2010 Supreme(Gau) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and C.R. Sarma, JJ.
Gautamdas and Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 81 of 2006
Decided On: 10.11.2010
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148/302/149 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 162/161/145 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 - Rigorous imprisonment - Penalty - Threatening to cause injury - Lodged a written FIR against the present Appellants and five others - During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and subjected the same to autopsy - At the completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against eight persons, including the present Appellants - Held, It would be in the interest of justice, if an opportunity is given to the Appellants to prove the contradictions as well as the omissions according to the established procedure of law - Therefore, without entering into the merit of the case, we feel it just and appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court so that the witnesses aforementioned are recalled for their examination afresh so far as the contradictions, as alleged by the defence, are concerned in order to enable the defence to prove the contradictions, if any, as per law - Court quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge - Consequently, the impugned conviction and sentence stand set aside - Matter is required to be taken up for disposal by the learned trial Judge, immediately after receipt of the records, we feel it appropriate not to release the accused-Appellants on bail - They shall be produced before the learned trial Judge, as and when so directed by the learned trial Judge - Considering the delay, already caused, court direct that the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the records, by holding day-to-day trial, if necessary - Petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.M. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., R. Debnath, U. Choudhury and K. Roy, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Sarkar, P.P.
C.R. Sarma, J.
1. The judgment and order, dated 17.07.06, passed by the learned Addl. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in S.T. (WT/A) No. 30 of 2005, is in challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants under Sections 148 and Section302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for all for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. It was provided that the period of detention, already undergone by the Appellants, shall be treated as set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code of Criminal Procedure').
2. The case of the prosecution, as revealed at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:
On 23.11.03, at about 9 pm, 12 persons, riding motor bikes, entered the premises of Smt. Sabita Debnath (P.W. 1) i.e. the wife of late Jiban Debnath, by breaking open their gate and asked her the whereabouts of her husband (hereinafter called 'the deceased'). Amongst the said miscreants, PW1 could recognize Sri Gautam Das (Appellant), Sri Sunil Das, Sri Shankar Das, Sri Sefal Das, Sri Parimal Das and Sri Jiban Das (Appellant). Failing to find the deceased in his house, the said persons, again, at 10 pm, visited the house of the deceased. As Smt. Sabita Debnath informed the said visitors about the non-availability of her husband, the miscreants left the place threatening that her husband would be killed in her presence. On the same night, the deceased, while returning home from his in-law's house, was assaulted by the Appellants, Sri Sunil Das and 10/12 other persons, being armed with dao and stik, near a brick field, causing injuries to him. The said occurrence was seen by P Ws 2 and 3 (the parents-in-laws of the deceased). Soon after the miscreants had left the place, leaving the injured at the said place of occurrence, the injured was taken to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala, where he succumbed to his injuries.
The wife of the deceased lodged a written FIR (Ext.-1), on the next day of the occurrence, i.e. on 24.11.03, with the East Agartala PS, West Tripura. After receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case, being East Agartala PS case No. 197 of 2003 under Sections 148/302/149 IPC (Ext-1), against the present Appellants and five others. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and subjected the same to autopsy. At the completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against eight persons, including the present Appellants, under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Accused Sri Sunil Das and Sri Biplab Biswas were shown as absconders. Subsequently, on his appearance, Sri Biplab Biswas faced trial in this case.
3. The offence, under Section 302, IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against six persons, including the two Appellants, under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In their examination aforesaid, they denied that they had committed the offences, alleged to have been committed by them. Their plea was a complete denial one. The defence declined to adduce evidence.
5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted (1) Sri Sefal Das, (2) Sri Parimal Das, (3) Shankar Das, (4) Manish Das and (5) Biplab Biswas, under Section 232 Code of Criminal Procedure for want of sufficient evidence against them. Hence, the case proceeded against the present Appellants. Finding sufficient evidence against the Appella