Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Musaraf Hussain and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Cri. Rev. P. No. 47 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2020
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - Section 365 IPC, Section 324 IPC - The court discussed the essential ingredients of section 365 IPC and concluded that the offence committed by the petitioners amounted to wrongful confinement under section 342 IPC and not under section 365 IPC. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the allegation that the petitioners assaulted the victim by means of a dao and caused hurt to him, upholding their conviction under section 324 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for kidnapping and assaulting an old man. The victim was attacked, tied, and dragged by the petitioners, leading to injuries. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 365 IPC, concluding that the offence amounted to wrongful confinement under section 342 IPC. However, the court upheld their conviction and sentence under section 324 read with section 34 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the essential ingredients of section 365 IPC and the sufficiency of evidence for the assault under section 324 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioners' actions did not fulfill the essential elements of section 365 IPC, leading to the setting aside of their conviction under this section. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under section 324 IPC, upholding the same.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 365 IPC, while upholding their conviction and sentence under section 324 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the remaining term of their sentence.
ORDER :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. By means of this criminal revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura in case number Criminal Appeal 01 of 2017 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura in case number GR 373 of 2012 sentencing each of the petitioners to RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing offence punishable under section 365 read with section 34 IPC with default stipulation and RI for 1 (one) year for committing offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 IPC directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that at around 4 O'clock in the afternoon on 28.07.2012, the petitioners who are father and sons, attacked Sri Narayan Chandra Baidya, a 73 years' old man in their neighbourhood when he was working in a Khas land in his possession and assaulted him. Thereafter, they fastened him with a napkin and started dragging him. On the way, the victim started screaming. Some people in the neighbourhood heard his screams and started coming to his rescue. The petitioners took away the victim to their house and tied him there. Sri Sujit Baidya, the first informant son of the victim, having come to know about the occurrence immediately informed police and rescued his injured father with police assistance. Then he filed a written FIR with the Officer in Charge of Jatrapur police station.
3. Based on his FIR, Jatrapur P.S. case No. 65 of 2012 under sections 365 and 324 read with section 34 IPC was registered against the petitioners and investigation was taken up.
4. Sri Samir Debbarma, Sub Inspector of police of Jatrapur police station carried out the whole investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet No. 53 of 2012 against the 3 (three) petitioners for committing offence punishable under sections 365 and 324 read with section 34, IPC.
5. The trial court framed charges of offence punishable under sections 365 and 324, IPC against the petitioners. During trial, prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses including the victim and his first informant son and introduced 2 (two) exhibits including the injury report of the victim. After the recording of the prosecution evidence was over, each of the petitioners were separately examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. They simply denied the charges and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to examine any witness on their defence.
6. The learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence, held the petitioners guilty and convicted and sentenced each of them to RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing offence punishable under section 365 read with section 34 IPC with default stipulation and RI for 1 (one) year for committing offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 IPC directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura, in appeal, affirmed the said conviction and sentence of the petitioners. Hence, this criminal revision petition.
7. I have heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioners who has pointed out to some flaws in the prosecution case. I have also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P who has supported the concurrent findings of the courts below and urged for maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
8. To reiterate the facts, according to PW-3 Sri Narayan Chandra Baidya who is the victim, the 3 (three) petitioners together attacked him at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon and started assaulting him with fist and blows when he had gone to his land at Rajendra Tilla nearby his home. Among the petitioners, Musaraf Hussain, gave a dao blow on his hand and thereafter they tied his hands with a napkin (Gamcha) and started dragging him towards their house. In
AI
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
