the victim prosecutrix stated that she was first taken to the
cowshed by the accused persons and that cowshed belonged
to Dayananda Debbarma and Dayananda Debbarma has not
been examined and so adverse inference should be drawn. We
find no merit at all in this argument of learned counsel Mr,
Dutta that Dayananda Debbarma is a material witness.
Nothing is there in the evidence on record that Dayananda
was informed by the victim or her parents or that Dayananda
came to the house of the victim prosecutrix and learnt about
the occurrence or that in any other manner he was connected
with the occurrence. Therefore, in our considered opinion, non
examination of Dayananda is not at all material for
consideration by the Court.
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. A. (J) NO. 34 OF 2013
Sri Biswamohan Debbarma,
- Vrs –
The State of Tripura.
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.DEEPAK GUPTA
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.C. DAS
Dated:04.02.2016.
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)147 TRI
