Dhananjoy Reang vs State Of Tripura

S. Talapatra, J

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 delivered in ST 65 (NT/D) of 2003 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, the convict has filed this appeal.

By the said judgment dated 18.09.2017, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of one Hema Ranjan Tripura on 25.10.2002 along with some other assailants. Consequent upon the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder part of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In this appeal, as stated, the said judgment and order are challenged.

On the basis of the complaint filed by the son of the deceased namely Kiranmoy Tripura whereby it had been revealed that when the deceased and his wife were returning home from Dasda market on 25.10.2002, they had entered in the house of one Nandaram Reang to have some drinking water. At that time three extremists belonging to NLFT entered in that house. They asked the informant's father to show the house of the member of the village committee. Informant's mother however had returned home. On the next date i.e. 26.10.2002 the informant received the information that those extremists had killed his father. The informant got the said information from one Hanuram Reang who had informed that his father was hacked to death in his jhuming area. In the said group of extremists there were 8/10 persons.

Based on the said complaint [Exbt.3] which was filed on 26.10.2002 at about 4.45 p.m. Kanchanpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2002 was registered under Section 121/121A/457/302/34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and taken up for investigation. As it appears from the records, on completion of the investigation the police filed the final report against the appellant Dhananjoy Reang and another Rabindra Reang under Section 302 and 34 of the IPC vide the chargesheet No.28/03 dated 15.07.2003. After the cognizance was taken, the police papers were committed to the court of Sessions Judge for trial. On 04.03.2017, the Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant for committing offence of murder of Hemaranjan Tripura along with the co-accused Rabindra Reang in furtherance of common intention. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12(twelve) witnesses including Nandaram Reang [PW-2]. In addition, the prosecution admitted 9(nine) documentary evidence [Exbts.1-9] including the inquest report. But post-mortem examination report was not admitted as the doctor who carried out the autopsy was not examined by the prosecution. It is noteworthy that the informant namely Kiranmoy Tripura and Hanuram Reang were not examined in the trial. It appears that another son of the deceased namely Prabir Kumar Tripura [PW-1] introduced wholly a different story in respect of abduction and murder. But he has also confirmed that he received the information from one Hanuram Reang that his father's dead body was lying under a tong ghar situated in the jhum field of that person. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for having his response as regards the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence. The appellant reiterated his plea of innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case maliciously.

Having appreciated the respective arguments placed before the Sessions Judge, the judgment of conviction has been returned observing, inter alia, that:

".....in the case the proved facts that on the relevant date i.e. on 25.10.2002 at dusk the accused persons called the deceased from the house of Nandaram Reang and took him along with them and on 26.10.2002 in the morning the dead body of the deceased was found in a jum field and the recovery of the weapon of offence by accused Dhananjoy Reang and earlier enmity between the accused and the deceased, leads only [to] the hypothesis that it was Dhananjoy Reang either alone or with others had committed the murder of the deceased, Hemaranjan Reang."

Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case is shrouded by disjointed materials. There is no eye witness. Except the evidence of last seen together and the recovery of the dead body there is no other material. There is no direct proof against the appellant that he had abducted that person or hacked Hemaranjan Tripura to death to settle the score as indicated by the trial judge. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has pointed out that the person who discovered the dead body has not been examined. Even the medical officer who carried out the autopsy has not been examined for purpose of ascertaining the actual time of death. He has further submitted that the evidence of Nandaram Reang [PW-2] was relied without reading the testimony properly. PW-2 has testified in the trial that when the deceased Hemaranjan Tripura and his wife and two sons came to their house, Dhananjoy Reang (the appellant) and his brother namely Rabindra Reang came in his house wearing the dress of SPO. Thereafter, PW-2 has stated that: 'they called Hemaranjan Tripura. I had seen to some extent face of Dhananjoy and heard his voice. From the voice I could understand that Dhananjoy and his brother came. On the following day at about 8.00 AM dead body of Hemaranjan was recovered in the Jhum field of Hanuram Reang.'

In the cross-examination PW-2, Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has pointed out, had stated that Prabir Kumar Tripura [PW-1] was also present in his house when the appellant and another co-accused had entered to call the deceased. PW-1 even though has stated that the appellant used to torture his wife, Usha Rani Tripura who is the sister of his father, but he did not identify Dhananjoy Reang. On the contrary, he has testified that 'a person came and called my father and that person was wearing khaki dress with similar to SPO dress. From the voice and from the size of the figure I realized that it was Dhananjoy. I did not object my father to go with that fellow as Dhananjoy was my relative.' Thereafter he has stated that he 'suspected' Dhananjoy and his brother namely Ranindra Reang to have murdered his father. But in the cross-examination he has admitted that he did not narrate the occurrence to his brother Kiranmoy Reang @ Kiranmoy Tripura. He has also admitted that he did not state the police officer that he had seen the person like Dhananjoy wearing uniform of SPO and came to the house of Nandaram Reang [PW-2] and took away his father with him. From the voice, he realized that it was Dhananjoy. He has also admitted that his brother lodged the complaint mentioning that his father was abducted 'by a group of extremists' consisting of three persons.

PW-4, Chirananda Tripura is another son of the deceased who was also with him when he was taken away from the house of Nandaram Reang [PW-2]. He has categorically stated that when two persons called his father and took him away they were behaving cordially. He has categorically testified in the trial that 'I could not identify those persons properly since it was dusk.' He has only stated that one belt was recovered from a nearby place where the dead body was lying and he had identified that belt being the belt of Rabindra Reang. He has also stated that he was satisfied that the murder of his father was committed by Rabindra Reang and Dhananjoy Reang (the appellant). He has also stated in the trial that Dhananjoy Reang is the husband of Usha Rani Tripura who is his paternal aunt. Dhananjoy Reang, according to PW-4, had a grudge against his father as he intervened in the marital dispute between Usha Rani and Dhananjoy Reang.

PW-5, Biswa deb Tripura according to Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel did not state anything of material importance, except that on seeing the belt as recovered from the place of occurrence. Dhananjoy Reang and Rabindra Reang were arrested by the police.

Thereafter, Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has submitted that the discovery of weapon of offence as stated to have been made by the investigating officer [PW-12] cannot be brought under ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as PW-12 himself has stated that Dhananjoy himself searched the nearby area but he did not recover the weapon. Thereafter, they returned to the village Pumatila and went near the house of Hanuram Reang. Then, in that house Dhananjoy 'searched and found' one takkal dao but there was no blood stain in that dao. The said dao was seized by PW-12 by preparing the seizure list [Exbt.9]. PW-12, as pointed out by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has testified in the trial how the dao/takkal [Exbt.MO-I] was found in the house of Hanuram. But he did not investigate that aspect. Even he did not send the dao for forensic examination. PW-12 has testified further that there is no statement in the CD either in the form of interrogation report or in the form of entries showing that the accused had made any statement disclosing the manner in which he committed the offence. But later on, which has not however been pointed out by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel that in the CD dated 24.11.2002 the investigating officer had mentioned and entered that the accused made a confessional statement before them stating that he and his elder brother namely Rabindra Reang were involved in the crime and both of them murdered Hemaranjan Tripura on 25.10.2002. To justify that entry he has not placed the document.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel therefore contended that there is no material to involve the appellant with the offence for which he had been charged. Even the identification is highly questionable inasmuch as in the First Information Report the fact has been narrated quite differently. From a reading of the complaint [Exbt.3], it would be apparent that nobody had identified three extremists who took away Hemaranjan Tripura with them. Even the identification of PW-2 is not very definite. He had stated that in a fleeting moment he saw a part of face and he had recognized the voice of Dhananjoy Tripura.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in respect of importance of the information disclosed in the First Information Report (FIR) even though it is not a substantive evidence. In Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1975 CriLJ 870 where the apex court has stated that no doubt, an F.I.R., is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But omission of important facts in the F.I.R. affects the probabilities of the case and hence, relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. It has been further observed in that report that unless in the FIR the names of the witnesses if their presence were known to the informant and not mentioned as eye witness. No credence can be extended to the testimonies of the eye witnesses.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel thereafter has relied on a decision of the Gauhati High Court at Agartala Bench in Nurul Miah and Ors vs. State of Tripura reported in (2005) 1 GLR 546 where the Gauhati High Court while dwelling on the very concept of the hearsay evidence, its scope and ambit, has approvingly reproduced a passage from Bishewar Baori @ Khetrapal vs. State of Assam reported in 2002 (2) GLT

For purpose of reference, the passage as relied by Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel is reproduced hereunder:

"It needs to be carefully noted that while dealing with a piece of evidence, which is regarded as hearsay, the Courts must bear in mind that there is a difference between factum of an information and truthfulness/veracity of such information. In a given case, if the object is to merely establish that a statement was made, it may not be hearsay, but if the object is to prove that what was started was true, then, it may become be hearsay. Thus, when "x", an eye witness of an occurrence of murder, comes to a Police Station and reports the occurrence to a police office, the evidence given by the police officer, at the trial, that he was given such an information is not hearsay if the object is merely to prove that such a report was, indeed, received by the police officer, but if the object is to prove that what the police officer was reported was true, then, the police officer's evidence as to what he was reported by "x" would be hearsay unless "x" appears as a witness at the trial and deposes not only that he had so reported the occurrence to the police officer, but also that what he had reported was true as he had witnessed the occurrence himself. Reference may be made to AIR 1961 MP 45, AIR 1983 All 87 and 1983 CrLJ 127 (SC)."

It is apparent that what is reported to the police may not be truthful. At sometimes, there is a difference between factum of an information and truthfulness/veracity of such information.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has finally relied on a decision of this court in Saha Alam Miah and Ors. vs. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 2 TLR 381. On identification by voice, it has been observed by this court in the said report:

"Only when there is exchange of words in any form, meaning the generation of voice, in that case a court can weigh whether identification by voice can be relied on whether it shall go further for corroboration for returning the finding of conviction of the accused. Identification by timbre of voice or gait, in the parlance of the criminal jurisprudence has been all the time taken with an amount of uncertainty. The courts usually require further corroboration to return the finding of conviction. The courts are to find other corroborative pieces in the evidence, so far the identification of the accused by voice is concerned, not wholly relying on timbre of voice of gait. However, this is not a universal rule. In some cases when the accused or the witnesses or the victim of the offence are known to each other, the witness or the victim can recognize the offender/s by timbre of voice or gait with certainty. For the purpose of identification by voice, three elements are to be proved, viz., (1) element of generation of voice, (2)acquaintance with that voice and (3) the manner of reception of voice and none of these elements are mutually exclusive." [Emphasis added]

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has submitted that timber of voice is totally unestablished by the prosecution and hence, the identification by the voice cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence of identification, in the absence of other corroborative evidence.

To repeal the submission of the counsel for the appellant Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has quite categorically stated that identification by voice by two different witnesses by itself should provide assurance to the court. PWs 2 and 4 have identified the appellant by his voice. That apart, the appellant is a close relative of PW-4. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has expressed his dismay for non-examining the informant who had introduced completely a different story and the prosecution particularly, the investigating officer [PW-12] did not take any streak out to explain why no investigation was directed against the involvement of Hanuram Reang from whose house, the purported weapon of offence was recovered. However, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted by demonstrating the series of episodes that the prosecution has ably established a chain which is complete in itself to show that it is the appellant and his brother had killed the father of PW-4. Hence this court, shall not give any benefit to the appellant.

For purpose of appreciating the rival contentions as noted above, it would be appropriate to make a revisit to the evidence as recorded in the trial. As noted earlier, neither the informant, Kiranmoy Reang/Kiranjoy Tripura nor Hanuram Reang who informed first about the discovery of corpus delicti of the father of the informant was examined in the trial. But Exbt.3 has been admitted by PW-12. Names of PW-1 and PW-4 were not disclosed in the first information lodged by the informant. Their name has been revealed subsequently. It is really surprising that if two grown up sons of the deceased were present in the place of occurrence, why did not raise any objection or build up resistance when their father was taken away by the appellant and his elder brother. This definitely shows that the story of inimical relation between the deceased and the appellant is farfetched and improved, later on.

PW-1, Prabir Kumar Tripura has stated that the appellant is the husband of his aunt, Usha Rani Tripura. The appellant used to torture Usha Rani Tripura and as his father being the brother of Usha Rani had interfered in the matter, Dhananjoy threatened to kill his father and at that time he was at a nearby home and heard everything. On the day of occurance, PW-1 with his parents and another brother, went to Dasda market and on their way back to home they entered in the house of Nandaram Reang for taking rest. It was dusk and darkness had enveloped that area. At that time, 'a person came' and called his father. The person was wearing khaki dress resembling the dress of SPO. Thereafter he has stated, 'from the voice and size of the figure I realized that it was Dhananjoy'. But he did not object his father's going with Dhananjoy as he was his relative. The whole night his father did not return home. On the following day, his father's body was recovered from the jhum field of Hanuram Reang. His father's hands were tied and his throat and ear was cut. There were some injuries on the backside of his father. He has further stated that he believed that Dhananjoy and his brother Rabindra Reang had murdered his father.

In the cross-examination what he has stated has been elaborately noted while recording the submission of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

PW-2, Nandaram Reang is a crucial witness in the prosecution case. He has stated that on an evening after few days of Laxmi puja in the year, 2002 at about 7.00 p.m. Hemaranjan Tripura (the deceased) and his wife and two sons came to his house to take rest. At that time Dhananjoy Reang and his brother namely Rabindra Reang came and they were wearing SPO dress. They called Hemaranjan Tripura. Thereafter he has testified in the trial that 'I had seen to some extent face of Dhananjoy and heard his voice. From the voice I could understand that Dhananjoy and his brother came. On the following day at about 8.00 AM dead body of Hemaranjan was recovered in the Jhum field of Hanuram Reang.' He had seen number of cut injuries in the body of Hemaranjan. He did hold strongly his statement made in the examination-in-chief.

PW-3, Budhbala Tripura is the wife of Hemaranjan Tripura has failed to give any rational answer and thus having considered her mental state of mind not fit for deposing was not examined in the trial. Thus one of the eye witnesses' account has been lost.

PW-4, Chirananda Tripura another son of the deceased has stated that the incident took place on 25.10.2002. On that day, his parents came along with Nandaram from the market, but keeping a little distance. His parents went to the house of Nandaram Reang for taking rest. His house is situated adjacent to the house of Nandaram Reang. At the relevant time, two persons called his father and had taken away him. When they took away his father they behaved cordially. He did not raise any objection. But in the trial he has succinctly stated that 'I could not identify those persons properly since it was dusk'. He had also visited the jhum field of Hanuram Reang when the dead body of his father was recovered. He has stated that Dhanajoy used to quarrel with his paternal aunt. In a conciliation meeting, a quarrel broke out between Usha Rani and the appellant. The deceased had intervened in the quarrel and as such the appellant is suspected for murder of his father. He has not placed further material, which could help the prosecution case.

PW-5, Biswa Deb Tripura is clearly a hearsay witness, except few general facts that he has categorically stated that he knew the entire episode from Nandaram Reang [PW-2].

When Dhananjoy Reang was in the police custody, PW-6, Debendra Nath has stated that Dhananjoy had claimed that if he was taken to Pumatila, he would be able to show the dao (takkal). But this witness did not state why he went to the police station in such earlier morning.

PW-7, Sasanka Chakma did not state anything about the case. PW-8, Tarenjoy Reang was witness to the seizure of dresses from the SPO camp of Gachiram Para. He has identified his signature on the seizure list [Exbt.1]. No cross-examination was carried out by the defence. PW-9, Sonajoy Reang has categorically stated that he did not know anything about the case.

PW-10, Sudhangshu Chakma stated that he had no knowledge about the case. PW-11, Rambahadur Reang has stated that a quarrel broke out between the appellant and his wife on the day of Laxmi puja. Hemaranjan supported the wife of Dhananjoy Tripura who was the husband of his sister Usha Rani. Thereafter a meeting was held in the office of one political party and it was decided that his wife (Usha Rani) would live separately as the appellant used to torture his wife physically in drunken condition. He has made an interesting statement which reads as follows:

"After the death of Hemaranjan police arrested Rabindra and Dhananjoy and after 1 or 2 days again police took Rabindra in a Jhum land situated at Pumatila and from that place police seized one belt of SPO. Subsequently, police came to my house and obtained my signature."

One torn waist belt was recovered and seized from the government quarters of one Debcharan Reang by the seizure list dated 26.11.2002 [Exbt.2].

PW-12, Kajal Rudra Paul has stated in the trial that one Brihadev Tripura visited the TSR camp and reported that on 15.10.2002 at about 7-7.30 pm at Pumatila, some unknown extremists had killed one Hemaranjan Tripura. PW-12 was asked to inquire into the matter. At the place of occurrence, Kiranmoy Tripura lodged the complaint [ejahar], written by him. He has identified the ejahar (Exbt.3) in the trial. The case was registered and PW-12 was entrusted with the responsibility of investigation. He had prepared the inquest report in respect of the deceased, prepared the dead body challan and sent the dead body to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination having been escorted by one M. Sangma of Kanchanpur police station. The Medical Officer however according to PW-12, carried out the post-mortem examination on the spot. From the spot, he seized one branch of tree with blood stain. After the post-mortem was conducted the wearing apparels of the deceased, being a full pant with blood stain was seized. But he has not given any explanation whether he had investigated as to why two sons, being present with the deceased, did not file any information to the police station throughout the night nor did they search for their father. Even Brihadeb Tripura was not examined in the trial. Even the branch of the tree which he had recovered and seized from the place of occurrence was not sent for serological examination to get confirmation whether the blood stain that was appearing on the branch was the blood of the deceased. Thereafter, he has narrated the so called discovery of the weapon by the appellant, Dhananjoy Reang. That part of his testimony has been already noted while recording the submission of Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has categorically admitted that he did not investigate how the weapon of the offence was carried to the house of Hanuram Reang. He did not send the said dao for forensic examination. Even, he has admitted that no statement is available in the CD of the appellant stating that he could find out the weapon of the offence if he was taken to the place. But later on, he has corrected his statement as noted above. According to PW-12, the appellant had confessed that he and his brother committed the murder of Hemaranjan Tripura on 25.10.2002. Rabindra Reang concealed the Assam Rifle dress in a sack in the Gachirampara SPO Camp and those were seized by the investigating officer by preparing the seizure list. Those materials have been admitted in the evidence as Exbt.-MO-II.

It is apparent that there is no witnesses who witnessed the occurrence of murder. The conviction has been returned based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances those were relied on by the trial judge are broadly as follows:

(i) The episode of the last seen together with Dhananjoy Reang and his elder brother Rabindra Reang in the house of Nandaram Reang [PW-2] on the fall of darkness.

(ii) The previous enmity of the deceased with the appellant over the issue of his violent behavior with the deceased's sister, Usha Rani; and

(iii) Discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of Dhananjoy Reang.

Now the paramount question which this court is confronted with is that circumstances have clearly established to demonstrate that the appellant and his brother had killed Hemaranjan Tripura between 25.10.2002 and 26.10.2002. Since the post-mortem examination report has not been admitted in the evidence, that report will be of no utility to ascertain the approximate time of death. The persons who have claimed to have identified the appellant and his brother in the house of Nandaram Reang [PW-2] are Chirananda Reang [PW-4] and Prabir Kumar Tripura [PW-1], both are sons of the deceased.

The prosecution against the appellant was launched on the basis of the complaint filed by one Kiranmoy Tripura @ Kiranjoy Tripura, son of the deceased, but he was not examined in the trial. Thus the defence is denied the due opportunity to cross-examine Kiranmoy Tripura to find out what was his source of information, based on which he had disclosed that his father was abducted by 'unknown extremists'. Even PW-12, the investigating officer did not disclose in the trial how he came to know all on a sudden that PWs 1, 2 and 4 had a different story to tell. PW-12 has stated certain 'things' in respect of recovery of weapon of offence. Those statements are very material. He has stated that on the basis of the statement of one Mailaram Reang, he had suspected the appellant to be involved in the crime. But Mailaram Reang was not examined in the trial. He has further stated that Hanuram Reang had revealed that the appellant had taken a dao from his house, but Hanuram was again not examined. To project some evidence of purported discovery, the appellant was taken to an area infested by extremists on 23.11.2002 almost after a month. Thereafter, he has stated that 'Dhananjoy then showed the direction where he threw the weapon of offence'. They took the photographs of the manner of giving direction by the appellant. He has also admitted that Dhananjoy had searched the nearby area, but could not recover the weapon. Then, they went near the house of Hanuram Reang. From that house Dhananjoy searched out one takkal. PW-12 has clearly admitted that there was no blood stain in that dao.

This court does not have any hesitation to hold this evidence cannot be protected by Section-27 of the Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as there is no note relating to the statement of disclosure either in the CD or any other papers to show that appellant had made any statement disclosing the manner in which he had concealed the weapon of offence by which he committed the murder. Therefore, that investigational transaction has is of no evidentiary value. The most bewildering part is that the informant was not examined. Brihadev Tripura and Gadadhar Reang, according to PW-12, informed about abduction to the TSR Camp first. PW-12 has stated that he had examined Gadadhar Reang subsequently but did not record the statement of Brihadev Tripura. But for this purpose he did not assign any reason in his diary. According to him 'one Brihadev Tripura, son of Dhanyamani Tripura of Pumatila visited the TSR camp and reported that on 25.10.2002 at about 7 to 7.30 PM at Pumatila some unknown extremists had killed one Hemoranjan Tripura, son if Dinamani Tripura'. Having received that information, a GD entry was made vide GDE No.741 dated 26.10.2002. These witnesses were withheld from the trial. Distinctly, there was a story of abduction by 'unknown extremists' that was first reported. But that trail was not followed. No reason why the trail is not followed has been assigned. Later on, another story was introduced that the appellant and his brother abducted the deceased for his role in the appellant's matrimonial life. These three witnesses namely Prabir Kumar Tripura [PW-1], Nandaram Reang [PW-2] and Chirananda Tripura [PW-4] did not state in the same voice even though they have claimed to witness the abduction from the same place. PW-1 has stated that when it was dusk and 'darkness prevailed' in the area, a person came and called his father. The person who was wearing a khaki dress was resembling the SPO. From his voice, he had identified that person was Dhananjoy. Thereafter, he has stated that he believed that Dhananjoy and his brother, Rabindra Reang, had murdered his father. But in the cross-examination, surprisingly he did not hold firm of that statement inasmuch as he has stated that he did not state to the investigating officer that he had seen a person like Dhananjoy wearing uniform of SPO came to the house of Nandaram and took his father with him and from the voice he recognised that it was Dhananjoy. As such, his identification was first time in the trial. Identification was by voice and shape of figure in 'the darkness', which according to him, prevailed over the area. No particular characteristic of the voice or the shape of figure has been described by the said witness. PW-2 has also stated that the appellant and his brother came to his house and they called Hemaranjan Tripura. Thereafter, he made the statement which has its relevance in the context. He has stated that he had seen 'to some extent face of Dhananjoy and heard his voice.' From the voice he could understand that Dhananjoy and his brother came. PW-2 also in the cross-examination without any hesitation stated that 'I did not state to the police that I could identify Dhananjoy and his brother by their voice.' PW-4, Chirananda Tripura has clearly stated that he could not identify those persons properly since the place was dark. Therefore from the testimonies of those witnesses, identification of the person who abducted their father cannot held to have been established to the hilt. Regarding discovery of the khaki dresses to involve the appellant, the seizure does not prove anything as those dresses were seized from a camp of SPOs. The entire prosecution case therefore is visited by series of doubts and the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 4 do not inspire confidence. Even the episode of last seen together cannot be held to be established in a manner to allow the chain of circumstantial evidences to be complete. The recovery of a takkal from the house of Hanuram Reang cannot be put in the chain of the circumstantial evidence as such takkal is available in every house-hold. For that reason PW-12 has categorically stated that there was no blood stain and hence the said weapon of offence could not be related to the crime. Testimonies of other witnesses, as noted, do not help the prosecution case in any manner.

Having observed thus, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge to the hilt and beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get acquittal from the charge and accordingly it is ordered. As consequence thereof, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.09.2017 stand set aside and quashed. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCRs.