DABU MUNDA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.88 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sec. 302/201 Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life, and seven years respectively.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case was that Pankhi Rai Debbarma went to Padma Bill market to sell paddy on 29.11.84 but did not return home. Dilip Debbarma his son and some others had made search but could not find him. Dilip Debbarma and some others found by the side of the road in the jungle a nylon bag and tukri which Pankhi Rai Debbarma had carried to market, and also found blood there. The matter was reported to police, at P.S. Kalyanpur on 4.12.84 where a general Diary entry was made and S.I. late R.K. Dutta took up investigation. On suspicion due to some enmity, the appellant was taken into custody and as a result of information furnished, by him on 5.12.84 the dead-body of Pankhi Rai Debbarma was discovered from a well in jungle at the instance of accused appellant. He performed inquest over the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. Investigating Officer R.K. Dutta interrogated the witnesses and collected some blood stained earth, seized the nylon bag and tukri. Investigation completed, charge sheet against the appellant and three others, was submitted.

(3.) At the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of the charge examined two witnesses including PW-12 Dr. Pranbandhu Barma who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Pankhi Rai Debbarma and PW-11 Mihir Kanti Das who conducted the investigation after the death of S.I.R.K. Dutta. The defence did not produce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence, the learned trial court held that the evidences of motive due to enmity and the statement made by the accused appellant before the investigating Officer admissible under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, established the charge under Sec. 302 Penal Code against the appellant, who was accordingly convicted and sentenced as noted earlier. The other three accused were acquitted.