Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Ranjit Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 07 of 2009Decided On : 16-06-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Ghosh, P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating evidence and the entitlement of the accused to the benefit of doubt in the absence of such evidence.
Headnote:
Revisional Application - Criminal Appeal - Section 324, Section 34 of IPC - The court discussed the evidence and materials on record and found that the accused-petitioners were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to lack of corroborating evidence, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were found guilty of committing an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners appealed the decision, claiming that the trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate the evidence and arrived at a perverse finding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence provided was not sufficient to involve the accused-petitioners, and the subsequent statement of the victim was not corroborated by any other cogent evidence on record, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused-petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused-petitioners under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of corroborating evidence and the belated statement of the victim, leading to the entitlement of the accused-petitioners to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The revisional application filed by the accused-petitioners was allowed, and the Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence were set aside and quashed, setting the accused-petitioners at liberty.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 20.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 8(4)/2008.
The accused-petitioners, Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das along with another accused Dilip Nama were found guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khowai in Case No. GR. 139 of 2004 and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for 2 months.
Felt aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 8(4) of 2008 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revisional application.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the petitioners and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State-respondent.
3. Satish Sarkar (P.W. 1) of Maiganga, P.S. Teliamura set the law in motion by filing an FIR in writing on 18.09.2004 alleging inter alia that on that day, the accused Dilip Nama called out his son Ajit Sarkar from the house and taken him near the house of accused Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das. There they had some altercation and thereafter, all on a sudden, the accused persons attacked Ajit Sarkar with dao and wooden file in hand and Dilip Nama struck dao blow on the head of Ajit and other accused persons assaulted Ajit with wooden file causing severe injury on his person and as a result, Ajit received bleeding injuries and fled away from the spot and arrived at Maiganga Chowmuhani wherefrom he was rescued by a rickshaw puller and the rickshaw puller also informed him and thereafter, his son was taken to Teliamura hospital wherefrom he was taken to G.B. hospital and was under treatment.
Teliamura P.S. Case No. 52 of 2004 under Section 326/34 of IPC was registered on the basis of that FIR and after investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused petitioners as well as accused Dilip Nama for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. In course of trial, charge under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed and to prove the charge, prosecution examined 9 witnesses altogether including the victim Ajit Sarkar (P.W. 7).
After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and thereafter, on their turn, the accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence.
Defence case is nothing, but denial of the prosecution allegation.
4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by impugned Judgment dated 14.11.2008 found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. The petitioners Ranjit Das and Sanjit Das preferred Criminal Appeal No. 08(4) of 2008, but it was dismissed and the sentence was maintained.
5. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record and arrived at a perverse finding and therefore, the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners liable to be interfered and set aside.
It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that in the FIR, which is proved as Exbt. 1, P.W. 1 made specific statement that his son Ajit Sarkar was called out from his house by accused Dilip Nama. Nothing stated in the FIR that accused Ranjit and Sanjit visited the house of the informant and the victim on that day. P.W. 1, the informant in his evidence developed the story and stated that Ranjit and Sanjit were also with Dilip when Ajit was called out from the house. P.W. 7, the victim stated nothing about the allegation that Ranjit and Sanjit had called him out from his house on the date of alleged occurrence. It is also pointed out that the victim at the time of his examination by I.O.
