Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 1023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Bidhu Debbarma - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2001
Decided On: 21.11.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.D. Choudhury, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.C. Debnath, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the framing of a specific charge against the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of affording an opportunity of hearing before passing an order for compensation.
Headnote:
Extortion - Criminal Appeal - Section 384 I.P.C. - [Section 384 I.P.C.] - The judgment discusses the legality of the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, the elements of the offense, and the legality of the conviction. The court also examined the issue of framing a specific charge against the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. and its relation to the original charge under Section 364(A) I.P.C. The judgment provides a detailed interpretation of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its application to the case. The court also addressed the direction for compensation and the violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order without affording the Appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. for extortion. The prosecution presented evidence of negotiation and payment of ransom to the Appellant for the release of a kidnapped individual. The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. The court also upheld the legality of the conviction under Section 384 I.P.C. without framing a specific charge against the Appellant. However, the court noted a violation of principles of natural justice in the direction for compensation without affording the Appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the conviction and sentence under Section 384 I.P.C., the framing of a specific charge against the Appellant, and the direction for compensation without affording the Appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 384 I.P.C. The court also interpreted Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its application to the case. Additionally, the court found a violation of principles of natural justice in the direction for compensation without affording the Appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, sustaining the judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment upon the Appellant. The Appellant was directed to surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remaining period of his sentence. The direction for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for affording an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and deciding on the liability and quantum of compensation payable by him to the family of the victim.
T. Vaiphei, J.
1. The legality of the conviction and sentence of the Appellant passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura under Section 384 I.P.C. In his judgment dated 31.07.2005 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 153 (WT/A)/2000, is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. S.D. Choudhury, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, the Learned Public Prosecutor in charge.
3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 15.12.1998 in the evening, Sadhan Das aged about 25 years, Son of the informant of Jagaharimura under West Agartala Police Station had gone out to attend some invitation but did not return during the night time. When he did not return in the night, the informant and his relative searched for him but could not trace him out. On 16.12.1998, his scooter was found abandoned at South Anandanagar with a leaf-let indicating that some extremists had abducted him for ransom. Takarjala Police Station collected the scooter and took it to the police station. On learning that the victim was abducted by extremists, the informant with his sons-in-law Ranjan Das went to East Agartala Police Station and lodged a written FIR, which was subsequently registered as Takarjala P.S. Case No. 58 of 1998 under Section 364(A) I.P.C., which prompted the investigation of the case. In the meantime, the informant received a number of letters from the extremists group called ATBYF, instructed him to pay ransom for the release of missing person to the order of Rs. 10,00,000/- and asked him for negotiation. As per the instruction contained in the letter of the extremists, the informant along with his two sons-in-law met the Appellant at Mandai in his shop and discussed with him about the ransom amount. The informant expressed his inability to make the payment as demanded, but after negotiation, it was agreed that the informant would pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Appellant, for the release of his son. The informant along with his two sons-in-law i.e., P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 accordingly met the Appellant from time to time and on one spell paid Rs. 90,000/- and on the second spell paid Rs. 10,000/-, but no release was made even after this payment. The informant thereafter met the Appellant again, who told him that unless a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid, his son would not be released whereupon the informant with P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and Anr. relative somehow managed to get Rs. 1,00,000/- which was subsequently paid to the Appellant, who in turn, assured them that the victim would be released at Bagma near Bagma Hospital and instructed them to wait there. P.W 1 and P.W. 3 accordingly proceeded to Bagma and waited there, but the victim was not released. When the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as ransom did not result in the release of the victim by the extremists from their caprivity, they again met the informant, who, however, threatened them with dire consequences if they made any attempt to meet him again at Mandai. The informant and his relative thereupon dropped the idea of meeting with the Appellant.
In the course of the investigation, the police seized the letters, which the informant received from the extremists by preparing a seizure list. After the investigation, the police charge sheeted the Appellant and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) and 109 I.P.C. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, who endorsed it to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura for trial. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, having found a prima facie case, framed charge against the Appellant and other accused persons under Section364(A) IPC, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial thereafter commenced before the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the course of the trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge framed against the Ap
