Back
2013 Supreme(Gau) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Utpalendu Bikas Saha and Swapan Chandra Das, JJ.
Junia Debbarma
Vs.
State of Tripura
Crl. Appeal No. 02 of 2008
Decided On: 29.01.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. R. Datta
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. PP
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 149, 365, 326, 302, 148, 149 and 448 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 161, 174, 350, 242, 244, 254, 69 and 311 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Evidence Act - Sections 60, 32, 64 and 65 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act - Section 3 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-A - Criminal Trial - Criminal Charges - On being receipt of aforesaid FIR Sub-Inspector as duty officer of PS registered a specific case being PS Case and set criminal law in motion - Officer-in-Charge of PS endorsed aforesaid Police case to Sub Inspector PW 2 for investigation - To prove charges as framed against accused appellant prosecution examined six witnesses including official witnesses defence did not examine any witness being its case was of total denial accused was examined - After hearing learned counsel for parties learned trial Court taking note of evidence on record convicted and consequent thereto passed order of sentence as stated supra - Held, We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings - In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of case charges made against accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and requirement of proof cannot lie in realm of surmises and conjectures requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after introduction - Although Courts conscience must be satisfied that accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about complicity of accused in respect of offences alleged it should be borne in mind that there is not absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and question whether charges made against accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon facts and circumstances of case and quality of evidences adduced in case and materials placed on record - Appeal allowed.
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
1. The appellant Junia Debbarma has been convicted under Section 365/326/302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 365 IPC and five years for the offence committed under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and also to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, i.d. to payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and all the sentences for the aforesaid offences were to run concurrently, and thus, this appeal aims at setting aside the conviction and sentence, as stated aforesaid, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura vide his judgment and order dated 24.09.2005 in S.T.61(WT/K) of 2002. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State respondent.
2. The prosecution version, as unfolded in the case is that on 15.09.1994 one Surendra Debbarma (PW 3) of Bahadur Chandra Para, Kakracherra under Teliamura P.S. lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Teliamura P.S. stating, inter alia, that having received an information that extremists had raided/attacked the village Keshab Chandra Para he rushed to the said village and found PW 5 Subodh Debbarma severely injured with bullet injury on his person and the villagers had started crying encircling him. PW 3 also stated in the FIR that he came to learn from the members of the family of the injured Subodh Debborma, PW 5, that in the evening a group of extremists came to their house and kidnapped PW 5, Subodh Debbarma as well as Dhan Chandra Debbarma, S/O Sri Kalanjoy Debbarma, PW 4, for the purpose of showing them the way towards Haldia and after some time the villagers on hearing the sound of gun firing went towards Haldia and found Subodh Debbarma, PW 5, on the road, severely injured with bullet injuries on his person and the extremists took away Dhan Chandra Debbarma. The villagers carried PW 5, Subodh Debbarma to Teliamura Rural Hospital for treatment wherefrom he was referred to GB Hospital, Agartala.
3. On being receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Sub-Inspector Budda Debbarma as duty officer of the Teliamura P.S. registered a specific case being Teliamura P.S. Case No. 122/1994 (corresponding to GR case No. 248/1994) under Sections 148/149/448/365/326 IPC and 27 Arms Act and set the criminal law in motion. The Officer-in-Charge of the Teliamura PS endorsed the aforesaid Police case to Sub Inspector Dhanakumar Kalai, PW 2 for investigation.
4. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW 2) of the case submitted charge sheet, on being satisfied that a prima facie case has been established under Sections 148, 448, 365, 326, 302 read with Section 149 IPC for killing Dhan Ch. Debbarma and for causing injury and kidnapping PW 5, Subodh Debbarma against the six accused persons, namely, 1. Deb Kr. Debbarma, 2. Barun Debarma, 3. Laxman Debbarma, 4. Junia Debbarma, 5. Hriday Debbarma and 6. Sushi Debbarma showing them absconder. On receiving charge sheet the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khowai took cognizance of the case under the aforesaid Sections of IPC and committed the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. The learned trial Court received the case records on commitment from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khowai for trial of the accused, namely, Deb Kr. Debbarma for commission of offence punishable under Section 148/149/448/365/326/302 IPC and cognizance of the said offences was taken. The accused Deb Kr. Debbarma was produced from JC and as he was not in a position to engage any lawyer to conduct the case on his behalf, ultimately he was provided with amicus curiae by the Court and on trial said Deb Kr. Debbarma was acquitte
