Mangkari Chan Tripura vs The State of Tripura

S.C. Das, J.—1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.01.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial No. 17(ST/S)2012 wherein the accused-appellant Mangkari Chan Tripura was found guilty of the charges framed against him under Sections 448, 201 and 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment to suffer further R.I. for 1(one) month for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC and to suffer R.I. for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment to suffer further R.I. for 6(six) months for commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and again to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment to suffer R.I. for 2(two) years for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

We have heard learned counsel Mr. B. Majumder for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent.

Prosecution case is that on 04.03.2011 at about 4-00 a.m. the accused-appellant Mangkari Chan Tripura with an axe in his hand knocked the door of his elder brother, the informant Mohan Chandra Tripura (P.W.7) and asked him to open the door and threatened to kill him by axe blows and out of fear he and his wife Dipumala Tripura (P.W.1) did not open the door of the hut. The accused thereafter went to the nearby hut of his father Bashidhan Tripura, opened the door of the hut of his father and dragged his father to the back side of the hut and hacked him with axe blows and thereafter collected dry leaves and pieces of bamboo etc., put it on the dead body of his father and set it to fire. P.W.7 and P.W.1 being frightened left for the house of P.W.4 Binchan Tripura, the elder brother of Bashidhan Tripura and reported the incident. It is the further case of the prosecution that after committing murder of his father, the accused washed his clothes, blood stained axe and thereafter put the axe inside the house and went out of the house. Neighbours gathered in the house of Bashidhan Tripura and found the accused with axe in hand and also found the accused to take bath and wash the clothes and axe. Police was informed and police officer came to the spot when P.W.7 lodged the FIR and accordingly Manubazar P.S. Case No. 24/11 under Sections 302, 201 IPC was registered and investigation was started.

Accused was arrested immediately after registration of the case and the weapon of offence, the axe was seized in presence of witnesses which is proved as Exbt. M.O.1. Postmortem was conducted over the dead body by P.W.9 and I.O. collected postmortem report. Statements of all material witnesses were recorded and the arrested accused was forwarded to the Court on 05.03.2011 with a prayer for recording his confessional statement. On 07.03.2011, P.W.10, the then SDJM, Sabroom recorded the confessional statement of the accused observing all formalities and the confessional statement so recorded by P.W.10 has been proved as Exbt.5.

Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201 and 448 of IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken and trial commenced before the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur.

Charges were framed against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 448, 302 and 201 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution in course of trial examined 12 witnesses and also exhibited material documents. The trial Court appended the list of witnesses and the documents in the appendix of the judgment.

Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after closure of the prosecution evidence and in his turn he declined to adduce any defence evidence.

The plea of the accused is nothing but denial of the allegation and also pleaded innocence.

The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against him and accordingly sentenced him as stated here-in-before.

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal on different grounds.

Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder concentrated his argument on the point that there is no eye witness of the occurrence that accused hacked his father to death by inflicting axe blows and that the trial Court based on retracted confession of the accused arrived at a finding which is not tenable in law since there is no corroboration to rely upon the retracted confession. He has also submitted that P.Ws 1 and 7 simply stated the fact that the accused knocked their door and thereafter they left their house out of fear and they have not practically seen as to what happened thereafter and when they returned to the house from the house of P.W.4 in the morning they found Bashidhan Tripura dead in the back side of his hut and the dead body was put to fire. Since there was no eye witness of the actual occurrence, based on the confessional statement it was not proper for the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion of guilt of the accused. While arguing the case, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, has referred the cases of Pyare Lal Bhargava V. The State of Rajasthan, reported in , AIR 1963 SC 1094 (Para 7) and Kasmira Singh V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in , AIR 1952 SC 159 (Para 8 and 10).

Appearing on behalf of the State-respondent, learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath argued that the case is based on confessional statement as well as the direct and circumstantial evidence. P.Ws 1 and 7 are direct witnesses of the occurrence, submitted learned Addl. P.P. since the accused knocked their door and thereafter entered in the hut of the deceased and found to drag the deceased out of the hut to the back side of the hut, it is enough to support the judicial confession made by the accused. He has also submitted that P.Ws 1 and 7 are the brother and brother''s wife of the accused and they made natural and consistent statements. Neighbours who arrived in the house of the deceased in the early morning hearing hue and cry found the accused with axe in hand and also found the accused washed his clothes, took bath and washed the axe and kept it in his house which was seized by I.O. and proved as Exhibit M.O.1. Therefore, submits learned Addl. P.P. that the prosecution case is well proved both by direct as well as circumstantial evidence and the accused cannot escape from the punishment.

It is an undisputed position that Bashidhan Tripura died a homicidal death. P.W.9 Dr. Tushar Majumder conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Bashidhan Tripura and found that the hands and legs of Bashidhan Tripura were chopped off and the body was half burnt. He has clearly opined that the cause of death was due to hit by sharp weapon and that the part of the body was separated. He made clear opinion that the injuries may be caused by Exhibit M.O.1. It is, therefore, clearly established that Bashidhan Tripura died a homicidal death and parts of his body was separated by inflicting blows with Exbt.M.O.1 i.e. an axe. P.W.7 is the elder brother of the accused and P.W.1 is the wife of the elder brother of the accused living in the same hut. The accused was living in another hut and Bashidhan Tripura was in separate hut in the same house complex. It is the definite evidence of P.Ws 1 and 7 that the accused knocked their door with axe and inflicted kicks on the door with a threat to kill P.W.7 and out of fear they did not open the door. Thereafter they heard that the accused opened the door of his father''s hut and dragged his father to the back side of the hut and they got frightened. It is in the evidence of those witnesses that they fled to the house of P.W.4 and informed him the matter. Thereafter P.W.4 and other villagers came to the spot and found the body of the Bashidhan Tripura under fire in the back side of his hut and the accused was found with axe in hand and then he took bath and washed his clothes and the axe. The accused was arrested immediately after lodging of the FIR and on 05.03.2011 he was forwarded to the Court of SDJM with a prayer for recording his confessional statement. P.W.10 was the SDJM, Sabroom who has recorded the confessional statement and he clearly stated that observing all formalities and giving the accused enough time for reflection of mind as well as caution he recorded the confessional statement of the accused which is proved as Exbt.5. The evidence of P.W.10 has not been shaken in any manner. A judicial confession recorded after observing formalities cannot be thrown away simply because the accused has retracted at the time of trial. A confession is generally a week piece of evidence and it is a rule of prudence that the Court shall look for some other evidence to get corroboration of the confession. There may be conviction on the confessional statement alone if it is found that the confession is voluntary and is supported by the circumstances and other materials on record.

We cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Majumder that unless there is direct evidence there cannot be a conviction on the basis of the confessional statement. The decisions referred by learned counsel Mr. Majumder is totally misplaced since the facts are found to be totally different.

This is a settled law that Court should examine the confession carefully and compare it with the rest of the evidence in the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If confession appears to be probable in the catalogue of events and naturally fits it with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances it can be safely relied on.

In the present case the accused is the son and the deceased is his father. P.W.7 is his full blood elder brother and P.W.1 is the wife of the brother living in different huts in the same house complex. The accused at first knocked the door of P.Ws 1 and 7 and when they did not open the door he went to the hut of his father, dragged him to the back side of the hut and hacked him to death inflicting several axe blows and thereby cut off the body of his father in parts and then set it to fire. The accused most brutally killed his father. The circumstances show that the accused has committed the offence and none else. The total surrounding circumstances and probabilities pointing to the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his plea of innocence.

In the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 7 it is clearly made out that the accused had a quarrel with his father on his demand for money to go to Mumbai. The father refused to give him the money and, therefore, the accused as stated by himself in his confessional statement consumed liquor and killed his father. The confessional statement which is recorded judicially is very cogent and consistent with other materials on record. A mere bald assertion by the accused at the time of his examination under Section 313,Cr.P.C. that he was enchanted to give the statement is not at all tenable in the absence of any other material. The accused had a definite motive of committing the offence. He consumed liquor and thereafter committed the offence most brutally. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 7 which is corroborated by the evidence of the neighbours i.e. evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 8 clearly makes out that the accused committed the offence and none else. It is not necessary that there must be an eye witness of the occurrence in every case and otherwise the case should fail. A case may be well proved by the circumstances. It is a settled rule of law that a witness may tell a lie but circumstances never. Here the chain of circumstances clearly proves the guilt of the accused which is supported by his confessional statement.

We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

The appellant shall serve out the sentence.

Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.