Gauhati High Court
Sujit Bardhan vs State Of Tripura on 19 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)GLT192
Author: R.B. Misra
Bench: R.B. Misra, U.B. Saha
JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment, dated 17.11.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura, in case No. ST 25 (WT/K)/2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel along with Mr. P. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P. appearing for the State respondent.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, as stated before the trial Court, is that the accused/appellant, Sujit Bardhan, borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the Babul Gope (since deceased), but did not refund the same, and as and when Babul Gope demanded the said amount, he was assaulted by the accused Sujit Bardhan.
4. On 12.2.1999, in the morning, at about 10.30 a.m., when Babul Gope came to the shop of Niloy Banik for work, the accused Sujit Bardhan called him and took him to a little distance in front of the laundry of Chitta Sukladas and assaulted him with a bamboo stick causing his death. Babul Gope was then brought to the hospital by Parimal Gope, (P.W. 1), where the medical officer after examination proclaimed him dead. Thereafter, on the basis of the FIR lodged by Parimal Gope, (P.W. 1), Khowai P.S. Case No. 5/99 was registered under Section 302 IPC and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Sujit Bardhan for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned S.D.J.M., Khowai since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions. On receipt of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai, framed the charge against the accused Sujit under Section 302 IPC and recorded the statement under Section 313 of Cr. PC.
5. To bring home the charge against the accused Sujit Bardhan, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The case of the defence was of total denial.
6. In order to appreciate the legality of the impugned order, we have to scrutinize the prosecution witnesses as well as materials on record.
7. P.W. 1, Parimal Gope, the informant, stated to be the eye witness of the case, in his deposition has stated that the deceased Babul Gope used to work in the shop of Niloy Banik (P.W. 3) and he also used to work in that shop. About two and half years back, in the morning, he was called by Niloy Banik to work in his shop and accordingly, he worked in the said shop for few hours. At about 9.30/ 9.45 a.m. Babul Gope also came to the shop for work. At that time, the accused Sujit Bardhan called Babul Gope and took him in front of the laundry of Chitta Sukladas and assaulted him with a lathi. When the accused Sujit Bardhan left the place, he brought Babul Gope to the hospital where he was declared dead. He thereafter lodged FIR with the Khowai Police Station. He further stated that the inquest of the deceased Babul Gope was prepared in his presence and the weapon of offence was also seized by the police in his presence by preparing seizure list. This witness has also specifically stated that he saw the accused Sujit Bardhan to hurl lathi blow on the chest, neck and shoulder of Babul Gope.
8. P.W. 2, Bhajan Das, alleged to be an eyewitness of the occurrence turned hostile at the time of recording his deposition. He was confronted with his previous statement recorded by 1.0. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and a portion of his previous statement has been marked as Exbt. P-4. In Exbt. P-4 statement, the P.W. 2 is alleged to have stated:
That on 12.2.99 at about 10.10.30 a.m. I was working in front of my cycle repairing shop and at that time, I saw Sujit Bardhan assaulting Babul Gope in front of the laundry of Chitta Sukladas and as a result of such assault Babul Gope fell on the ground. I along with others rushed to the spot and seeing Babul Gope could understand that he died. Babul was removed to Khowai Hospital, but after examination the Medical Officer proclaimed him dead.
9. P.W. 3, Niloy Banik, was also declared hostile by the prosecution when confronted with his previous statements recorded by I.O. A portion of his previous statement has been marked as Exbt. P-5, wherein P.W. 3 alleged to have stated that:
On 12.2.99 my employee Babul Gope did not attend his duty for which I called his brother-in-law for preparation of sweetmeat. At about 10 a.m. Babul Gope came to the shop and seeing Parimal (P.W. 1) came out of the shop and at that time Sujit Bardhan called him and that on being called by accused Sujit Bardhan, Babul Gope (deceased) went in front of the laundry of Chitta Sukladas and at that time, I heard cry of Babul Gope. I looked towards the place and saw Sujit Bardhan assaulting Babul Gope with a lathi.
10. P.W. 4, Ashish Shome, is the seizure witness, in whose presence, police seized the weapon of offence i.e. the lathi. P.W. 5, Bhulu Ranjan Banik and P.W. 6 Sri Bishu Chakraborty are hearsay witnesses.
11. P.W. 7, Chitta Ranjan Sukladas, was declared hostile by the prosecution when he was confronted with his previous statements recorded by I.O. and a portion of his previous statement has been marked as Exbt. P-6, wherein he alleged to have stated that he has seen accused Sujit Bardhan to assault Babul Gope with a lathi, as a result, Babul Gope died and when he and others rushed to this spot, accused Sujit Bardhan fled away.
12. P.W. 8, Ajit Shil also turned hostile when he was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution and was confronted with his previous statements recorded by I.O., (portion of his previous statement marked as Exbt. P-7), wherein he is alleged to have stated that, on 12.2.99 at 10.30 a.m., while he was working in his shop, he saw Sujit Bardhan assaulting Babul Gope with a bamboo lathi in front of the shop of Chitta Sukladas and as a result, Babul Gope died on the spot.
13. P.W. 10, Laxmi Gope, in her deposition has stated that deceased Babul Gope was her brother. In the morning of 12.2.99, hearing hue and cry, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw accused Sujit Bardhan fleeing from the place towards south. She saw her brother lying on the ground in front of the laundry of Chitta Sukladas. Bhajan Das, Bachhu Shil and Chitta Sukladas told her that the accused Sujit Bardhan had killed her brother Babul Gope by assaulting him with a lathi. She saw marks of violence on the chest, back and neck of her brother. This witness also stated that the accused Sujit Bardhan borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from her brother Babul, but did not refund the same, and relating to this, on previous occasions also, accused Sujit Bardhan assaulted Babul Gope as and when he demanded refund of the loan amount from him. In her cross-examination, this witness confirmed that she made statement to the police and she had seen accused Sujit Bardhan to flee from the place of occurence.
14. P.W. 11, Smt. Bhagabati Gope, an another sister of the deceased Babul Gope, in her deposition has stated that on 12.2.99 at about 10/10.30 a.m. Parimal Gope (P.W. 1) informed her that her brother Babul Gope has been killed by accused Sujit Bardhan. She visited hospital with Parimal Gope and saw the dead body of her brother Babul Gope. She also stated that Chitta Sukladas, (P.W. 7), Bhajan Das (P.W.2) and Bachhu Shil @ Ajit Shil (P.W. 8) also told her that the accused Sujit Bardhan had killed her brother by assaulting him with a lathi. This witness further stated that the accused Sujit Bardhan borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her brother Babul Gope, but did not refund the same, and relating to this, accused Sujit assaulted her brother to death.
15. P.W. 13, Ratish Ghosh, in his deposition has stated that on 12.2.99 in the morning while he was returning home, he saw a gathering in front of Khowai hospital. He went there and came to learn from Chitta Sukladas. Bhajan Das and Bachhu Shil that Babul Gope was murdered by the accused Sujit Bardhan by assaulting him with a lathi. He also saw the dead body of Babul Gope, inquest of which was prepared in his presence.
16. P.W. 15, Dr. Subhrangshu Dutta, is the medical officer, who held post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Babul Gope. He stated in his deposition that he found fracture on the base of the Skull involving right mastoid process. According to him, death of Babul was caused due to cardio respiratory failure following fracture base of the skull causing increased intracranial pressure and harniation of brain materials through foramen megnum, which causes comprehension of vital centre and is homicidal in nature.
17. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and on perusal of the materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has indicated that P.W. 1 has seen the accused assaulted the deceased. P.W. 10 & 11, after hearing hue and cry rushed to the spot and they both learnt from Chitta Sukladas (P.W. 7), Bhajan Das (P.W. 2), and Bachhu Shil (P.W. 8), that the accused Sujit Bardhan had killed Babul Gope by assaulting him with a lathi. Similarly, P.W. 13 who also just after the occurrence heard from P.W. 2, 7 and 8 that the accused Sujit Bardhan had killed Babul Gope, corroborated the prosecution version.
18. After hearing the learned Counsel of the parties and also on analysis of the evidences on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has proved its case and has held that the accused Sujit Bardhan guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, convicted by awarding sentence as noted above.
19. From the close scrutiny of prosecution witnesses, we find that P.W. 2, Bhajan Das, P.W. 3, Niloy Banik and P.W. 7, Chitta Ranjan Suklabaidya and P.W. 8, Ajit Shil were declared hostile whereas P.W. 5, Bhulu Ranjan Banik and P.W. 6, Bishu Chakraborty, though not declared hostile, but supported the defence case. From the testimony of P.W. 5, it reveals that he came to learn that the accused/appellant Sujit Bardhan tried to assault Babul Gope and due to scuffling both of them fell from the platfonn of a club room and as a result Babul Gope died. P.W. 6 also stated that he learnt that on the date of the incident, Babul Gope fell from the platform of the club room at Subhashpark, as a result, he sustained injury on his head by the side of ear. When he was removed to the hospital, he succumbed to his injury. P.W. 8, Ajit Shil, was also declared hostile who also indicated the same version of regarding occurrence of the incident by saying that on the day of the incidence, he found Babul in intoxication trying to enter into a club room, but fell from the platform. As a result, he sustained injury. He was removed to the hospital, but succumbed to injury. P.W. 10 and 11 are the sisters of the deceased Babul, who went to the spot after hearing hue and cry and were told by P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 that the accused/appellant Sujit Bardhan had killed Babul Gope by assaulting him with lathi.
20. P.W. 10 and 11 are said to have seen the occurrence and are the related and highly interested witnesses, as such, their testimony are to be scrutinized with care and caution. According to P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, they have noticed the mark of violence on the chest, back and neck of their brother Babul Gope. P.W. 1, Parimal Gope, who is the informant, in his testimony, has stated that when the accused/appellant Sujit Bardhan hurled lathi blow on Babul Gope, he sustained injury on chest, neck and shoulder. However, such corroboration was not said to be noted by P.W. 11 as she has only seen the dead body of her brother Babul in the hospital.
21. It is also worth mentioning that from the deposition of P.W 16, the I.O., it reveals that on 14.6.99 i.e. after four months of the occurrence, the statement of P.W. 10 was recorded, and on 3.9.99 i.e. about after 7 months after the date of occurrence, the statements of P.W. 11 and 13 were recorded. Recording of such evidences by P.W. 16, the I.O., by an inordinate delay without any rhyme or reason or proper explanation is also an important factor which, according to the learned Counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, is a fatal apparently to the prosecution case. We have also noted that Dhruba Bhowmik, who was at SI. No. 9 at the Charge Sheet, was withheld by the prosecution and could not be brought for examination for the reasons best known to the prosecution. From the cross-examination of the P.W. 16, it reveals that the shop of Dhruba Bhowmik was located at about 100 yards from the place or occurrence whereas, he was examined in the month of April, 99 because of his non-availability earlier, but reasons for not bringing him for examination by the prosecution was not explained. It reveals from the record that prosecution has examined P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, and P.W. 13 after four months and seven months respectively, whereas, for the delay of only two days in questioning the eye-witnesses was treated to be a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution and fatal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel . In view of the decision in G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra , delay of recording of the material witnesses by few hours casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the warp and woof of the prosecution story. In Para-15, 18 and 29, the Apex Court observed as follows:
15. As noted by the Trial court, one unusual feature which projects its shadow on the evidence of RWs. Welji Pramila and Kuvarbai and casts a serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses of the occurrence, is the undue delay on the part of the investigating officer in recording their statements. Although these witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on the following day. Welji (P.W. 3) was examined at 8 a.m., Pramila at 9.15 or 9.30 a.m., and Kuvarbai al 1 p.m. Delay of a few hours, simplicitor, in recording the statements of eyewitnesses may not by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. A catena of circumstances which lend such significance to this delay, exists in the instant case.
18. In this connection, the second circumstance, which enhances the potentiality of this delay as a factor undermining the prosecution case, is the order of priority or sequence in which the investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses. Normally, in a case where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seen by witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigator would give to the examination of such witnesses precedence over the evidence of other witnesses. Here, the natural order of priorities seems to have been reversed. The investigating officer first recorded the statement of Ravji, in all probability, between 12.45 and 3 a.m. on the 30th. of Constable Shinde at 4 a.m. and thereafter of Welji, Kanjibhai (P.W. 7) Santukbai (P.W. 6), Pramila, and Kuvarbai, between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m.
29. Thus considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances, this inordinate delay in registration of the 'F.I.R.' and further delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.
22. We have also noted that the injury indicated in the inquest report by the I.O. was a small scratch on the right shoulder of the deceased Babul Gope and from the testimony of P.W. 15, the fracture was found on the base of the skull involving right mastoid process and in the cross-examination of P.W. 15, it revealed that the injury found on the body of the deceased should have been caused if a person fell on a hard substance from a high place. According to Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant there is apparent contradiction between the occular evidences, namely, P.W. 1, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 and to that of the injury indicated by the Medical Officer, P.W. 15 as well as P.W. 16, the Investigating Officer. Mr. Biswas further submits that in case of contradiction about the medical testimony and the eye-witnesses relating to fatal injury, medical evidence has to be accepted and the accused person is entitled to be acquitted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 7957 Cri.L.J. 1533 As him Das v. State of Assam. In support of his contention, Mr. Biswas refers to Para-11 of the said decision, which is reproduced as below:
11. In Ram Narain : 1975 Cri. L.J. 1500 it was held that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. In Purshottam, :(1980Cri.L.J. 1298)itwasheld that if there is a contradiction between medical testimony and alleged eye-witness regarding fatal injury, medical testimony is to be preferred. InMaulaBux, it was held that if there is a discrepancy between the post mortem report and the inquest reporf'and if the post mortem and the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem if otherwise reliable the benefit of discrepancy must be given to the accused by accepting the post mortem report, if it is more favourable to the accused.
On the point of inconsistency between the occular evidence and the medical evidence, Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant, has also placed reliance on the decision of Raj Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2007 AIR SCW 2643. Para-11, 23 and 24 where the benefit of reasonable doubt has been given in favour of the accused appellants. For better appreciation, Para 11, 23 and 24 are quoted hereinbelow:
11. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the FIR dated 5.8.1990 it has been stated that the accused Jai Pal gave a pharsi blow on the head of Sohan Lai while Raj Pal gave a lathi blow on his head. The same is the statements in Court of the alleged eye-witnesses P.W. 9 Hira Lal and P.W. 10 Zile Singh. A pharsi is a weapon which causes an incised wound like an axe. However, there is no incised wound on the body of Sohan Lal as is evident from the post-mortem report. There are four injuries on the dead body of Sohan Lai as found by Dr. Sushil Goyal's postmortem report conducted on 5.8.1990 at 6.05 p.m. One of these wounds was a lacerated wound on the head while the other wounds are contusions on the shoulder. There is no incised wound. Thus, there is a clear inconsistency between the ocular version and the medical version.
23. While we are not in a position to say that the version of Jai Pal is necessarily correct, it certainly throws a reasonable doubt upon the entire prosecution version when it is coupled with other circumstances (such as major discrepancies between the ocular version and the medical evidence) which have already been referred to above.
24. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments of the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.
23. Mr. Biswas further submitted that in the seizure list also, there is an apparent contradiction where it was not certain from where lathi was brought and P.W. 1 also did not divulge in his testimony when he saw the appellant/accused Sujit, whether he was holding lathi in his hand or not, as in the seizure list, it was indicated that one lathi (stick) of Muli bamboo measuring two and half cubits in length, one side of which was scratched, was produced by the accused Parimal Gope, (P.W. 1), who is actually related to the deceased and an interested witness. According to Mr. Biswas, the credibility of P.W. 1 is doubtful as he has also not indicated in his testimony that when he reached the spot and observed the occurrence, at that time, P.W. 10 and 11, the sisters of the deceased were present or not. P.W. 1 who took the deceased in the injured condition to the hospital has also not divulged that any other person including P.W. 10 and 11 were available to help him in taking the body of the deceased Babul to the hospital. According to the prosecution, the P.W. 1, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11, they had seen the occurrence, but their presence is doubtful as none of them has acknowledged the presence of other witnesses. If all P.W. 1, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 had seen the incidence, then P.W. 1 should speak about the presence of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 and both P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 should also disclose about the role and presence of P.W. 1.
24. Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution to prove its case has produced two sets of witnesses. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses, four witnesses, namely, P.W. 2, 3, 7 and 8 have been declared hostile. P.W. 5 and 6 though were prosecution witnesses, however their testimony, supported the version of the defence. P.W. 5,6 and 8 though prosecution witnesses also stated different version about the death of the deceased by saying that deceased Babul Gope had fallen from the platform and, as a result, sustained injury and succumbed to such injury after being taken to the hospital. The further submission of Mr. Biswas is that if there are two sets of prosecution witnesses and one set of prosecution witnesses contradicts other, it is difficult to found the conviction of the accused in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Harchan Singh v. State of Haryana , wherein the Apex Court held that "two accused were arraigned in the assault on the deceased as a result of which the later died. The prosecution in support of its case examined two sets of eye-witnesses who were not present m the time of the occurrence according to the fourth eye-witness was also shown to be an unreliable witness by the other evidence produced by the prosecution. Held, it was a case wherein one set of evidence condemned the other set leaving the Court with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based". In the present case in hand, P.Ws. 5, 6,7 and 8 have given a different version by saying that the deceased had fallen from the platform whereas other prosecution witnesses P.W. 10 and 11 has given different version to the effect that they learnt that the accused/ appellant Sujit Bardhan killed their brother Babul Gope by assaulting him with a lathi, as such, the benefit of two sets of prosecution goes in favour of the accused.
25. Mr. Biswas further stated that when the testimony of P.W. 10 and 11 cannot be believed and taken supporting the prosecution version, as they came to know about the real occurrence of the incidence through P.W. 2,7 and 8 and all these prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution version. Deriving information from the hostile witnesses, both the related prosecution witnesses, e.g. P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 cannot be said that they are the real witnesses to support the prosecution case. According to Mr. Biswas, P.W. 2,7 and 8, after having been declared hostile, in the cross-examination, have not indicated that they had informed P.W. 10 and 11 about the manner of occurrence as indicated by those witnesses. According to Mr. Biswas, Mr. Dhruba Bhowrnik, who is said to be an eye-witness by P.W. 2, the owner of the shop, was withheld by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution story cannot be treated to be reliable, rather created some doubt about the credibility. For this purpose, Mr. Biswas has invited our attention to the provisions of Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act, which reads as "that evidence-which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who holds it". Mr. Biswas has also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat 1953 Cri.L.J. 1933, wherein in para-14, the Apex Court held that:
Where the facts which the prosecution themselves do not controvert in the witness-box are found to accord with the accused's story, the Court should not overlook it, by drawing presumptions against it. But it is far worse when the Sessions Judge leads the accused to believe that their version on this point is true and then turns round in the judgment and puts the evidence just the other way round.
26. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur v. State of Karnataka, behaviour of eye-witnesses is also an important factor as in the present case, testimony of P.W. 1 was not said to have been disclosed in the natural course about the manner and consequential affect about the occurrence taking place in the broad day light in the crowded area of a market and the reaction of P.W. 1 and other prosecution witnesses are not natural not revealing the natural phenomena, as (P.W. 1) has not divulged the incidence as to whether crowd of the market area was assembled or not or any commotion took place in the market or not? As such witnesses cannot be said to be natural. In support of his submissions, Mr. Biswas has referred to Para-9 and 10 of the said judgment, which are extracted below:
9. It appears to us that the High Court did not meet with the reasoning of the trial Court while rejecting the statement of eye-witnesses. It also appears to us that the behaviour of P.W. 1, wife of the deceased, was not natural in the sense that she merely rests by offering water to her deceased husband who was breathing his last. She does not try to nurse him or offer him any other help which would have shown her presence at the time of the death of the deceased at the site of the incident.
10. After going through the entire record, we find that it was not a fit case for the High Court to have interfered with the verdict of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It appears to us that the statement of P.W. 1 instead of corroborating the medical evidence is incosistent as to the time of death of the deceased. Once the substratum of the case goes we hve no option but to accept the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. We accordingly allow this appeal, restore the judgment of the trial court and acquit the appellant.
27. Mr. Biswas also submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 272, the prosecution witness who did not support the prosecution case and not even declared hostile, testimony of such witness, if relied upon by the defence, would bind the prosecution. In this regard. Mr. Biswas also refers to another decision of the Apex Court in Kunju Muhammed @ Khumani v. State of Kerala wherein the Apex Court has held that:
We are at pains to appreciate this reasoning of the High Court. This witness has not been treated hostile by the prosecution, and even then his evidence helps the defence. We think the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused and not to the prosecution Therefore, the High Court ought not to have placed any credence on the evidence such unreliable witness.
28. According to Mr. Biswas, when the witnesses are not treated hostile by the prosecution are not treated hostile by the prosecution then, their evidence, if support the defence, the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused, not to the accused, not to the prosecution. In the instant case also, prosecution witness, particularly P.W. 5 and 6 though not declared hostilej, but their testimony supports the defence a case and hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
29. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has very fairly submitted that he has some reservation to say regarding the correctness of the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Defence has been able to make some points in its favour.
30. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. After careful consideration of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, and in view of the foregoing analysis, we are of the considered view that the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidences in true sense, therefore, the benefit of doubt is to be given in favour of the accused appellant,
31. For the reasons and discussion made above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai is set aside. The appellant accused Sujit Bardhan is set at liberty forthwith. Send down the L.C. records.