Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Sri Ranjit Debbarma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl Petn. No. 44 of 2015
Decided On : 16-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Biswas, Mr. A. Bhadra, Ms. C. Bhowmik
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Ghosh
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of double jeopardy, as enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Charges Framed - Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 153(A) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 13 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges framed against the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The key legal provisions of Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 153(A) of the IPC and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were interpreted in the context of the petitioner's alleged extremist activities, conspiracy, and promoting disharmony between communities. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in relation to the charges framed against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the supplementary charges framed against him in a case, arguing that the charges were unrelated to the main case and were covered by a separate pending case. The court considered the connection between the charges and the pending case, as well as the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the supplementary charges were unrelated to the main case and were covered by a separate pending case, violating the principle of double jeopardy. The court quashed and set aside the supplementary charges and directed the disposal of the main sessions trial based on the evidence already collected.
Issues: The issues involved the framing of supplementary charges unrelated to the main case and the violation of the principle of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner cannot be made to face two trials for the same offence, as it would violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the supplementary charges framed against the petitioner were quashed and set aside. The court directed the disposal of the main sessions trial based on the evidence already collected, while allowing the prosecution to file any subsequent material in the pending case.
This petition by Sri Ranjit Debbarma is directed against the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also offences punishable under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in Case No. S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003 on the basis of a supplementary charge sheet.
2. The case of the petitioner is that these charges have nothing to do with S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003 and the second part of his argument is that charge sheet under these very Sections has already been filed against him in FIR No.38 of 1998 leading to S.T. 162 of 2013 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. Charge sheet in that case was filed by the police on sometime in July or August, 2012.
3. The prosecution story is that the petitioner is an extremist, a terrorist and has been leading insurgency activities against the Union of India. It is alleged that he is promoting disharmony between different communities and is also leading those sections of insurgents who are raising the call for a separate nation outside the Union of India.
4. On the other hand, the stand of the petitioner is that whatever he may have done in the past he has now been sending communications to all including the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India that he is willing to surrender and that he is willing to enter into peaceful negotiations and also accepts the supremacy of the Indian State.
5. The question before this Court is not whether the petitioner is guilty or not. The sole question is whether the petitioner could have been charged for these offences in S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003.
6. In S.T. (WT/A) 68 of 2003, there were as many as 11 accused persons. Out of them, only two were initially charged and the charges against them are that on 26.04.2001 at 10.30 a.m. they along with the other absconding accused (including the petitioner) had attacked a police party at Kanta Kobra Para and had committed dacoity and murder. They were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307, 396 and 427 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
7. The prosecution story briefly was that these persons including the petitioner had attacked a police party and there was an encounter between the police and the accused persons. Seven police personnel were killed. Many were injured and the accused persons escaped taking with them some of the arms belonging to the police personnel. Initially, charge was framed against the two persons, Sri Asit Debbarma and Sri Jagadish Debbarma. It is stated at the bar that these two persons were acquitted after trial. Thereafter, Sri Ranjit Debbarma was arrested on 23.01.2013 in connection with FIR No.38 of 1998 and thereafter, he was also charged in the S.T.(WT/A) 68 of 2003. The charge framed against him reads as follows:-
“That on 26.04.2001 at about 10.30 hours at Kanta Kobra under Jirania Police Station you were a unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapon such a prohibited Arms and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly viz, to commit the offence of rioting with such deadly weapon as is likely to cause death to wit prohibited Arms and you being a member of that assembly thereby committed an offence punishable under section 148 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this sessions Court.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date time and place you being member of the said unlawful assembly in prosecuting the common object of that assembly while committing dacoity with Prohibited fire arms in respect of the escort party of MLA Sri Pranab Kumar Debborma and seven others to which the informant Sri Ratan Ch. Das was also a member of Escort party and committed murder of Police personnel namely Habildar Badal Bhowmik, Co
