IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Amitava Roy and C.R. Sarma, JJ.
Premananda Namasudra - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
AND
State of Tripura - Appellants
Vs.
Naba Kumar Debbarma, Biswa Dayal Jamatia and Premananda Namasudra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 and 45 of 2005, Alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010, Alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005
Decided on : 20.06.2011
Constitution of India – Article 20(2) – Indian Penal Code – Sections 302,120B, 364A – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 13 – Set of appeals, arising out of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions case No. ST(WT/A) are based on similar facts involving similar question of law and the parties in the appeals are also represented by the same set of lawyers – Therefore, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and we propose to dispose of all the appeals aforesaid by this common judgment and order –Held, Learned trial Judge, though observed that the charges under Section 364A IPC was unnecessary and that the prosecution also failed to establish the said charge, passed no order regarding acquittal of the accused persons from the said charges under Sections 364A/120B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act – Therefore, in the absence of any evidence the Appellants in Criminal Appeal and the Respondents in Criminal Appeal are acquitted from the offences, charged under Sections 364A/34, 120BIPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with S.T – Appeal dismissed
C.R. Sarma, J.
1. This set of appeals, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 2-3-05, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Sessions case No. ST(WT/A)48 of 2001 are based on similar facts involving similar question of law and the parties in the appeals are also represented by the same set of lawyers. Therefore, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and we propose to dispose of all the appeals aforesaid by this common judgment and order.
2. The Appellants, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 of 2005, 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 and the Respondents, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in the above mentioned Sessions case, on the charges of committing the offences under Sections 302,120B, 364A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record convicted the Appellants Sri Nabakumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia alias Dayal Jamatia under Sections 302 and 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Appellant Sri Premananda Namasudra was convicted under Section 120B of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and orders, sentenced Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, suffer imprisonment for another period of two months for their conviction under Section 302 IPC. The said two Appellants were also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 120B of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Appellant Sri Premananda Namasudra was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, suffer imprisonment for another one year for his conviction under Section 120B IPC. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and that the period of detention shall be treated as set off. The other accused persons, including Sri Himangshu Das and other Respondents, in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2005, were acquitted for want of evidence against them.
3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convict Sri Premananda Namasudra, Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma and Sri Biswadayal Jamatia preferred appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 31 of 2005, 103 of 2006 and 58 of 2010 respectively. The State also, being dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment awarded to convict Sri Naba Kumar Debbarma, Sri Biswadayal Jamatia and Sri Premananda Namasudra and others have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2005 and preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, challenging the acquittal of Sri Himangshu Das and other Respondents.
4. We have heard Mr. D. P. Kundu, learned Advocate General, Tripura, Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, Tripura, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Tripura and Ms Rumela Guha, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Tripura. We have also heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, Mr. P. Majumder, Mr. M. K. Biswas, Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private Appellants and the private Respondents aforesaid.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, may be set out as follows:
Sri Bimal Kumar Sinha (since deceased), a CPI (M) party leader, who was the Minister of Health & Family Welfare department, Government of Tripura, submitted his nomination papers for contesting the Assembly election, as a candidate from the Kamalpur Assembly constituency in the year 1998. Sri Jagadish Ghosh (since deceased), also submitted his nomination papers as a candidate of the Congress party for the said Assembly constituency. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, his nomination papers were cancelle
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master
State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish and Ors.
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI
State of Punjab v. Sohan Singh
Md. Rustam alias Rustam v. State of Bihar
Sadhu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ganesh Bhaban Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Radha Kumar v. State of Bihar 2005 10 SCC 216
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi
Heramba Brahma and Anr. v. State of Assam
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan
Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri
Salem Advocate Bar Assn.(II) v. Union of India
Land Acquisition Officer v. mahaboob
Hari Nath and Anr. v. State of U.P.
Budh Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SCW 5675
State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla and Anr.
State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors.
P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala
Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab
Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P.
Harchand Ch. Singh v. State of Hariyana
State of Orissa v. Brahmmananda Nanda
Raju alias Rajendra v. Sate of Maharastra
C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala
Tahsildar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
C. Magesh and Ors. etc. v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SCW 3194
Monica Bedi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 682
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.