Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Sundar Ali - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 59/2017
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Assault - Public Servant - Sections 332, 353 IPC - The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for assaulting a public servant, the Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank, and deterring him from discharging his duty. The court found that the petitioner's conduct constituted offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The court reduced the petitioner's sentence to 3 months for the offence under Section 332 IPC and 2 months for the offence under Section 353 IPC, to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for assaulting the Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank to deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and evidence of the altercation and assault that occurred in the bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of assaulting the Branch Manager and deterring him from discharging his duty as a public servant. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, reducing the petitioner's imprisonment term.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the witnesses, the nature of the altercation and assault, and the petitioner's intent to deter the Branch Manager from discharging his duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and coherent evidence presented by the prosecution, which established that the petitioner's actions constituted offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. The court also considered the definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 IPC and the nature of the assault to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was disposed of, and the court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, reducing the imprisonment term and ordering the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 4.8.2017 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 13(4) of 2016 by Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kailashahar, in case No. PRC 68 of 2014 whereby the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and further sentenced him to S.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for having committed offence punishable under Section 353 IPC directing that both the sentences would run concurrently. The appellate Court by the impugned judgment has affirmed the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by means of this petition.
3. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the written ejahar (FIR) filed by one Nandalal Deb, Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank, Tillabazar Branch at Irani police station in Unakoti Judicial District on 25.04.2014 informing the Officer-in-Charge, Irani police station that at about 2 pm on 25.4.2014 Smt. Sofia Begam, a resident of the area came to the bank and met the said Branch Manager to know about the procedure of getting a loan from bank. She left the bank after having discussion with the informant on the issue. About half an hour thereafter she came back with one Sundar Ali who asked the informant Branch Manager to sanction a loan in favour of Smt. Sofia Begam immediately and during altercation with the informant, said Sundar Ali physically assaulted him and ransacked the computer and files in his chamber.
4. Based on the said written ejahar, Irani PS case No. 15 of 2014 under sections 332, 353, 379 and 506 IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation. After the investigation was complete, charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 332, 353, 506 IPC was filed against the petitioner vide charge sheet No. 05 of 2014 dated 31.5.2014. After the charge sheet was received, case was made over to the trial Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar vide order dated 06.06.2014. The trial Court after taking cognizance, framed charges of offence punishable under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC against the petitioner. The charges which have been framed by the trial Court against the petitioner are as under:
For your above acts and conduct you have committed offences punishable under sections 332/353/506 of the India Peal Code and within the cognizance of the Court.
Do you plead guilty."
Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as seven witnesses including the informant Branch Manager of the Bank (PW-3), Md. Jamal Uddin (PW-2) who is an employee of the bank, Mst. Saida Begum (PW-1) who is also an employee of the bank, Md. Litan Jaman (PW-4) a customer of the bank, Md. Taiyabur Rahman (PW-5) an employee of the bank, Md. Iqbaluzzaman (PW-6) a customer of the bank and SI, Jayanta Das (PW-7) the Investigating Officer of the case.
6. The prosecution also introduced several documents including the written ez
The main legal point established in the judgment is that assaulting a public servant to deter them from discharging their duty constitutes offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, and the court may c....
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 353 and 504 IPC, establishing that abusive actions towards a public servant can constitute assault, deterring them from performing their official duti....
Intent to deter a public servant is essential for conviction under Section 332 IPC, and lack of evidence supporting such intent necessitates acquittal.
Eyewitness testimonies can substantiate convictions even amidst substantial trial delays, with the court having the discretion to modify sentences based on the age and circumstances of the accused.
The judgment establishes the principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they constitute an abuse of the legal process and if there is a lack of evidence to support the allegations.
The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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
