Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Mallika Debnath - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 26 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2020
Criminal Trespass - Land Dispute - IPC 448, 323 - The court discussed the evidence and found that the complainant failed to prove her case against the accused respondents, resulting in their acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the decision, citing the principle that unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity, orders of acquittal should not be disturbed.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused respondents trespassed her land, assaulted her, and damaged her property. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the appellate court affirmed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove her case against the accused respondents, leading to their acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the complainant was sufficient to prove the charges of criminal trespass and assault against the accused respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that orders of acquittal should not be disturbed unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the double presumption in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the case was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. By means of this criminal revision petition filed under section 397 read with section 401, Cr.P.C., the complainant petitioner has challenged the judgment & order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur in Case No. Criminal Appeal 13(1) of 2016 affirming the judgment & order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. PRC (SP) 29 of 2014 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents from the charges of sections 448 and 323 IPC.
2. The prosecutions story, briefly stated, is that the complainant (PW-2) filed a written complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Udaipur on 11.12.2013 alleging, inter alia, that on 19.11.2013 some miscreants of her locality tried to encroach her Jote land and in order to achieve the target they assaulted the complainant and caused damage to the boundary fencing of the said land. For redress, she lodged a complaint with the Officer in Charge of R.K. Pur police station on 20.11.2013. In retaliation, the accused respondents, armed with deadly weapons, again entered into her land on 21.11.2013 at about 11 am and started felling her trees. While the complainant raised objection, they assaulted her and outraged her modesty. Following her hue and cry, the neighbouring people appeared and seeing them the accused respondents fled away.
3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded her complaint to the Officer in Charge of R.K. Pur police station at Udaipur for investigation and based on the complaint R.K. Pur P.S. case No. 411 of 2013 under sections 447, 448, 323, 354, 427 & 506 read with section 34 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.
4. Sri Kapil Paul, Sub Inspector of police of R.K. Pur police station having completed the investigation filed charge sheet No. 358 of 2013 dated 28.12.2013 against all the 04 (four) FIR named accused respondents under sections 448 & 323 read with section 34 IPC.
5. Based on the charge sheet, cognizance of offence punishable under sections 448 & 323 read with section 34 IPC was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the trial proceeded. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against them and claimed a trial.
6. During trial, oral evidence of 6 (six) witnesses including the complainant was adduced and 5 (five) documents (Exbt. 1 to Exbt. 5/1) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. At the closure of prosecution evidence, separate statement of each of the accused respondents under section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned trial court. In reply, each of the accused respondents pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to adduce any witness on their defence. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge returned the finding of acquittal of all the accused respondents from each of the charges brought against them. In appeal by the complainant, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial court. Hence, the complainant being petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges.
7. I have heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant petitioner as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent and Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents.
8. The statement of PW-1 Dulal Debnath, a neighbour of the complainant, is not relevant because he did not support the prosecution case at the trial as a result of which he was declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution and he was cross examined by the learned Asst. P.P. Nothing could be extracted from him in favour of the prosecution through such cross examination. In his cross examination by
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
