Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Utpalendu Bikas Saha,, J.
Pratima Saha - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Others - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 106 of 2013Decided On : 03-07-2013
Further Investigation - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. - The court directed further investigation of the case under Section 302 IPC and Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. based on the petitioner's apprehension of unfair trial due to the non-examination of an alleged eye-witness. The court emphasized the obligation of the investigating agency to conduct fair and proper investigation and the court's power to ensure justice for the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought further investigation of a case where her husband was brutally beaten and subsequently died. The charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC without examining an alleged eye-witness. The petitioner contended that further investigation was necessary for a fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged eye-witness had not been examined before the charge-sheet was filed and directed further investigation under Section 302 IPC and Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. The court emphasized the obligation of the investigating agency to conduct fair and proper investigation and the court's power to ensure justice for the victim.
Issues: The main issue was whether further investigation was necessary for a fair trial due to the non-examination of an alleged eye-witness before the charge-sheet was filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that further investigation can be ordered for the interest of justice, emphasizing the obligation of the investigating agency to conduct fair and proper investigation. The court also highlighted its power to ensure justice for the victim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed further investigation of the case under Section 302 IPC and Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. The court emphasized the obligation of the investigating agency to conduct fair and proper investigation and the court's power to ensure justice for the victim.
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Smt. Pratima Saha, wife of deceased Bikash Saha who was brutally beaten by the extremists on 16.8.2011, subsequently died on 17.8.2011 and on which incident, a case was registered being Airport police station case No. 70 of 2011, for directing the State respondents for further investigation of the aforesaid police case, as the Investigating Officer (I.O) did not examine one Sri. Bidhan Datta, son of late Arun Datta, who was admittedly an eye-witness of the incident of beating/killing the deceased Bikash Saha though he personally met with the I.O and narrated the said incident what he had actually seen.
2. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P who appears for and on behalf of the respondents and also filed affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondents.
3. The background facts of the case are as follows:
In the night of 16.8.2011, the husband of the petitioner deceased Bikash Saha had been brutally beaten by the extremists and as he was injured due to such assault, he was shifted to Narsingarh PHC for his treatment and from there, he was referred and brought to AGMC & GBP Hospital, but ultimately he succumbed to his injuries there on the following day i.e. 17.8.2011.
4. One Nikhil Ghosh of Bagadi village lodged a written complaint on 17.8.2011 with the Officer In-charge, Airport P.S. before the death of the husband of the petitioner which was treated as FIR and the said police case was registered under Section 326 IPC.
5. As the husband of the petitioner ultimately succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 of the IPC was added and finally, the I.O. filed the charge-sheet against one Tapan Sen as accused.
6. After filing the charge-sheet, the case was committed in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala who thereafter transferred the same before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, for trial.
7. The petitioner being the wife of the deceased is the real victim as she lost her husband and interested in the case to see that the actual culprit should be punished under the law of the land after proper trial. But fact remains that the police submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC without examining the eye-witness Sri. Bidhan Dutta who himself allegedly disclosed the matter to the I.O. of the case and not only that the petitioner and her mother in law also met with the I.O. of the case along with eye-witness Bidhan Datta. Thus, in absence of such eyewitness, if the trial is completed, then the real culprit would not be punished, rather he would get the benefit of such non-examination and non-citation of the eye-witness as witness in the charge-sheet. Hence, according to the petitioner, for fair trial, further investigation is necessary.
8. It is also stated by the petitioner that even after filing of the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C., further investigation is not debarred in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as the Gauhati High Court of the State of Tripura since establishment of High Court of Tripura.
9. The respondents filed their affidavits in opposition stating that neither the complainant nor the alleged eye-witness Sri. Bidhan Datta approached the concerned officer In-charge of the Airport Police Station or the Sub-divisional Officer stating that the said Datta had seen the incident of beating/killing the petitioner’s husband before filing of the charge-sheet which was done within one month from the date of registration of the case.
10. After filing of the writ petition, this Court on 30.4.2013, taking note of the paragraphs-7, 8 & 9 of the writ petition directed Sri. Bidhan Datta son of late Arun Datta resident of village-Bhagalpur, P.S. Airport, West Tripura for filing an affidavit on the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that after few days of the murder of her husband, he contacted the petitio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
