The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to effectively cross-examine key witnesses weakens the defense, leading to conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Palit, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred challenging the judgment dated 27.04.2023 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with Case No. Criminal Appeal 14 of 2022. By the said judgment, Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar has uphold the judgment and sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with Case No.PRC(WP)56 of 2016 under Section 326 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel assisted by Ms. J. Jamatia, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there is a concurrent finding in the judgment and sentence passed by both the Courts below but the prosecution before the Learned Court below has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner and furthermore, the evidence of Medical Officers suffers from infirmities. More so, Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT was not complied with by the prosecution in respect of recovery of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Dao. Lastly, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one material witness i.e. the wife of the complainant was not cited as witness by the prosecution in this case to prove the charge against the petitioner. So, according to Learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment passed by the Learned Court below suffers from infirmities and prayed for allowing this petition by setting aside the judgment and order of sentence of the Learned Court below.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P. appearing for the State-respondent submitted that this is a case where the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled against the accused. According to Learned P.P, as alleged by the Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of examination-in-chief of PWs-1 & 2, they very specifically stated that they found accused-petitioner inside the house with Dao and thereafter, in presence of witness, the said weapon of offence was seized by IO. Furthermore, there was no cross-examination from the side of the petitioner regarding presence of accused inside the house with Dao on that relevant point of time. So, according to Learned P.P., the submission of Learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

5. Learned P.P. further submitted that in support of his defence, the accused has adduced 2(two) numbers of witnesses but surprisingly, those witnesses did not whisper anything regarding the alleged occurrence of offence, so, the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that he was innocent. More so, the petitioner by the trend of cross-examination of witnesses of the prosecution could not raise any doubt to disbelieve their evidence. So, finally, Learned P.P. prayed for dismissal of this petition, rather he submitted that the Learned Court below at the time of delivery of judgment has shown lenient view since the charge under Section 326 was duly proved and imposed lesser punishment.

6. I have heard arguments of both the sides. Now, before coming to the conclusion of this petition, let us revisit the evidence on record of the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of an FIR laid by the informant/victim to O/C, Dharmanagar P.S. vide Police Case No.2016 DMN 0022 dated 15.04.2016 under Section 326 of IPC