the sound they proceeded towards the spot and found that Sangri Chakma and Jogen Chakma were quarreling with each other. She further deposed that Jogen Chakma was assaulting Sangri Chakma by a 'lathi' and when they tried to stop Jogen he threatened them and they were pulled back. She informed the incident to Purendra Reang. [9.1] In her cross-examination, PW-3 stated that she noticed bleeding injuries on different parts of the body of Sangri Chakma including his forehead and Sangri Chakma had fallen into a ditch sustaining fatal injuries. This witness denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that she did not witness the crime while working in the Joom field.
[10] PWs.4 & 5 also deposed in the similar terms as that of PW.3. PWs.3, 4 & 5 being the eye witnesses to the incident had deposed that they informed the matter to Purendra Reang. So, to get the link as well as the genuinity of their statements, we have taken into account the deposition of Purendra Reang who deposed before this Court as PW-9.
Page 6 of 11[11] PW-9, Sri Purendra Reang deposed that Sangri Chakma was his neighbour. On 31.07.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 pm while he was taking the private tuition in the Varandah of his house at that time, Jagnati Reang, Sachirung Reang and Sangsati Reang running towards him informed that the accused Jogen @ Jogendra Chakma was beating Sangri Chakma with lathi at Taihurchong tilla rubber garden by the side of the road. This witness further deposed that at the same time she found Hajanti Chakma returning from her School and he told her about the incident and also asked to inform the matter to her family members. After some time, he heard from the villagers that Jogen killed Sangri Chakma. This witness deposed that having receipt of the news of the deceased Sangri Chakma, he also proceeded to the place of occurrence where Sangri Chakma was lying dead in the nearby ditch with severe bleeding injuries over his face region and after the incident, Jogen had left the village. [11.1] From the deposition of PW-9, it has been revealed that PWs.3, 4 & 5 all had rushed to his house. It has become clear that the deposition of PW-9 is consistent with the versions of PWs 3, 4 and 5.
[12] PW-6, Hajanti Chakma is the daughter of Sangri Chakma, the deceased herein, deposed that on 31.07.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 pm while she was returning home from her school at that Page 7 of 11 time Puren Reang told her that her father was being assaulted by Jogendra Chakma @ Jogen, in the rubber garden. She further deposed that hearing this, she immediately rushed back to her house and informed the matter to her brothers and other family members. Two brothers, namely, Baren and Ragen Chakma immediately had rushed to the rubber garden and found their father lying dead. She denied the suggestion during her cross-examination that her father had died out of accident and out of previous enmity with the appellant, she deposed falsely against him. Here, we find that the circumstances that Puren had informed about the incident to Hajanti PW-6, has been confirmed.
[13] PW-1, Shri Baren Chakma, is one of the elder brothers of PW-6 and son of the deceased. He deposed that on the fateful day he was at his home and his younger sister Hajanti had rushed to him and informed that the appellant was quarreling with their father at Taihurchong tilla. He further deposed that on receipt of the information he along with his brother, namely, Ragen Chakma had rushed to the spot and found the bicycle lying inside the jungle and on further search they found that their father lying dead in a ditch with severe bleeding injuries on his face and head region. This witness has further stated that one Puren Reang had told their younger sister about the incident of quarrelling between the Page 8 of 11 deceased and Jogen. In cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit the statements made by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. [14] PW-2, Shri Ragen Chakma is another elder brother of PW-6, Hajanti Chakma and he also deposed in the similar term as that of the PW-1. Here we found that the evidence of PW-6 that she informed the matter to her elder brothers i.e. PWs.1 and 2, is well corroborated by the deposition of PWs. 1 and 2.
[15] PW-12, Dr. Debasish Pal, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Sangri Chakma had opined that the cause of death was due to subdural haematoma of right parietal area which was due to anti mortem blunt trauma head and it was homicidal in nature. The postmortem examination report was marked as Exbt.6.
[15.1] In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put forth to him that the injuries sustained by the deceased were received due to falling down from a height and the said injuries caused out of sharp edged bamboo.
[16] The 'lathi' Exbt. MO-1 i.e. the weapon of offence was seized from the place of occurrence by preparing seizure list (Exbt.1). During investigation, the I.O. Ramendra Debbarma as PW- 13 deposed that he also seized the bicycle which was marked as Page 9 of 11 Exbt. MO.2. He further deposed that on the same day of the occurrence he examined and recorded the statements of Baren Chakma, Rogen Chakma, Smti. Shachirom Reang, Smti. Sansati Reang, Smti. Jagnati Reang and Smti. Hojangti Chakma. [17] PW-8 and PW-9 are the seizure witnesses of the lathi and the bicycle. They deposed that Exbt. MO.2 was seized by the I.O. and they identified their signatures in the seizure list in course of trial.
[18] PW-7, Smti. Bhagya Chakma is the wife of the deceased and she also supported the version of PWs.1, 2 and 6. [19] The above evidences of the prosecution witnesses on being assessed, reveals that PWs. 3, 4 and 5 were the eye witnesses of the incident of assault with a lathi (Exbt. MO.1) inflicted by the appellant. Having threatened and pulled back by the appellant at the time of assault they had rushed to Puren Reang(PW-9) and informed the incident to him. PW-9 had seen PW-1, the daughter of the deceased that she was returning home from the school and at that moment, PW-9 narrated the incident to her and advised her to inform the matter to her family members. Accordingly, PW-6 had rushed to her house and informed what had been told by PW-9, to her family members. Two of her elder brothers i.e. PWs.1 and 2 Page 10 of 11 immediately had rushed to the spot and found their father lying dead in the nearby ditch.
[20] Having appreciated the evidences as analyzed above, in our considered view, it is only the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased and concealed his body in the nearby ditch. The lathi (weapon of offence) was seized from the place of occurrence used in the crime was also seized from the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. The doctor, PW-12 has stated that the injuries were caused by blunt and heard object which are antimortem and homicidal in nature.
[21] Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve the statements of PWs.3, 4 and 5 who are the eye witnesses of the incident coupled with the statements of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 9 and we find no gap in the entire chain of circumstances. The statements of PWs.3, 4 and 5 who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, if, are juxtaposed with the statements of PWs. 1, 2, 6 and 9, then, it would reveal that all the episodes of the circumstances form a complete chain which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused- appellant, sequentially supported by the medical evidence. [22] Having held so, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Page 11 of 11 learned trial court. As such, we affirm and uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence as declared by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. Consequently, the instant appeal fails, and thus, dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stands dismissed.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ A.Ghosh