SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Gau) 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and Tinlianthang Vaiphei, JJ.
Sadat Ali and Ors.
Vs.
State of Tripura
Criminal Appeal Nos. 35 and 48 of 1998
Decided On: 05.10.2004

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Counsel, S. Kar Bhowmik, S. Sutradhar, P. Saha, A.C. Bhowmik, D.C. Roy,R. Dutta, P. Sarkar and J.K. Saha, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Sarkar, Public Prosecutor and R.C. Debnath, Adv.

The denial of permission to allow the defense to adduce evidence was found to be illegal and improper, emphasizing the need for a just decision in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 323 - [SUBJECT] - [302, 323, 149] - The court discussed the denial of permission to allow the defense to adduce evidence, the legal provisions regarding trial of counter cases, and the need for just decision in criminal cases. The court found the denial of permission to adduce evidence as illegal and improper, leading to a serious miscarriage of justice, and remanded the case to allow the defense to adduce evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-appellants were convicted under Section 302 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for their involvement in an incident where four persons sustained injuries and one person succumbed to his injuries. The defense sought permission to adduce evidence, which was denied by the trial court, leading to the present appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the denial of permission to adduce evidence as illegal and improper, leading to a serious miscarriage of justice, and remanded the case to allow the defense to adduce evidence.

Issues: The main issue was the denial of permission to allow the defense to adduce evidence, which was found to be illegal and improper by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of permission to adduce evidence was illegal and improper, and emphasized the need for a just decision in criminal cases, leading to the remand of the case to allow the defense to adduce evidence.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to allow the defense to adduce evidence.

JUDGMENT

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the two Criminal Appeals, namely, Cri. Appl. No. 35 of 1998 and Cri. Appl. No. 48 of 1998, which have been heard together on account of the fact that they arise out of a common judgment and order, dated 21-5-1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Case No. Sessions Trial 15 (NT/K) of 1993.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 21-5-1998, aforementioned, the accused-appellants stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer, for their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months and to suffer, for their conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for six months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :-

On 24-6-1990 at about 10 P.M. Masuk Ali, while purchasing bidi from the shop of one Maya Miah, at Irani Market, heard cries of his brother, Manjir Ali, raised from the southern lane of the market asking for help. On the cries so heard, Masuk Ali rushed towards the place from where the cries were being raised and saw Yeamich Ali, Taimuj Ali and Usman Ali assaulting Manjir Ali by lathi and dao. Masuk Ali, with the help of his nephew, Suleman Hossain (since deceased) and one Sultan Ali, tried to save Manjir Ali, but the remaining accused-appellants along with their other associates joined Yeamich Ali, Taimuj Ali and Usman Ali and started assaulting Suleman Hossain, Sultan Ali, Masuk Ali and Manjir Ali by daos, lathis, jhatas, etc. As a result of the assaults on him, Suleman Hossain succumbed to his injuries at the very place of occurrence and the other three persons, namely, Sultan Ali, Masuk Ali and Manjir Ali also sustained injuries. Some persons, who were witnessing World Cup Football Match on T. V. in nearby shop of the said market, also rushed to the place of occurrence and, upon witnessing those persons arrive at the place of occurrence, the accused-appellants along with their associates took to their heels. Injured Masuk Ali, then, lodged an F.I.R. at Kailashahar Police Station and Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 21 (6) 90 under Sections 148/ 149/326/302, I.P.C. read with Section 25(1)(a)of the Arms Act was accordingly registered against the present accused-appellants and some others. During investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of Suleman Hossain and the other three victims of assault, namely, Sultan Ali, Masuk Ali and Manjir Ali were treated at the hospital. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellants and six others under Sections 148/ 149/324/326/323/302, I.P.C. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and Session Case No. 15(NT/K) of 1993 aforementioned came to be registered.

4. During trial charges under Sections 302, 326 and 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. were framed against the accused-appellants and some others. To the charges so framed, the accused-appellants and others pleaded not guilty. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held the present accused-appellants guilty of the charges framed against them under Sections302 and 323, I.P.C. read with Section 149 thereof and convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as hereinabove mentioned.

5. With regard to the occurrence, which had given rise to Case No. Sessions Trial 15(NT/K) of 1993 aforementioned, Haji Abdul Moakhir lodged an F.I.R. at the same police station, i.e. Kailashahar Police Station, on 25-6-1990, at about 0045 A.M., alleging, inter alia, in brief, as under :-

"Today on 24-6-90 getting you at Irani Bazar and knowi




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top