Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 383
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Parikshit Sinha - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 19 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2022
D.J. Saha, Advocate, for the Appellant; R. Datta, PP, for the Respondents
Conviction for violence against medical personnel does not require medical evidence to prove injury severity; FIR delays do not negate prosecution if reasonable.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 and 401 - Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013 - Sections 3(a) - Revision petition concerning conviction and sentence sustained in lower courts - Conviction upheld for intimidation and violence against a medicare service person - Prosecution did not need to provide medical evidence as degree of injury was immaterial under the law - Delayed FIR was not fatal as no specific timeframe was mandated but left room for embellishment. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The accused intimidated the informant, a staff nurse, while she was on duty at a public health centre and caused damage to property. The FIR was lodged with a delay due to the informant's responsibilities at the hospital.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts confirmed the conviction for the offences committed against the informant under relevant sections of the IPC and the Tripura Act.
Issues: The main questions were whether the informant was a public servant and if the accused's actions constituted violence against her as per the applicable laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court emphasized that medical documentation is not essential for proving offences under the specified IPC sections, and reasonable delays in lodging FIR do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case.
Result: Revision petition allowed in part; sentence modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. points of determination for trial. (Para 3 , 4 , 14) |
| 3. witness testimonies describing incident. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. discussion on fir delay and admissibility. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. judgment details and sentencing. (Para 9 , 15 , 17) |
| 6. appeal rationale and modifications. (Para 10 , 11 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 08.04.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2021, by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, whereby and where under the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2021 passed in PRC (WP) 59 of 2019, by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate North Tripura, Dharmangar, has been upheld.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of PRC (WP) 59 of 2019. The Prosecution case in brief is on 25.04.2019 at about 0010 hours at Sanicherra PHC under Churaibari PS, the accused criminally intimidated informant Smt. Nachima Begam of dire consequences. Secondly, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the discharge of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them or any other public servant from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants. Thirdly, the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the execution of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants. Fourthly, the accused committed mischief with regard to the furniture of Sanicherra PHC thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards. Fifthly, the accused committed an act of violence against the informant, a Medicare Service Person, as defined under section 2(c) of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013. On receipt of the FIR lodged by the informant, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under sections 353/332/427/506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and under section 3 of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons & Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2013 against the accused.
3. The trial court after examining the record and witnesses framed the following points for determination:
i) Whether the accused criminally intimidated informant Smt. Nachima Begam of dire consequences?
ii) Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the discharge of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them or any other public servant from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants?
iii) Whether the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the execution of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants?
iv) Whether the accused committed mischief with regard to the furniture of Sanicherra PHC thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards?
v) Whether the accused committed an act of violence against the informant, a Medicare Service Person, as defined under section 2 (c) of the Tripura Medica
