Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N.G.Das, N.Surjamani Singh, JJ.
Jitendra Chandra Shib -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1983
Decided On : 17-05-1996
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 302, 34, 148, 149, 323 IPC - FACT OF THE CASE: The accused-appellants were convicted for murder, rioting, and causing hurt. They appealed against the conviction and sentence. FINDING OF THE COURT: The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. The court also found that the accused-appellants had not been able to establish any defence. ISSUES: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. 2. Whether the accused-appellants had been able to establish any defence. RATIO DECIDENDI: 1. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. The court relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the medical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence. 2. The court held that the accused-appellants had not been able to establish any defence. The court found that the accused-appellants had not been able to prove that they had acted in self-defence or that they had been provoked. FINAL DECISION: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted for murder, rioting, and causing hurt. They appealed against the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. The court also found that the accused-appellants had not been able to establish any defence.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. 2. Whether the accused-appellants had been able to establish any defence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused-appellants had committed the offences. The court relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the medical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence. 2. The court held that the accused-appellants had not been able to establish any defence. The court found that the accused-appellants had not been able to prove that they had acted in self-defence or that they had been provoked.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants.
The accused-appellants namely (1) Shri Jitendra Chandra Shib, (2) Shri Indra Mohan Shib, (3) Shri Nilmohan Shib, (4) Gopal Chandra Shib, (5) Shri Chitta Ranjan Shib, (.6) Shri Narayan Chandra Shib, (7) Shri Biswamber Bhowmik, (8) Shri Bhuban Chandra Shib, (9) Shri Prafulla Shib, (10) Shri Sachindra Chandra Shib and (11) Shri Manindra Chandra Shib have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South-Tripura, Udaipur in Session Trial No. 13 (ST/ . U) of 1982 convicting the accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Jitendra Chandra Shib and Shri Indra Mohan Shib under section 302 read with section 34IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months; convicting all the appellants under section 148 and 323 read with section 149 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under section 148 IPC excepting accused-appellant Nos.3 and 8 who have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month; and sentencing all the accused-appellants for a rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under section 323 and 149 IPC, except the accused-appellant Nos.3 and 8 who have been sentenced to undergo for one months rigorous imprisonment for the said offences.
2. The prosecution case is as follows : About 13/14 years back from the date of occurrence, the informant Shri Dhirendra Chandra Das and his family members came from Bangladesh to Maharani in India and since then they have been residing in the house of the informant's grand father. They have no landed property and as such their source of earning for their livelihood was by doing cultivation over the land of others and selling fishes. His grand father Banamali came to Maharani, a place within the South Tripura District, after exchanging his properties with Muslim of those days. Banamali got possession without exchanging of land excepting thirteen gandas of land which could not be traced out for long time. These thirteen gandas of land was previously possessed by Manmohan Siva. During the survey operation, this thirteen gandas of land could. be traced out. The informant and their family members came to know that these thirteen gandas of land belonged to his grand father Banamali. Then the Settlement Officer prepared the relevant papers such as parcha, revenue of tax for the land etc. in the name of Banamali Das, Jamini Das and late Harimohan Das On 18.9.1979 the informant and his family members transplanted seedling on a portion of the said land and they had been continuing such transplantation of seedling on the said land.
On 20.9.1979 informant's father Shri Harendra Das went to said land to transplant seedling thereon in the very early morning. On that day at about 6 AM Monmohan Shib (now deceased), Gopal Shib, Nilmohan Shib, Jitendra Shib, Manindra Chandra Shib, Indra Mohan Shib and Chitta Ranjan Shib, Prafulla Chandra Shib, Narayan Chandra Shib, Sachindra Shib and Bhuban Chandra Shib, (the present appellants-accuseds) along with 3/4 others went to the place where Harendra Das was transplanting seedlings with Ballams and pointed bamboos. The accused persons had with them two pair bullocks, yolk and plougth. They told Shri Harendra Das to leave the said paddy field. In reply, Harendra Das told them that a case has been filed by them regarding the dispute over the said land; and they would get the land in case they win in the case. In spite of this, the accused persons had been threatening the informant's father to leave the said land. At the relevant time Shri Jamini Das also arrived there. Shri Jamini Das requested both the sides not to quarrel. But Indra Mohan Siva dealt a blow on the head of Jamini with a Ballam. The other accused persons also began to assault Jamini simultane
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
