INDRAJIT DAS VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA

INDRAJIT DAS VERSUS THE STATE OF TRIPURA 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.609 OF 2015

INDRAJIT DAS …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TRIPURA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

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.

1

in short ‘IPC’

2

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-Kumarghat Road near

Shantipur. The said telephone message was received by

Bindhu Bhushan Das (PW-1) whereafter he along with

Sub-Inspector Kajal Rudrapal proceeded for the said

place, after making due entry in the G.D.Register.

3. At the spot, PW-1 not only noticed the blood on the road

side but also found blood-stained vojali (big knife), one

taga (thread) and some broken pieces of glass which could

be said to be of the rear-view mirror of a motor cycle. All

these articles were taken into custody, sealed and recovery

memo prepared. Further investigation was made which led

to visible marks of dragging some heavy article in the

jungle on the side of the road. These marks continued upto

Manu River and thereafter vanished.

3

4. While the investigation was still being carried out, the

Police Station received information from Arjun Das (PW-7)

that his nephew Kaushik Sarkar was missing since the

previous evening, i.e. 19.06.2007. The said information

was to the effect that Kaushik Sarkar had gone out in the

previous evening on his bike but had not returned. The

Investigating Officer came to the residence of Kaushik

Sarkar at village Mohanpur where he recorded the

statement of his mother (PW-25). She informed that

Kaushik Sarkar had gone out with two friends namely

Indrajit Das (appellant) and one ‘juvenile K’. Both these

persons were called to the police station but they did not

report. The Investigating Officer thereafter went to the

house of the appellant.

5. According to the Investigating Officer, both the accused

confessed before him that they had gone to Fatikroy and

Kanchanbari area on the bike of the deceased Kaushik

Sarkar. On the way they had purchased a bottle of alcohol

4

and consumed it along with Babul Das. Thereafter, they

started driving towards Kailashahar. At Shantipur, they

got down to answer the call of nature. Kaushik was sitting

on the motor cycle. At that stage, both the accused

assaulted Kaushik Sarkar with the vojalis. They threw the

helmet, purse and two vojalis in the nearby jungle and

dragged the dead body and the motor cycle to the nearby

river and threw them in the river. Then they swam across

the river, went to the house of the appellant and burnt

their blood-stained clothes.

6. The accused ‘juvenile K’ was tried under the provisions

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2000. The present appellant was tried by the regular

Sessions Court. Upon charge being framed and read out,

he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined as many as 40 witnesses

and also led documentary evidence which was duly proved

and exhibited. The Trial Court vide judgment dated

5

19.04.2011 recorded a finding that the prosecution had

fully established the guilt of the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted him of the

offences and sentenced him as recorded earlier.

8. The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court

which has since been dismissed by the impugned

judgment as the High Court was also of the view that the

prosecution had been successful in proving the charges

beyond reasonable doubt.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material evidence on record.

10. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence

as no one has seen the commission of crime. The law in

the case of circumstantial evidence is well settled. The

leading case being Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State

of Maharashtra2

. According to it, the circumstances

2 1984 (4) SCC 116

6

should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing

towards the guilt of the accused; the circumstances taken

cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there

is no escape from the conclusion that within all human

probability the crime was committed by the accused and

they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis

other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent

with his innocence. The said principle set out in the case

of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has been

consistently followed by this Court. In a recent case –

Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of

Gujarat Etc.3

, this Court observed that in a case of

circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold

requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of

circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the

accused must be established by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances

3 AIR 2020 SC 180

7

must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of

the accused. We need not burden this judgment by

referring to other judgments as the above principles have

been consistently followed and approved by this Court

time and again.

11. In the above backdrop of the settled legal

propositions, we proceed to deal with the facts,

circumstances and evidence of the present case and find

out as to whether each link of the chain of circumstances

is fully established by the prosecution or not.

12. The 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.

13. First of all, we may record that the prosecution has

not come forward with any motive whatsoever as to why

8

the appellant along with the co-accused juvenile ‘K’ would

commit the said crime. Even the Trial Court and the High

Court in the absence of any evidence have not been able

to record a finding on the motive for the commission of the

crime.

14. The High Court dealt with the aspect of motive in

solitary paragraph no.20, a perusal of which does not

reflect that any motive was noticed but that ‘juvenile K’

was the mastermind behind the crime and that he had

purchased the weapon of assault. This, by nowhere would

constitute a motive.

15. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an

important role to play. Motive may also have a role to play

even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much

greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence

than a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in

the chain of circumstances. Reference may be made to the

9

following two judgments on the importance of motive in a

case of circumstantial evidence:

(1) Kuna Alias Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha

4

; and

(2) Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police5

.

16. Next, in the present case, the dead body has not been

recovered. Only a limb was recovered but no DNA testing

was carried out to establish that the limb was that of the

deceased Kaushik Sarkar. As such the entire case of the

prosecution proceeds on presumption that Kaushik

Sarkar has died. The principle of corpus delicti has

judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be

recorded in the absence of the recovery of the corpus and

the other view that no conviction could be recorded in the

absence of recovery of the corpus. The later view is for the

reason that if subsequently the corpus appears as alive,

someone may have been convicted and sentenced and

4

(2018) 1 SCC 296

5

(2004) 12 SCC 521

10

suffered incarceration for no crime committed by him. We

are not going into the law on the point. However, we have

just recorded this fact and it may have some relevance or

bearing while considering the other links of the chain of

circumstances.

17. We now deal with the theory of last seen. In the first

information given by Arjun Das (PW-7) in the morning to

the police station, there is no mention that Kaushik left

his house along with the appellant and ‘juvenile K’. Arjun

Das (PW-7) has only stated that his nephew Kaushik had

left in the evening on the motor bike and had not returned.

Although in his statement before the Trial Court he stated

that Kaushik had gone with the appellant and juvenile ‘K’

but when confronted with his statement under Section

161 CrPC and also about the entry in the police records,

he had no explanation for the same.

18. PW-25 is the main witness of the last seen. She is

mother of Kaushik. She has stated that when she

11

returned from the office around 5 PM on 19.06.2007, she

saw Kaushik going out on the motor bike of his father.

When she inquired from him, he said he was going to

Fatikroy with the appellant and juvenile ‘K’. She further

stated that she followed her son upto the gate and saw the

appellant and ‘juvenile K’ standing at the gate. This

witness in her cross-examination when confronted with

her statement under Section 161 CrPC said that no such

statement is there, although according to her, she had told

the Investigating Officer that she had seen the appellant

and ‘juvenile K’ at her gate.

19. The conviction is based upon, apart from the

prosecution witnesses, on the extra-judicial confession of

the appellant as also ‘juvenile K’. According to both the

confessions, the appellant as also ‘juvenile K’ were waiting

at a culvert near the Fatikroy bazar where Kaushik Sarkar

came on his bike at about half past 5. From there all three

of them left on the bike. However, near the circuit house

12

he stopped the bike and wanted to check whether his

mother has come home from office. Both of them waited

near the circuit house and Kaushik Sarkar after checking

at home again came back to circuit house from where they

left for Kumarghat. If the extra-judicial confession is to be

accepted, the statement of last seen theory given by the

mother (PW-25) becomes difficult to be given any

credibility. However, even if we ignore the extra-judicial

confession, the statement of PW-25 appears to be an

improvement only to develop the last seen theory.

Inasmuch as neither in the telephone call of Arjun Das

(PW-7) recorded at the police station refers to Kaushik

leaving in the evening along with the appellant and

juvenile ‘K’ nor do the statements of PW-7 and PW-25

under Section 161 CrPC mention the name of the

appellant and juvenile ‘K’ having been seen leaving with

Kaushik from his residence. Two other witnesses were

also examined in support of the last seen theory but they

also do not inspire any confidence.

13

20. Insofar as the recoveries are concerned which again

is an important link in the chain of circumstances, the

recoveries have been from an open place. The dragging of

some heavy object from the place where the blood-stains

were noticed and ‘vojali’ was recovered, up to the edge of

the river and then recovering the motor bike from the place

from the bed of the river just below where the dragging

marks had come to an end is something quite normal and

expected. It was not a place which could be in the

exclusive knowledge of the appellant.

21. The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of

evidence and especially when it has been retracted during

trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also

it must be established that it was completely voluntary

and truthful. In view of the discussion made above, we do

not find any corroborating evidence to support the extrajudicial confession, rather the evidence led by prosecution

is inconsistent with the same.

14

22. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the

major links of the chain of circumstances have not been

proved by the prosecution evidence and as such it would

be unjust to uphold the conviction of the appellant. The

appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is

acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is in judicial

custody. However, he was granted parole by the State. He

shall be released forthwith.

23. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

……................................J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

.………….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

NEW DELHI

FEBRUARY 28, 2023.