Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Maibam B.K. Singh, J.
Subash Deb
Vs.
State of Tripura
Decided On : 26.06.2009
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Law - Sections 458, 325, 307, 436 - The judgment discusses the evidence and credibility of witnesses in a case involving charges under Sections 458, 325, 307, and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the delay in recording witness statements, the reliability of witness testimony, and the establishment of motive, ultimately crediting the benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an incident where the appellant was convicted under Sections 458, 325, 307, and 436 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly setting a house on fire and inflicting injuries on the victim. The victim's statement and the credibility of witnesses were central to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It highlighted the unexplained delay in recording witness statements, the lack of credibility in witness testimony, and the unsuccessful attempt to establish previous enmity as grounds for the decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimony, the delay in recording witness statements, and the establishment of motive in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court credited the benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant due to the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the unexplained delay in recording witness statements and the lack of credibility in witness testimony.
Final Decision: The impugned Judgment and order of sentence were set aside, and the accused/appellant was set at liberty on benefit of doubt.
Mutum B.K. Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-10-01 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. S. T. 141 (ST/S) 2000, convicting the appellant herein under Sections 458, 325, 307 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer consecutive rigorous imprisonment for two years, two years, five years and one year respectively.
2. Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17-10-1999 at about 8:30 p.m., one Sridam Ch. Das lodged a written report to the Darugababu of Sabroom PS to the effect that on the same day at about 7:30 p.m., while the informant was at Sabroom town with his elder son, one Tapan Debnath of Kathalshari bazar informed him that the informant's house has been set on the fire. On getting the said information, the informant with his elder son rushed to his house and found that the big room of his western biti along with the household articles were completely gutted by fire. It also came to know that his domestic birds (hens, ducks etc.) were also burnt by the said fire. None of the family members was found present in his house except some drops of blood and utensils lying scattered near his kitchen. When he searched about his wife and younger son, he was informed from the house of his neighbour that his wife was lying with severe bleeding injuries in the kitchen of one Krishna Das. The informant immediately rushed to the said house where he found his wife lying with bleeding injuries having cut marks on her body. On being asked, he was informed by his wife that in the same evening at about 6/6:30 p.m. the accused Subash Deb entered into his house and inflicted injuries on her body with sharp weapon and also burnt his house. On 15-10-1999 in the morning, the accused Subash Deb had a quarrel over a pathway dispute in which the accused/appellant threatened the informant and his wife to be killed.
4. On receipt of the said written report, Sabroom PS registered FIR case No. 62/99 under Sections447/326 and 436 IPC and investigated. On completion of the investigation, the IO submitted chargesheet under Sections 447, 326, 307 and 436 IPC. The learned trial Court, having satisfied with the evidence on record, framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 458, 326,307, and 436 IPC to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, 8 prosecution witnesses and 5 defence witnesses were adduced. The learned trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial and on the basis of the evidence on record, found the accused/appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 458, 326, 307 and 438 IPC. The learned trial Court, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
6. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the impugned Judgment, the order of conviction and sentence are not warranted in the fact and evidence on record. According to the appellant's learned Counsel, the statement of the PW No. 3 is not at all reliable as she gave an improved version while giving her statement before the Court. No reason has been given by the prosecution for the delay in recording her statement prior to 1-12-1999. The said witness (PW No. 3) did not mention in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. that she had narrated the incident to PW Nos. 1, 4, 5 and others in the house of PW No. 5 before taking her to the Sabroom Hospital for treatment. Similarly, she had also not mentioned about her statement said to have been given to PW Nos. 2 and 6 in her statement recorded under Sections161 and 164 Cr. P.C. and that, as per medical report marked as Ext. P4 and the statement of DW No. 1, the victim (PW No. 3) was not in a position or able to spe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
