Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Kunja Behari Choudhury S/o Sri Ajit Choudhury – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 57 of 2012
Decided On : 16-09-2016
Revisional Application - Criminal Law - Section 304, Section 201 of IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the laying of live electric wire connected with pieces of galvanized sheets, the location of the occurrence, the cause of death, and the credibility of witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence, the duty of the revisional court, and the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of a young boy due to electrocution behind the accused's shop. The accused was convicted under Sections 304A and 201 of IPC, and the appellate court converted the sentence of imprisonment to a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, autopsy report, and hand-sketch map, overwhelmingly supported the conviction. The court emphasized the duty of the revisional court to not substitute the findings of the lower courts unless they are perverse or based on irrelevant evidence.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence regarding the laying of live electric wire, the credibility of witnesses, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the duty of the revisional court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence, the duty of the revisional court to not substitute findings of fact, and the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dismissing the revisional application.
1. This revisional application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No. 7(2) of 2012, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.03.2012 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Sessions Trial case No. S.T. 15(NT/K) of 2011 under Sections 304 and 201 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Anupam Pal for the accused-petitioner and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent.
3. Prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 01.04.2010 and 02.04.2010, at about 2400/0100 hrs. Sanjoy Barua, deceased victim, a young boy aged about 17 years, along with his cousin brother Maloy Barua (PW4), another young boy aged about 16 years, went out in the neighbourhood for catching/hunting frogs. They went to the backside of the pharmacy shop of the accused Kunja Behari Choudhury at Chawmanu market for hunting of frogs and while Sanjoy was behind a frog to catch it, came in contact with some pieces of GCI sheets connected with live electric wire drawn from the shop of the accused and got electrocuted. PW4, Maloy Barua tried to rescue him but he also got a shock and then he cried out. Mother of Maloy, the accused and many others came to the spot and Maloy went to inform father of Sanjoy, namely Ashim Barua (PW1) and thereafter Ashim Barua and others came to the spot, shifted Sanjoy to hospital where he was declared dead.
On 02.04.2010 at about 2005 hrs. Ashim Barua, father of Sanjoy lodged an FIR in writing before O/C Chawmanu P.S. and accordingly Chawmanu P.S. Case No. 10/2010 under Section 304 of IPC was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused-petitioner.
4. In course of trial learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura framed charges against the accused under Sections 304 and 201 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also exhibited several documents/materials which were categorically mentioned in the trial court’s judgment.
The accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC and though initially he proposed to give defence evidence but ultimately did not adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but a denial of the prosecution case.
6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 304A and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment to suffer RI for another 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. For commission of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC he was further sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months and directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
7. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 7(2) of 2012 and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 10.07.2012 upheld the conviction under Sections 304A and 201 of IPC but converted the sentence of imprisonment to sentence of fine only and thereby sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/- in default of payment to suffer SI for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default of payment to suffer SI for one month under Section 201 of IPC.
8. Aggrieved, the present revisional application is filed.
9. Learned counsel, Mr. Pal appearing for the accused-petitioner submitted that there is no direct evidence that the accused laid any live electric wire drawn from his shop to the backside of his shop connected with pieces of galvanized sheets and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances, specially the fact that there was
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
