Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Ratan Sarkar Bridhyanagar, P.S Ranir Bazar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.No.74 of 2017
Decided on : 07-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 341 and 326 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Offence of Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons – Convicted - Prosecution [PW-11] went to jewelry shop after buying vegetables from Ranirbazar vegetable market, accused petition attacked him with a ‘dao’ from his behind and started chopping him indiscriminately - As a result of such assault, her husband receive bleeding injuries on both of his arms and scalp - He was immediately, taken to Ranii critical condition from where he was referred to GB Hospital - When FIR was lodged, the injured was undergoing treatment in GBP Hospital - It was alleged by informant [PW-1] that accused petitioner would have killed him had he not been rescued by local people.
Finding of the Court: Evidence of victim [PW-11] and medical evidence of PW-5 read together establish the fact that right thumb of victim [PW-11] was blown off as a result of assault and he also received a deep cut ‘V’ shape injury in his right index apart from receiving injuries on his occipital region - Assault on victim by accused is also supported by PW-3, who is an eye witness to occurrence - Accused petitioner gave repeated dao blows on victim [PW- 11] before his eyes - Evidence of Subhash Debnath has also qualified test of cross examination and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
In back drop of aforesaid evidence and establishing charge of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC against accused petitioner and there is no infirmity in impugned judgment with regard to his conviction under Section 326 IPC.
RESULT: Criminal revision petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[1] Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.07.2017 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge(Court No.2) West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2016 affirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 326 IPC awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. PRC 172 of 2012 whereby petitioner Ratan Sarkar was sentenced to RI for 6 months for commission of offence under Section 341 IPC and RI for 2 years for having committed offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. Aggrieved petitioner has challenged the said judgment by means of filing this criminal revision petition.
[2] The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR lodged by Smt.Gita Debnath [PW-1] at Ranirbazar Police Station on 26.02.2012, Sunday, at around 2.15 P.M alleging that at about 8 O’clock in the morning when her husband Arun Debnath [PW-11] went to the jewelry shop of Pradip Debnath after buying vegetables from Ranirbazar vegetable market, accused petitioner attacked him with a ‘dao’ from his behind and started chopping him indiscriminately. As a result of such assault, her husband received bleeding injuries on both of his arms and scalp. He was immediately, taken to Ranirbazar Primary Health Centre in a very critical condition from where he was referred to GB Hospital. When the FIR was lodged, the injured was undergoing treatment in GBP Hospital. It was alleged by the informant [PW-1] that the accused petitioner would have killed him had he not been rescued by the local people.
[3] Based on her FIR, Ranirbazar P.S. Case No.12 of 2012 under Sections 341 and 326 IPC was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by Jayanta Malakar, SI of police [PW-13].
[4] Sri Jayanta Malakar [PW-13] carried out the whole investigation of the case. During investigation, he visited the crime scene. A hand sketch map indicating the material locations of the crime scene was prepared by the IO along with the separate index. The victim and the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case were also examined by him whose statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The blood stained weapon of offence was recovered from the crime scene in presence of witnesses along with some blood stained mud from the place where the victim was assaulted. The accused petitioner was also arrested on the same day who was produced in court on the following day. After collecting the injury report of the victim, the IO [PW-13] filed charge sheet no.10 of 2012 dated 03.04.2012 against accused petitioner Ratan Sarkar for having committed offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326 IPC.
[5] The Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala received the charge sheet and vide his order dated 28.04.2012 took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326 IPC and made over the case to the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.4) at Agartala for disposal according to law.
[6] At the commencement of the trial the learned trial judge framed charges of offence punishable under Sections 341 and 326 IPC which are as under:
“Firstly, that on 26.02.2012 at about 7.30 A.M infront of the shop of Sri Subhash Debnath of Ranir Bazar market under Ranir Bazar P/S you wrongfully restrained Sri Arun Debnath and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that on the aforesaid date after few minutes and same place you voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Sri Arun Debnath by means of ‘Dao’(which is used as a cutting instrument) which is a dangerous weapon and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and within my cognizance
And
I do hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges”
The accused pleaded not guilty to both the charges and desired trial.
[7] During trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and introduced 7 documents [Exbt. 1 to Exbt.7]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, medical reports, and legal provisions to establish the charges against the accused petitioner.
The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial witnesses to support the conviction for assault offences, and the court's exercise of revisi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different sections of IPC, specifically Section 307, Section 326, and Section 448, in determining the appella....
Conviction upheld for assault; delay in FIR filing does not invalidate corroborated witness testimonies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the sole testimony of the injured witness, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the reasons for not granting the benefit....
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The non-recovery of the weapon of offence does not necessarily affect the prosecution case if there is ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and corroboration from medical evidence.
Ocular evidence can sustain a conviction under IPC sections for assault even in the absence of medical testimony, reaffirming the principle of justice and proportionality in sentencing.
The court emphasized that mere injuries do not equal grievous hurt unless permanence is established, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite the non-examination of inde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove t....
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
