INDRAJIT DAS versus THE STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 28-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 142
142
INDRAJIT DAS
v.
THE STATE OF TRIPURA
(Criminal Appeal No.609 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302/34, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial
evidence – Information received from one of the prosecution witness
that his nephew was missing since the previous evening – Victim
had gone on his bike but did not return – On further investigation,
his mother informed that the victim had gone out with two friends –
Both the friends alleged to have confessed their crime before the
investigating officer – One of them being juvenile, tried under
Juvenile Act – As regards the other the trial court held that the
prosecution had fully established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
and convicted him – Said order upheld by the High Court – On
appeal, held : Instant case is of circumstantial evidence as no one
saw the commission of crime – Basic links in the chain of
circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory,
recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other
additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances –
Prosecution did not come forward with any motive whatsoever as to
why the appellant and the juvenile would commit the said crime –
Dead body not recovered – Only a limb was recovered but no DNA
testing was carried out to establish that the limb was that of the
victim – As such the entire case of the prosecution proceeds on
presumption that the victim died – Mother of the victim was the
main witness of the last seen – In her cross-examination she stated
that no such statement was there, though she had told the
Investigating Officer that she had seen the appellant and the juvenile
at her gate – Recoveries have been from an open place – It was not
a place which could be in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant
– Conviction is based upon, apart from the prosecution witnesses,
on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and the juvenile –
According to both the confessions, the appellant as also juvenile
were waiting at a culvert near the market where victim came on his
bike and from there all three of them left on the bike – No
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
corroborating evidence found to support the extra-judicial
confession, rather the evidence led by prosecution is inconsistent
with the same – Thus, major links of the chain of circumstances not
proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would be unjust
to uphold the conviction of the appellant – Appellant entitled to
benefit of doubt and is acquitted of all the charges – Evidence.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – General principles – Discussed.
Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance and role of,
in case of direct and circumstantial evidence – Stated.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
1984 (4) SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Sailendra  Rajdev
Pasvan  and  Others  vs.  State of Gujarat Etc. AIR
2020 SC 180 : [2019] 14 SCR 270; Kuna Alias Sanjaya
Behera vs. State of Odisha (2018) 1 SCC 296 : [2017]
11 SCR 179; Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of
Police (2004) 12 SCC 521 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 452
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
referred to
Para 10
[2019] 14 SCR 270
referred to
Para 10
[2017] 11 SCR 179
referred to
Para 15
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 452
referred to
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.609 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2013 of the High Court
of Tripura at Agartala in CRLA No.22 of 2011.
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Ms.
Srija Choudhury, Ms. Piyali Paul, Ms. Arushi Mishra, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Deepayan Dutta, Sai
Shashank, Advs. for the Respondent.
INDRAJIT DAS v. THE STATE OF TRIPURA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and
order of the High Court of Tripura dated 9th October, 2013 dismissing
the appeal of the appellant while confirming the conviction recorded by
the Trial Court under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code1 and 201
of IPC whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and allied
sentences to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story begins with a telephone message by one
Mantu Das (PW-40) informing the Police Station Kailashahar that huge
quantity of blood had been seen on the Kailashahar-Ku

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.