Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 322
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Swapan Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 22 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Mr. Sajib Ghosh, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P, for the Respondent
The court affirmed the conviction under IPC for bodily harm and intimidation, emphasizing corroborative eyewitness testimony and the nature of the crime justifying the denial of probation.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 341, and 506 - Criminal Revision - Affirmation of conviction and sentence for offences of voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation - Evidence of victim corroborated by eyewitness accounts - No merit found in discrepancies alleged by the petitioner. (Paras 1, 22, 24)
(B) Sentencing - Offender's prior criminal record and relationship with victim considered in sentencing - Release under Probation of Offenders Act denied due to the nature of the offence. (Paras 10, 22)
Facts of the case:
This revision arises from a conviction under sections 323, 506, and 341 IPC, where the petitioner was accused of dragging and assaulting the victim. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of RI for six months and a fine for the main charges, with a lesser penalty under section 341 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Trial and appellate courts found strong corroborative evidence against the petitioner. The sentence was deemed appropriate for the nature of the offences and the manner they were committed.
Issues: Whether evidence discrepancies affected the conviction and whether probation was warranted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that corroborative testimony of multiple witnesses substantiated the conviction, and the nature of the crime justified not granting probation.
Result: Criminal revision petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision arises from the judgment and order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge of Khowai Judicial District in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2019 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sections 323, 506 and 341 IPC awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khowai by his judgment and order dated 02.07.2019 passed in case No.PRC (WP) No.55 of 2018.
2. The prosecution case germinated from the FIR lodged by Smt. Rina Das [PW-1] of Teliamura with the officer in charge of Teliamura police station on 09.12.2017 at 09.45 pm. The informant alleged in her written FIR that on 08.12.2017 at about 06.30 am she was returning home after purchasing some goods from the shop of Swadesh Das in her village. At that time, the accused petitioner stood on her way. He caught hold of her hair and dragged her to the courtyard of his house where he tied her hair with a wooden pillar. Then he brought a dao (a sharp cutting weapon) and terrorizezed the informant. The informant raised hue and cry to save her life. The neighbouring people rescued her and brought her to Teliamura hospital. After returning from hospital, she lodged the FIR.
3. Based on her FIR, Teliamura PS case No.2017 TLM 0087 under sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC was registered and case was taken up for investigation.
4. The investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the victim and other available witnesses, prepared hand sketch map of the place of occurrence, collected injury report of the victim and on conclusion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused for committing offence punishable under sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
5. It would appear from the trial courts' record that in order to bring home the charge against the petitioner, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. Among them, PW-1 is the victim who lodged the FIR, PW-2 is her neighbour, PW-3 is her husband, PW-4 and PW-5 are also neighbours of the victim. PW-6 is the medical officer who attended the victim after she was taken to hospital on the date of occurrence. PW-7 is the investigating officer and PW-8 is the scribe of the FIR.
6. After the recording of prosecution evidence was closed, trial court examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. He abjured his guilt and claimed that the charges were foisted on him. He declined to adduce any evidence on his defence.
7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held the petitioner guilty and after conviction, sentenced him to RI for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under section 323 IPC. He was also separately sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing offence punishable under section 506 IPC and he was further sentenced to RI for one month and fine of Rs.500/- under section 341 IPC. It was ordered by the learned trial Judge that the sentences imposed on the petitioner would run concurrently.
8. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that during trial the charges were proved against the petitioner. It was viewed by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of the victim was corroborated by evidence of eye witnesses and there was no scope to doubt their evidence. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, upheld the conviction of the petitioner. With regard to sentence, the learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the ghastly manner in which the offence was committed, the accused was not entitled to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Sessions Judge viewed that the sentence imposed by the trial court did not call for any intervention in appeal. The sentence of the petitioner was, therefore, affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge which is under challenge before this Court.
9. Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Sajib Ghosh, learned advocate. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P representi
