Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Swapan Bhadra, son of late Sishir Bhadra – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. REV. P. NO.15 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. De, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. PP
The believability of the prosecution's sequence of events and the application of Section 114 of the Evidence Act in assessing the evidence.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE - Criminal Appeal - Sections 457/380 of the IPC - Section 114 of the Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 457/380 of the IPC based on a complaint filed by the complainant alleging theft. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and documents to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's sequence of events believable and affirmed the conviction. The court also modified the sentence based on extenuating and aggravating circumstances.
Issues: Identification of the accused, presence of independent witnesses, antecedent enmity, and the believability of the prosecution's sequence of events.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 114 of the Evidence Act to find the prosecution's sequence of events believable. The court also considered the lack of evidence to challenge the identification of the accused and the presence of independent witnesses.
Final Decision: The conviction was affirmed, and the sentence was modified to 3 months rigorous imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently.
1. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state.
2. By means of this petition for revision filed under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.01(02)/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura, has been called in question.
3. The prosecution case is rooted in the ejahar (Exbt.1) filed by one Smt. Bakulbala Debnath (PW.1) on 25.04.2009, disclosing that at about 10.30 pm on the preceding day i.e. 24.04.2009 while they were taking their dinner at their kitchen, they heard some eerie sound from their dwelling hut and when they came out they found the petitioner fleeing away from that room. They shouted, ‘thief’, ‘thief’, and the people from the neighbourhood rushed to the place of occurrence. After the petitioner allegedly left the place of occurrence it was discovered that a sum of Rs.4,220/- , which was kept in a nylon bag was not there. Thus PW.1 filed the complaint on the next day i.e. 25.04.2009. Based thereon, Yatrapur P.S. Case No.32/2009 under Sections 457/380 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. Having completed the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 457/380 of the IPC and accordingly the charge was framed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonamura, to which the petitioner pleaded his innocence and claimed to face the trial.
4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 6(six) witnesses including the complainant and the Investigating Officer (PW.6). From the prosecution as many as 3(three) documents were brought on record of evidence including the written ejahar filed by PW.1.
5. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied the prosecution story and the incriminating materials those surfaced from the depositions of the witnesses.
6. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that identification of the accused is highly questionable, inasmuch as PW.1 has stated that she identified the petitioner by the light emitting from the electric bulb whereas her husband (PW.2) has clearly stated that they were having their dinner with an oil lamp, not from any light emitting from the electric bulb. According to Mr. De, learned counsel, that creates serious doubt in the prosecution story. Apart that, he has submitted that there is no proof at all in the record that PW.1 or PW.2 had any amount to the extent of Rs.4,220 as their own. It is merely the statement of PW.1, which has been replicated by the other inmates while they deposed in the trial. Mr. De, learned counsel, has further submitted that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case in regard to the presence of the petitioner in the place of occurrence except PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. PW.1, Smt. Bakulbala Debnath is the complainant, whereas PW.2, Harekrishna Debnath is the husband of the complainant and PWs.4 and 5, namely Smt. Basanti Debnath and Smt. Tuni Debnath respectively are the daughter-in-laws of the complainant. Thus, Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that for the antecedent enimity that existed between the petitioner and the complainant, the said ejahar was filed on concoction. As such, this court on the fresh appreciation of the evidence, may exude the perverse appreciation as made by the court below.
8. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, in order to defend the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, has submitted that, on such situation the presence of the independent witnesses cannot be expected. One independent witness, namely Dinesh Debnath, who was examined as PW.3 though stated to the Investigating Officer that he saw the petitioner fleeing away from the house of PW.2, but, that wi
