Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Suman Debnath - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 88 of 2016
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Assault - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 342, section 323 - The court discussed the provisions of section 342 and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their application in the case. The court highlighted the consistent and trustworthy evidence of the witnesses, the circumstantial support to the prosecution case, and the injuries sustained by the victim. The court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an assault on the informant by the convict and others, resulting in injuries to the informant. The informant lodged an FIR alleging assault and theft of a bicycle. The prosecution presented consistent and trustworthy evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of offences under sections 342 and 323 of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Despite the absence of an eyewitness to the assault, the court considered the consistent and trustworthy nature of the evidence, along with circumstantial support, in reaching its decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the involvement of the accused in the assault, and the application of sections 342 and 323 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and trustworthy evidence of the witnesses, the circumstantial support to the prosecution case, and the injuries sustained by the victim to establish the guilt of the accused under sections 342 and 323 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused under sections 342 and 323 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.06.2016 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Criminal Appeal 11 of 2016 affirming the judgment & order dated 14.01.2016 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 8), West Tripura, Agartala delivered in case No. PRC 362 of 2014 whereby the convict petitioner namely Suman Debnath along with 5 (five) others was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 400/- each with default stipulation for having committed offence punishable under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and further convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 400/- with default stipulation for offence punishable under section 323 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Sri Utpal Debbarma, son of Sri Kartik Debbarma of village-Surendranagar, police station-Sidhai of the West Tripura district lodged an FIR with the officer in charge of Sidhai police station on 01.04.2014 at 09.15 pm alleging that on the previous day convict Uttam Paul called the informant [PW-6] over telephone to come to Jagatpur. When the informant [PW-6] arrived at Jagatpur pursuant to such telephonic call, all the convicts together with the convict petitioner assaulted him with a lathi (stick) and fled from there leaving the injured informant. With bleeding injuries all over his body, the informant started crying for help. Following his cry, people from the neighbourhood appeared there and brought the injured informant [PW-6] to Mohanpur hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the informant lodged the said FIR at the police station wherein he also alleged that as a result of the assault his left eye was damaged.
3. Based on his FIR, Sidhai P.S. case No. 32 of 2014 under section 325 read with section 34, IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the crime scene on 02.04.2014 and recovered and seized vide seizure list [Exbt. 8] a separated branch of tree measuring 2 (two) cubits in length and 3 (three) pieces of bamboo which were allegedly used by the convicts for beating the informant. This apart Maruti Suzuki (A1 to K10) vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01A-0469 along with the documents of the vehicle was also seized by the investigating officer vide seizure list [Exbt. 10] which was allegedly used by the convicts for transporting the informant from his house to the place of occurrence. The injury report [Exbt. 3] was also collected by the investigating officer, hand sketch map [Exbt. 7/1] was drawn up and the material witnesses were examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. and their statements were also recorded. At the conclusion of trial, he submitted charge sheet No. 21 of 2014 dated 30.05.2014 against the 6 (six) FIR named accused for having committed offence punishable under sections 342, 323 and 506 read with section 34 IPC.
4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala vide order dated 18.06.2014 received the charge sheet and placed the matter before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who had taken cognizance of offence punishable under sections 342, 323 and 506 read with section 34 IPC vide order dated 27.06.2014 and then transferred the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Agartala for trial.
5. At the commencement of trial, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the 6 (six) charge sheeted accused including the present petitioner in terms of section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short). All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During trial, as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses [PW-1 to PW-13] were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 10 (ten) documents [Exbt. 1 to Exbt. 10] were exhibited and relied upon. Besides the exhibited documents prosecution also relied on Exbt. M.O.1 i.e. the weapon of offence.
7. At the
AI
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....
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.
Consistent and reliable evidence, including witness testimony and medical evidence, supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for offences against modesty under the Indian Penal Code.
The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.
The credibility of witnesses and the presence of independent witnesses in late-night occurrences were considered, and the ongoing land dispute was deemed a motive for the assault.
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence under IPC Sections 448 and 325, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reiterating the limits of revisional jurisdiction to prevent reappraisal of fa....
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
