Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Bimal Dey - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 71 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2021
FIR - Assault - IPC 341, 324, 447, 427, 506 - The court found the accused guilty of offences under IPC 341 and 324. The victim was assaulted with a dao, resulting in a bleeding injury. The evidence of the victim and other witnesses, along with medical evidence, supported the prosecution's case. The court held that the non-recovery of the weapon of offence did not affect the prosecution case, as there was ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and corroboration from medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was assaulted by the accused with a dao, resulting in a bleeding injury. The accused was convicted under IPC 341 and 324. The accused claimed innocence, alleging false implication due to a long-standing property dispute with the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of offences under IPC 341 and 324 based on the victim's evidence, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's evidence, the non-recovery of the weapon of offence, and the alleged false implication of the accused due to a property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-recovery of the weapon of offence did not affect the prosecution case, as there was ample unimpeachable ocular evidence and corroboration from medical evidence. The court also found the victim's evidence to be credible and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender to suffer the sentence within two months.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment dated 28.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. Criminal Appeal 16 of 2018 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belonia, South Tripura whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 341 & 324 IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs. 300/- and ID to SI for 10 (ten) days under section 341 IPC and RI for 6 (six) months for having committed offence punishable under section 324 IPC.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
3. Based on her FIR, PR Bari P.S. case No. 132 of 2008 under sections 341,326,447,427 & 506 IPC was registered and the investigation of the case was taken up.
4. Sri Ranjit Kr. Datta, Sub Inspector of Police of PR Bari police station conducted the whole investigation of the case. His investigation revealed that the accused petitioner attacked the informant on the date of occurrence at the alleged place and assaulted her and thereafter he also trespassed into her house and committed mischief by damaging her household goods. On the basis of the investigation done by him, the investigating officer filed charge sheet No. 110 of 2008 dated 30.11.2008 against the accused petitioner for having committed offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 447, 427 & 506 IPC.
5. The learned trial court framed charges of offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 447, 427 & 506 IPC against the accused petitioner. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed a trial.
6. During the trial of the case 8 (eight) witnesses were examined on the prosecution side and 4 (four) documents were adduced to prove the prosecution case against the accused. After the recording of the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. In reply, the accused petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. The learned trial court recorded the statement of the accused made under section 313 Cr.P.C. He declined to adduce any witness on his defence.
7. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court found the accused petitioner guilty of offence punishable under sections 341 & 324 IPC and convicted him for those offences. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under section 341 IPC and RI for 6 (six) months for offence punishable under section 324 IPC. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner by the impugned judgment. Hence, this criminal revision.
8. I have heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. representing the State respondent.
9. Appearing for the accused petitioner Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case which is apparent on the face of the record. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, the informant was allegedly attacked by the petitioner on 13.11.2008 and she was released from ho
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.
Conviction upheld for assault; delay in FIR filing does not invalidate corroborated witness testimonies.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to effectively cross-examine key witnesses weakens the defense, leading to conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and trustworthy evidence, along with circumstantial support, to establish the guilt of the accused under the relevant se....
Delay in FIR, if satisfactorily explained, does not affect the prosecution case; non-seizure of a weapon does not negate established evidence of guilt.
An accused cannot be convicted solely based on identification without clear evidence, especially when all co-accused are acquitted, leading to a benefit of doubt.
The testimony of an injured victim is of high evidentiary value; a conviction can be sustained on the evidence of a single witness of sterling quality. Procedural delays in reporting crime are not fa....
The court upheld the conviction for grievous hurt and trespass, emphasizing the consistency of witness testimonies and the nature of injuries sustained.
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 in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and lack of glaring inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence to determine ....
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
