Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Based on the said oral complaint which was reduced into writing and was received on 19.03.2015, NCC P.S. Case No.2015 NCC 023 was registered under Sections 301/302/34 of the IPC and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the final report vide the chargesheet No.33 dated 10.08.2015 under Sections 341/302/201/494/495 of the IPC. Having taken cognizance, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. For convenience of expeditious trial, the said case being S.T.(T-1)50 of 2015 was transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. The Additional Sessions Judge, hereinafter would be referred to as the trial Judge framed the charge as noted above. The appellant was shown as the only offender in the police report by completely disregarding his version as reflected in the oral ejahar [Exbt.22]. The appellant pleaded innocence against the charge and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

The patient was discharged on 28.03.2015 after removal of the stitches."

PW-12 has further clarified that injuries on the knee as reflected in the report might be sustained during scuffling or scrolling [sic.crawling] on the road. The said injury report was prepared in connection with NCC P.S. case No.23/2015 which had been admitted by PW-12 as Exhibit-9. He has further stated in the cross-examination that the bed head ticket was the basis for preparing the said injury report. PW-12 has further stated that the doctors in the ward had requested the forensic department in the hospital to examine the said patient for giving their expert opinion regarding the injury sustained by the patient. The doctors working in the said ward had given the requisition to the forensic department "as we suspected the injuries of the patient was self-inflicted" but he did not record such opinion in the bed head ticket. He has testified in the trial that out of total ten injuries in the body of the patient, seven injuries were found on the abdomen and the remaining three injuries on the right knee of the patient. To a query by the court he has stated that he did not get any report from the forensic department but he has denied the suggestion that he prepared the injury report mechanically and following the instruction of the police.

PW-14 has also opined that on being shown the knife [Exbt.M.O.3] that the injuries found on the dead body of Bithika Barman might be possible by that kind of weapon. In the cross- examination he has accepted that in the report dated 21.03.2015, it has not been separately mentioned about the nature of each injuries on the basis of bed head ticket. Age of all the injuries found on the appellant was 12 to 18 hrs old. He has denied to have submitted a fabricated report.

47. PW-21, Sri Prajit Malakar has testified in the trial that on 19.03.2015 at about 8.15 p.m., he had received an information that one person was stabbed at Salbagan area. He had recorded that information in the station diary [GDE No.818 dated 19.03.2015] at the instruction of the officer in charge of NCC PS. He visited the place of occurrence and the information that was received revealed a cognizable offence. When he reached the place of occurrence with a small contingent of police personnel, he found one lady was lying on the road with injuries and close to her, a man was found lying on the road. One scooty, one bloodstained knife, chappal, mobile phone etc. were scattered on the road. The male person was immediately shifted to the GBP hospital by a police vehicle. By one auto rickshaw the injured female was transported to the GBP Hospital. He had prepared the hand sketch in connection with the said GDE. He admitted the hand sketch map with index [Exbt.16 and Exbt.16/1] in the trial. Thereafter, he had proceeded to examine the witnesses. He had called the dog squad to find the initial lead. Finger print experts and the experts from State Forensic Science Laboratory [SFSL] had visited the place of occurrence. The Officer-in-Charge of NCC PS had also visited the GBP Hospital where the appellant [the male injured person] and the injured female were brought. An oral ejahar was lodged to the OC, NCC PS which was reduced into writing by the officer in charge, NCC PS namely Sri Pannalal Sen. On the basis of the said ejahar, NCC PS Case No.2015/NCC/023 was registered under Sections 341/302/34 of the IPC. The case was endorsed to PW-21. After the place of occurrence was surveyed by the dog squad and the SFSL expert, the scooty bearing No.TR-06-5341, mobile set, one bloodstained knife and some bloodstained gauze cloth, one pair of female shoes, torn pieces of saree were seized by preparing the seizure list [Exbt.17] in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, PW-21 had visited he GBP hospital and noticed some simple injuries on abdomen of the appellant [Bidyut Kanti Das]. He has succinctly stated in the trial "that there no sign of injury or anything in his shirt." On that night, he had returned to the police station and received the FIR. On that very night at about 0030 hrs., out of 6, 3 FIR named persons namely Dipankar Nath Bhowmik, Dilwar Hossain and Tanmay Das were brought to the police station. During the investigation, it was revealed that there had been certain financial transaction of those person with the appellant, but it could be ascertained that they had no role in the alleged offence and as a result, they were released in the morning. The injured female was declared dead by the GBP Hospital. Thereafter, he has given a brief narrative how he had conducted the subsequent part of the investigation, out of which the requisition made through the officer in charge, NCC PS to the Principal, AGMC and GBP Hospital is mentionworthy. By the said requisition, he was asked to give opinion about the injuries found on the body of the appellant as at that point, the doubt ranged as to whether those injuries were self-inflicted or inflicted by some other person. After the inquest over the dead body, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. PW-21 has submitted that on the following day i.e. 20.03.2015 he had searched the rented residential accommodation of the appellant with the help of the land lady and he had recovered some materials and seized those materials by the seizure list [Exbt.10/2] in presence of witnesses. On that day itself, the wearing apparels of the appellant at the time of occurrance were seized in presence of the witnesses by the seizure list [Exbt.12/1]. The witnesses were examined. PW-21 has testified that he had collected CDR of the mobile phones of the deceased [Bithika Barman] and the appellant [Bidyut Kanti Das]. On analysis of CDR, it was revealed that Bidyut Kanti Das called Bithika Barman from her sister‟s house on her mobile phone prior to the said gruesome incident. PW-21 continued to examine the witnesses on the basis of the evidentiary materials collected till 21.03.2015. The opinion of the team of doctors in respect of the injuries on the person of the appellant, PW-21 arrested the appellant in the hospital but he was produced to the court on giving due intimation that the appellant was under treatment in the hospital. On 24.03.2015, 25.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 he had recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Rishikanti Mitra, Suman Debnath, Birendra Das, Minoti Barman and Pratima Barman. On 27.03.2015 he had collected the SFSL report, on 28,03,2015 he had collected the sample of blood from the appellant. Dr. Abhijit Deb who was examined by PW-21 collected the blood sample. On that day, the appellant was produced in the court as the hospital authority discharged the appellant. On 29.03.2015 PW-21 interrogated the appellant on remand and thereafter he had examined witnesses on 30.03.2015, 31.03.2015 and 01.04.2015. During that course, he examined one Gautam Dhanuk, Prakash Dhanuk, Asish Kumar Das, Sikha Barman, Sita Chandra Das, the wife of the appellant and his elder son, Joseph Das. He had identified the seizure list [Exbt.18 and Exbt.5/1] in the trial. On 02.04.2015 a certificate of marriage between the deceased and the appellant was seized from the rented residence by the seizure list [Exbtg.11/1]. In presence of the Executive Magistrate, the total transaction of crime as per description of the appellant reenacted and videographed. One witness namely Swapan Karmakar was examined by PW-21. The said witness had claimed that from his shop the weapon of offence was purchased. The investigation continued. The bank statements of the appellant was seized. Thereafter he examined the team of doctors who gave the opinion on the injuries of the appellant and by one of them, the postmortem examination was also carried out with assistance of two other doctors. On 12.05.2015 one witness namely Kalam Uddin Borobhuya was examined by PW-21. He had completed recording of the witnesses on 23.07.2015. On 20.07.2015, he received the SFSL report. On 23.07.2015 he did receive the final PM report of the deceased. Having found out a primafacie case, he filed the police report vide CS No.33/15 dated 10.08.2015 under Sections 341/302/201/494/495 of the IPC. He has categorically stated that no incriminating evidence surfaced against the FIR named persons. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that there was a case against the deceased for keeping fake currency notes of Rs.40,000/-. In the said case, both the appellant and the deceased were jointly charge- sheeted. He had denied the suggestion that Bidyut Kanti Das [the appellant] was not charge-sheeted. He has clearly stated in the cross- examination that he did not make any attempt for conducting TI parade of the appellant. He has further stated that from the documents that he had collected and seized, presence of financial transaction between the appellant and the FIR named accused persons did surface. He had also admitted that he did not ask for recording of the confessional statement of the appellant, but it had surfaced nowhere that ever the appellant had expressed intention to confess. He has denied the suggestion made contrary to his definite statements made either in the examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination. He has denied that the prosecution case is concocted and it had falsely made out the case against the appellant. He had further stated to the query of the court that as there was no guarder of the said knife to lift the finger print from that knife I did not send it to the SFSL for opinion of the finger print experts.